http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
TAXE$ Are Too DEM LOW! :o
"Bush did keep his promise to lower my taxes. Problem is he did it by cutting my income in half." ~ David Rolph
Narcissism of minor issues masks the real debate.
We do live in the theater of the absurd.
The destruction of the many intelligent movements have gotten us to this point of where the rights and needs of individuals has been superseded by the corporatist.
Time to raise taxes!
You just talking to yourself??
Point 3 is one that I have been going on about for quite a while. Even showed Guido how to do it so he, too, could join the ranks of the most elite in the nation. The calculations I have been showing for months have noted the 16% the richest pay and their chart shows 16.9%. Well within a margin of error.
Heir,
He will just do this. Entire threads of AOX/FOTD/Teatown flow of consciousness.
Surely he listed his own family in there somewhere....
"Working Stiffs Taxed More Than Plutocrats"
What more do you need to know?
Clowns scare me. Clowns spouting class envyisms absolutely frighten me.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 10:55:08 AM
"Working Stiffs Taxed More Than Plutocrats"
What more do you need to know?
Clowns scare me. Clowns spouting class envyisms absolutely frighten me.
His avatar completely freaks me out!
Yahoo has the IRS announcement today that the 17% is right. I wish I could pay only that piddly amount.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes;_ylt=AhvWy.zEW5Bf8HA5Ki8PiF3jOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTM0cHRjMjdpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDE3L3VzX25vX3RheGVzBGNjb2RlA3VzbmV3c3ZpZXdzaGFyZQRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNzdXBlcnJpY2hzZWU-
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 18, 2011, 11:16:06 AM
Yahoo has the IRS announcement today that the 17% is right. I wish I could pay only that piddly amount.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes;_ylt=AhvWy.zEW5Bf8HA5Ki8PiF3jOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTM0cHRjMjdpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDE3L3VzX25vX3RheGVzBGNjb2RlA3VzbmV3c3ZpZXdzaGFyZQRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNzdXBlcnJpY2hzZWU-
And for the greater majority of those 400 people, they help create jobs which fuel the economy and ergo, tax revenues.
How much in total tax revenue is generated via the passive or active investment of these 400 wealthiest? Any idea how much in total tax revenue employees of Microsoft or the various companies owned by Berkshire-Hathaway contribute to the treasury?
Not enough!
As specifically stated in public - repeatedly - by both of the main beneficiaries of that money!
As well as a serious number of the other richest people in the country.
When the richest of the rich start saying the tax code is unfair, and they are the ones who benefit the most, you ought to be at least wondering why they would say that! (Maybe it is because they are not the cold, calculating, lying, cheating, thieving scum that have been directing the parade for so long.)
As for creating jobs?? Well, we have ample evidence, especially since Bush, that is just another one of those RWRE urban myths. The jobs were not created with all those massive tax giveaways to the rich. In fact, jobs continued to move overseas the entire time. They create a miniscule (sp?) number of jobs compared to the SMALL businesses that are by definition NOT part of those 400. Can't have it both ways...remember the mantra of small business creates the vast majority of jobs. Which mantra is true, by the way.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 11:21:17 AM
And for the greater majority of those 400 people, they help create jobs which fuel the economy and ergo, tax revenues.
How much in total tax revenue is generated via the passive or active investment of these 400 wealthiest? Any idea how much in total tax revenue employees of Microsoft or the various companies owned by Berkshire-Hathaway contribute to the treasury?
I like this chart as a response to that...did we have a dearth of investment in the 90s?
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts4.jpg)
Also, it's fairly clear at this point that the Bush tax cuts did little to stimulate the economy. It was the loose monetary policy that was making that happen...
REPORT: In 12 Years, Income For Richest 400 Americans Quadruples, Tax Rate Nearly Halved
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/18/tax-disparity-chart/
I am not spouting class envyisms. I am pointing out the absurdity of continuing to divide the haves and have nots through a disproportionate unfair tax system and deprivation of social programs that funding, when omitted, pales compared to waste and abuse continuing to rise in the Military. It lays the groundwork for crime and hate and civil war.
I see a lot of my tax money going for invading foreign non-xtian non-white countries, oil rich however. I see a lot of my tax money going for weapons development.
I don't see a lot of my tax money going to benefit the society.
I don't like it. The GOPpers next target is SNAP and food stamps.
Want to see your allocations? http://www.whitehouse.gov/taxreceipt
It shouldn't be too difficult for the IRS to add a line on the tax forms:
Additional voluntary tax: ....................................._________
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 12:24:05 PM
I like this chart as a response to that...did we have a dearth of investment in the 90s?
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts4.jpg)
Also, it's fairly clear at this point that the Bush tax cuts did little to stimulate the economy. It was the loose monetary policy that was making that happen...
Let's see was it around 22 to 23mm new jobs created during the Clinton years? Quite a bit of investor's money was being used to start new companies, cashing in on new technologies. Those jobs didn't appear from a vacuum. They appeared largely due to private investors jumping into IPO's and creating venture capital firms which funded a lot of start up companies which were paying excellent salaries.
It's conveniently ignored that Clinton managed to keep tax rates low as well, though not as low as Bush II. I don't think the 2 or 3% represents a significant amount when it comes to incentive to invest, but the difference between 17% and 40% or whatever means a whole lot more is left to the discretion of the person to invest and create growth.
You guys keep ignoring the whole premise that in lieu of the government creating jobs either via borrowing money or raising taxes, jobs ARE created by people who have money to invest. The more money they can invest, the more jobs they can help create.
Accepting your premise that lower taxes didn't create a lot of new jobs during the Bush Admin is correct, please explain how the mechanism works where the government takes more wealth and more good-paying private sector jobs are created?
All the government has done in helping to create private sector employment (or just keep some of the people off U/E) via the stimulus spending is create construction projects which are temporary and isn't creating the kind of payroll private investment was in the late 1990's in areas like bio-tech, IT, telecom, etc. And we also know there was a fall-out for that huge binge in the late 1990's.
Unfortunately, we don't seem to understand anything other than a binge and purge economic cycle these days, so we can pretty much count on 10-15 years of relatively explosive prosperity, then 5 years cleaning up and forgetting the previous mess.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 12:35:38 PM
REPORT: In 12 Years, Income For Richest 400 Americans Quadruples, Tax Rate Nearly Halved
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/18/tax-disparity-chart/
I am not spouting class envyisms. I am pointing out the absurdity of continuing to divide the haves and have nots through a disproportionate unfair tax system and deprivation of social programs that funding, when omitted, pales compared to waste and abuse continuing to rise in the Military. It lays the groundwork for crime and hate and civil war.
I see a lot of my tax money going for invading foreign non-xtian non-white countries, oil rich however. I see a lot of my tax money going for weapons development.
I don't see a lot of my tax money going to benefit the society.
I don't like it. The GOPpers next target is SNAP and food stamps.
Want to see your allocations? http://www.whitehouse.gov/taxreceipt
That's why the socially-responsible give heavily to charity. I would assume that includes you as well.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 18, 2011, 12:44:14 PM
It shouldn't be too difficult for the IRS to add a line on the tax forms:
Additional voluntary tax: ....................................._________
Agreed.
Post of the week.
Taxes aren't bad if we are recieving something in return....monetarily or emotionally.
I just don't like the kind of taxes that worry my conscience and screw with my empathy.
Roll back the Bush years tax breaks. :(
Not to add substance to a FOTD debate...
But if you lower taxes and the result is more job growth - declare a victory.
If you lower taxes and the result is not as desired - declare you need more tax cuts.
I read a study recently that surprised me. It went over all the data and theories and basically concluded that tax rates have very little to do with overal investment OR consumption. If someone makes $1mil a year and Uncle Sam takes $170,000 this year (effective tax rate 17% on top 5% in 2010) or $260,000 (1992 effective rate) it isn't going to change their behavior significantly.
It went over various reason and ideas what this seems to be the case, but it apperently boils down to: if I can('t) do it with $830k I can probably (not) do it with $740k in after tax income (income tax). Insert whatever number you want instead of $1mil in income, it generally held true.
Reduce spending significantly (1% is not significant, $150,000,000,000.00 sounds like a like, but in context it isnt) or raise taxes. Those are the choices. Very simple. S&P threatened to cut the USA credit rating today (we are now rated AAA outlook negative) - a cut in rating would be DEVASTATING to our interest rate, the stock market, and confidence in the US economy for foreign investment.
I would be a HUGE fan of throwing out the tax code (mortgage deduction, child credit, farm subsidies and all) and starting over. Some make economic sense, some don't. I'd jump on board a VAT or consumption tax if done right (could be the most progressive tax). Cut down on compliance costs, loopholes, special interest, administrative costs, and the huge pain in the donkey.
The short story: our current bevhaior is not sustainable. Change now or wait for a panic. My money is we wait for a panic - no politician has any interest in long term solutions.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 01:14:14 PM
Taxes aren't bad if we are recieving something in return....monetarily or emotionally.
I just don't like the kind of taxes that worry my conscience and screw with my empathy.
Roll back the Bush years tax breaks. :(
Why would I rely on the government for emotional support?
That's not what our founding father's created it for. That was reserved for the family and spiritual life.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 18, 2011, 01:18:40 PM
S&P threatened to cut the USA credit rating today (we are now rated AAA outlook negative) - a cut in rating would be DEVASTATING to our interest rate, the stock market, and confidence in the US economy for foreign investment.
I've said for at least two years this day was coming. At this point, other analysts with other ratings firms are saying S & P's outlook is little more than "political" at this point. However, if we don't craft a plan do manage our debt other than borrowing more money to service our existing debt, eventually our ratings will take a serious plunge and our borrowing costs will skyrocket leaving us in an even bigger mess.
Spending cuts across the board, no sacred cows and quit playing political shenanigans with the cuts. I'd pay a higher tax rate within reason. Come up with a percentage across the board if they won't abolish the tax code and go with a consumption-based tax.
As long as we are talking huge cuts in social programs and vastly raising taxes on the mega rich we will simply all keep talking past each other as time ticks away and we go further in debt. Across the board tax increases and spending cuts removes the sacred cows and ideology. We all need to roll up our sleeves and contribute. That means giving a little more and expecting a little less. It doesn't have to be drastic for anyone or any department (well okay, I'd go for spending a lot less for being the world's top cop and foreign aide to countries which hate us). The part which pisses me off is the politicians don't seem to realize this. It's all about trying to take something from the other side while giving up nothing on their own.
meh. AAA+ to AA+ BFD.
So, our military defense doesn't make you feel secure? That's emotional. Just checking to see if you have any or if the feelings you have rise only in hot tubs and bars. :P
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 18, 2011, 01:18:40 PM
But if you lower taxes and the result is more job growth - declare a victory.
That was not the result.....no victory. :'(
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 12:45:41 PM
It's conveniently ignored that Clinton managed to keep tax rates low as well, though not as low as Bush II. I don't think the 2 or 3% represents a significant amount when it comes to incentive to invest, but the difference between 17% and 40% or whatever means a whole lot more is left to the discretion of the person to invest and create growth.
Personally, I'm advocating a return to Clinton-era tax rates (pre-capital gains reduction, preferably), so I'm not ignoring anything, thanks.
Quote
You guys keep ignoring the whole premise that in lieu of the government creating jobs either via borrowing money or raising taxes, jobs ARE created by people who have money to invest. The more money they can invest, the more jobs they can help create.
Accepting your premise that lower taxes didn't create a lot of new jobs during the Bush Admin is correct, please explain how the mechanism works where the government takes more wealth and more good-paying private sector jobs are created?
Please explain the mechanism by which tax cuts increase employment. Given that the Republicans have been cutting tax rates drastically since 1980 to historically low levels, it should be easy.
Also, since the private sector refuses to engage in basic research, the government has to fund it. In the past, you had companies like Dupont and Bell Labs doing completely new science. Today, it's all in universities and government labs. Once the government funded pure science gets to the point where practical applications are not far away, private industry takes off with it. Odd, that.
I just think it's funny that the people who complain the loudest about the budget seem to be the ones who refuse to even entertain the idea of tax increases to close the gap. Never you mind that if we had the Clinton tax rates back and dropped the Iraq war, we would have an easily manageable budget deficit. The level of irresponsibility involved in starting a war, cutting taxes, increasing spending on Medicare dramatically and then cutting taxes again continues to anger me when the people primarily responsible for the problem are the ones treated by the media as the ones with the serious plan and the deficit credibility. It's utter bullshit.
Say what you will about the Republicans, but they are the less fiscally responsible of the two parties, by a long shot.
And they're at it again with their double standards, what with claiming Social Security is insolvent despite having $2.5 trillion in treasuries, while at the same time claiming those treasuries count when it comes to the debt limit. Either they're there or they're not, guys. We didn't issue Schroedinger's bonds, guys.
Also, Conan, it's funny how this S&P warning automatically means we need to do what you want to do, rather than the equally OK solution of raising taxes. No, gotta do what the Republicans want, because they're the only ones who are serious about the budget.
Nobody other than the lunatic fringe wants to dramatically raise taxes on the rich. Yet it's considered canon in the Republican Party right now that social programs must be cut savagely. And you wonder why it is I've been so angry at Republicans over the past month or two..
The super rich have a very nice tax code for them (as long as they make their money on capital gains). The poor can get back more than they pay in. Its the middle $65k to $250k that are getting screwed. That top 400 is nice to look at but an extra 5% isn't going to make a dent in anything.
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 01:52:38 PM
Please explain the mechanism by which tax cuts increase employment. Given that the Republicans have been cutting tax rates drastically since 1980 to historically low levels, it should be easy.
Answering my question with a question is no answer. Apparently you can't explain how that works.
Anyone else care to explain how private investors and businesses can create more jobs when more of their discretionary wealth is taken by the government?
I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government takes more of what they are earning?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 01:31:26 PM
Why would I rely on the government for emotional support?
That's not what our founding father's created it for. That was reserved for the family and spiritual life.
But that is what our tax code is all about--emotion. Those screaming "tax the rich" are not thinking about raising revenue. No, they are thinking that those who are "rich" did so by gaming the system. They don't think how the "rich" gives the lower and middle class their jobs, health benefits, paid vacations, etc. What would this country look like if the "rich" collectively said: "Up yours, I'm retiring and closing up shop"? Let the lower class innovate, invest, create and see how this country would look. I have read the posts of those few that comprise the "soak the rich" crowd in this forum, and I foresee a smilestorm in that scenario.
This is all about petty jealousy/envy and vengeance.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
Answering my question with a question is no answer. Apparently you can't explain how that works.
Anyone else care to explain how private investors and businesses can create more jobs when more of their discretionary wealth is taken by the government?
I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government takes more of what they are earning?
I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I do not know what your definition of "discretionary wealth" means and who defines it? The government? The "soak the rich" folks? Or the people who actually have worked to earn enough for part of their wealth to be called "discretionary"?
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 04:06:54 PM
I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I do not know what your definition of "discretionary wealth" means and who defines it? The government? The "soak the rich" folks? Or the people who actually have worked to earn enough for part of their wealth to be called "discretionary"?
I'm trying to differentiate between what happens when people decide what to do with money they could invest rather than the government deciding what to do with it. Perhaps not the right term to use, simply trying to make the point it's up to the individual where they spend or invest it. Doesn't matter what I call it really, the wealth-envy crowd thinks its horrible someone could possibly be in a position to create jobs with that money instead of being noble and handing it over to the government.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor the government can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government the investor takes more of what they are earning?
Fixed it.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 04:21:25 PM
Fixed it.
Why should the government, which is bound by far too many self-regulating codes and generally suffers from a lack of creativity be trusted to create worthwhile jobs? The government does very little more efficiently than the private sector can do it.
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 04:04:14 PM
But that is what our tax code is all about--emotion. Those screaming "tax the rich" are not thinking about raising revenue. No, they are thinking that those who are "rich" corporations did so by gaming the system. They don't think how the "rich" demand gives the lower and middle class their jobs, health benefits, paid vacations, etc. What would this country look like if the "rich" corporations collectively said: "Up yours, I'm retiring and closing up shop"? {REALITY} Let the lower class world entrepreneurs innovate, invest, create and see how this country would look. I have read the posts of those few that comprise the "soak the rich" crowd in this forum, and I foresee a smilestorm in that scenario. {FEAR}
This is all about petty jealousy/envy and vengeance. power, greed and fear to achieve those ends.
Fixed this too.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 04:27:42 PM
Why should the government, which is bound by far too many self-regulating codes and generally suffers from a lack of creativity be trusted to create worthwhile jobs? The government does very little more efficiently than the private sector can do it.
The government prints money, facilitates the private sector and stimulates while enhancing stability.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 04:21:25 PM
I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor the government can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government the investor takes more of what they are earning?
Fixed it.
I get it. The government is earning the money and those nasty investors are trying to steal the government's money.
Well, maybe not.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 04:32:39 PM
The government prints money pieces of paper representing the value created by the private sector, facilitates the private sector and stimulates while enhancing stability.
We've already had the discussion about pieces of paper owned by the government vs. the value they represent.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 18, 2011, 04:35:52 PM
I get it. The government is earning the money and those nasty investors are trying to steal the government's money.
Well, maybe not.
No, you don't get it. The government is printing money backed by the best valued debt while terrific investors are putting it to work where they see opportunity. It is opportunity that government enhances through various forms. Anger, wild accusations and implied and explicite threats are the work of politicians and not the Fed.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
Answering my question with a question is no answer. Apparently you can't explain how that works.
Anyone else care to explain how private investors and businesses can create more jobs when more of their discretionary wealth is taken by the government?
I'm not commenting on the merits one way or the other, someone simply explain how an investor can put money into the economy in the form of new jobs or capital expenditures which creates (or saves) other jobs if the government takes more of what they are earning?
It is an answer, it's just one you don't like. Nobody is arguing that businesses and investors can create
more jobs. I'm arguing that it makes little to no difference until you get into tax rates nobody serious is even considering. Whether you like it or not, since 1980 there's been essentially no correlation between tax rates and job creation. FRED is your friend.
Top Marginal Rate | Average Yearly Job Creation (in thousands)
91% | 765
70% | 2,014
50% | 1,920
28% | 1,828
31% | 147
39.6% | 2,883
35% | 9.625
I only included those rates which stuck around for more than three years, but the data is rather clear that there is no correlation between income tax rate and job creation. It was easy enough that I'll go back farther here in a bit.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 04:09:50 PM
I'm trying to differentiate between what happens when people decide what to do with money they could invest rather than the government deciding what to do with it. Perhaps not the right term to use, simply trying to make the point it's up to the individual where they spend or invest it. Doesn't matter what I call it really, the wealth-envy crowd thinks its horrible someone could possibly be in a position to create jobs with that money instead of being noble and handing it over to the government.
Come on Conan, of course the government should decide how the rich's money is spent. That way it will get into Nate's pocket quicker. ;D
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 04:45:08 PM
No, you don't get it. The government is printing money backed by the best valued debt while terrific investors are putting it to work where they see opportunity. It is opportunity that government enhances through various forms.
I thought you were against tax breaks for big corporations and folks with money to invest.
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 05:26:21 PM
Whether you like it or not, since 1980 there's been essentially no correlation between tax rates and job creation.
Borrowing a concept from the present administration's take on the stimulus and the prevention of the loss of jobs, the job situation might have been even worse with higher tax rates.
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 05:27:36 PM
Come on Conan, of course the government should decide how the rich's money is spent. That way it will get into Nate's pocket quicker. ;D
My pocket? I think I'm not paying enough.
RA, see my edit.
(http://i.imgur.com/ArwWY.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 05:44:02 PM
My pocket? I think I'm not paying enough.
RA, see my edit.
Would you add the years those top marginal rates were in effect please? Other events may have had an influence.
You would appreciate the new line for the tax form I proposed. Just pay more voluntarily if you think you aren't paying enough.
Leave it to Bread....is that your special treatment of corn for making meal in your cornbread??
Conan,
You said you would not be too adverse to a rate hike. Exactly how much - in percent - would you not be adverse to?
I will put in a number - I wouldn't object to 3%. How about it?
Since I've got the numbers handy, let's check it out, starting with Eisenhower:
President | Average Monthly Job Creation (in thousands)
Eisenhower| 36.85
Kennedy | 105.06
Johnson | 196.5
Nixon | 137.03
Ford | 71.48
Carter | 215.4
Reagan | 167.73
Bush 41 | 54
Clinton | 236.92
Bush 43 | 11.4
Obama | -108.65
Let's keep in mind that Obama's first term is not yet complete, and last year we added 940,000 jobs and this year we're on track for about 2,000,000, for about a 1 million job deficit by the end of the year..pretty good considering his first year in office we lost over 5.1 million jobs, which is by far the highest in any year since the BLS started keeping records. Reagan's 1982 number of 2.1 million lost jobs is the next highest.
Edited to add: RA, here you go http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Other events will always have an effect. That's why I went back to the 40s. At some point, you have to think it's all averaged out.
Perhaps you guys can now see a little more of why I have more than a little skepticism for the Republican point of view on economics..
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 18, 2011, 06:24:35 PM
Leave it to Bread....is that your special treatment of corn for making meal in your cornbread??
Conan,
You said you would not be too adverse to a rate hike. Exactly how much - in percent - would you not be adverse to?
I will put in a number - I wouldn't object to 3%. How about it?
Because there's never anything useful for him to add, aside from being AW #2 on here.
;)
I guess I just don't know how to square it. We've been giving trickle-down the ole' college try since Bush II's tax cuts, and they've been an utter failure for everyone but the top 1%. Wages have stayed flat (even without the recession) and no real jobs have been created, even though we've pumped the richest Americans and all of our multinationals full of cash. That last decade has provided no proof whatsoever that this dynamic actually functions. In fact, we're seeing with our own eyes that the opposite is true.
So why, Conan and Red, on god's green earth do you think that doing the same thing we've always done is going to guarantee a different outcome? I get that you don't trust government, but there's even less reason to trust the current dynamic as it stands.
Quote from: we vs us on April 18, 2011, 08:16:09 PM
So why, Conan and Red, on god's green earth do you think that doing the same thing we've always done is going to guarantee a different outcome?
We've been conditioned by using MicroSoft products. ;D
Quote from: we vs us on April 18, 2011, 08:16:09 PM
So why, Conan and Red, on god's green earth do you think that doing the same thing we've always done is going to guarantee a different outcome? I get that you don't trust government, but there's even less reason to trust the current dynamic as it stands.
We haven't been doing this trickle down thing for the last two years. I guess things around here are wonderful? Right? And I too use microsoft products. Dammit.
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 08:40:20 PM
We haven't been doing this trickle down thing for the last two years. I guess things around here are wonderful? Right? And I too use microsoft products. Dammit.
Did I miss a tax increase somewhere, or are you making smile up again?
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 08:50:58 PM
Did I miss a tax increase somewhere, or are you making smile up again?
You sure did. Also, where in trickle down economics is it espoused that we have trillion dollar stimulus payouts or government healthcare or government motors? I mean, I know those had nothing to do with our deficit/debt. It was all Bush II's tax cuts to the rich.
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 08:59:24 PM
You sure did. Also, where in trickle down economics is it espoused that we have trillion dollar stimulus payouts or government healthcare or government motors? I mean, I know those had nothing to do with our deficit/debt. It was all Bush II's tax cuts to the rich.
One time costs do not a structural deficit make. And please enlighten me as to where this income or capital gains tax increase was. And once again, HCR improves the deficit.
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 08:59:24 PM
You sure did. Also, where in trickle down economics is it espoused that we have trillion dollar stimulus payouts or government healthcare or government motors? I mean, I know those had nothing to do with our deficit/debt. It was all Bush II's tax cuts to the rich.
None of those things have anything to do with the trickle-down mechanism. Do you know what trickle-down is?
Still can't find the tax increase..
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?&id=FGRECPT&scale=Left&range=10yrs&cosd=2000-10-01&coed=2010-10-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2011-04-18&revision_date=2011-04-18)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 10:55:08 AM
Clowns scare me. Clowns spouting class envyisms absolutely frighten me.
Take comfort (unfortunately sanitized) :
Think of this whenever responding to aox.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 18, 2011, 05:34:44 PM
I thought you were against tax breaks for big corporations and folks with money to invest.
No. I am against the SCOTUS rule allowing the buying of our (conflict of interest) public deciders by corporations. Besides, it's just wrong in light of "by the people, of the people, for the people". I am against big corporations that make big mistakes hurting many while barely getting spanked. I dislike profit being a higher goal than protecting the common good.
I am all for folks with money to invest provided they do it with integrity,honesty, and no harm. (Obviously, fluid makers for fraking would be suspect and under tight surveillance as would be nuclear engineers, real estate developers, big pharma .....lots of suspects who need to be oversighted ). Investing is the back bone of our economy. To be against folks with money would be absurd. But those who make an inordinate income (those in the top%4) need to proportionately pay more for the privilege we give them to be able to earn more. Higher taxes do not deter from capitalism but greed.
Hording money at the top hurts the American dream and sucks dry the velocity of money needed to get real unemployment cured. I believe there should be proportionality between corporate tax rates and profit as well. I do not like corporate welfare in any form because I am a true capitalist. Hence, my negativity re: arena's and such over education and clean air and water and crime protection.
So, that's just part of clown reality.
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 09:21:06 PM
Still can't find the tax increase..
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?&id=FGRECPT&scale=Left&range=10yrs&cosd=2000-10-01&coed=2010-10-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2011-04-18&revision_date=2011-04-18)
Here you go.
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=51829
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 09:21:40 PM
Take comfort (unfortunately sanitized) :
Think of this whenever responding to aox.
Typical Guido....violence in one form or another. Civility is not your calling card.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guido A sad pathetic excuse for a male;
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 09:24:05 PM
Here you go.
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=51829
And for those who forget quickly the Heritage Foundation are bad corporate shills and worse righteous fakes.
Here you go. http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/27128
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 06:49:44 PM
Since I've got the numbers handy, let's check it out, starting with Eisenhower:
Top Marginal Rate | Average Yearly Job Creation (in thousands)
84.36% in 1950, Truman
91% | 765 Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy
70% | 2,014 LBJ ("Kennedy" cuts took effect in 64, JFK was assassinated in Nov 63), Nixon, Ford, Carter, early Reagan
50% | 1,920 Reagan
28% | 1,828 Late Reagan, early Bush I
31% | 147 Bush I, early Clinton
39.6% | 2,883 Clinton, early Bush II
35% | 9.625 Bush II, after 2002 39.1% in 2001, 38.6% in 2002
President | Average Monthly Job Creation (in thousands)
Eisenhower| 36.85
Kennedy | 105.06
Johnson | 196.5
Nixon | 137.03
Ford | 71.48
Carter | 215.4
Reagan | 167.73
Bush 41 | 54
Clinton | 236.92
Bush 43 | 11.4
Obama | -108.65
Let's keep in mind that Obama's first term is not yet complete, and last year we added 940,000 jobs and this year we're on track for about 2,000,000, for about a 1 million job deficit by the end of the year..pretty good considering his first year in office we lost over 5.1 million jobs, which is by far the highest in any year since the BLS started keeping records. Reagan's 1982 number of 2.1 million lost jobs is the next highest.
Edited to add: RA, here you go http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php Found it, added data above from your link except Presidents names which I remember. (OK, I don't really remember Truman but I do remember Eisenhower.)
Other events will always have an effect. That's why I went back to the 40s 50s. At some point, you have to think it's all averaged out.
Perhaps you guys can now see a little more of why I have more than a little skepticism for the Republican point of view on economics.. Not really
Other factors I can remember:
JFK, LBJ, Nixon: Laos, Cambodia, Viet Nam. Before 'Nam, we had the crisis in Laos. The military/industrial complex in full force. First Arab Oil Embargo. (And 55 MPH national speed limit.)
Ford: I had a secure job (US Navy) until Nov of 76. I didn't watch too much TV or read the paper much.
Carter: People had lots of $ due to double digit inflation. Too bad it wasn't worth what it was the day before. I don't entirely blame Carter though. Bad timing to be Prez. I was going to school (TU) on the GI bill and a Teaching Assistant job. We must have saved a bunch of money on the military. The Iran hostage situation made us realize our military was not at its peak performance levels.
Reagan: Most of us have various memories of Ron. He inherited double digit inflation and turned it around in his time. Yep, my taxes went up. In 1980 I got a 25% raise just to keep up with starting salaries left over from the inflation. I got normal raises after that so my taxes continued to climb, as did my spendable income. Federal income went up, just not as fast as spending.
Bush I: I have to admit that (Read my lips, no new taxes) from 28% to 31% should not have had the massive effect on jobs.
Clinton: Right time, right place. Republican Congress in 94. Clinton and Newt did some good compromises. No Hillary Care, Welfare reform. Even Carter would have done well during the DOT Com bubble.
However, toward the end of Clinton's administration, the economy was declining in some sectors. It was certainly declining in the machine tool manufacturing arena. I have stated before that I almost voted for AlGore so he would get his just reward for the looming recession.
Bush II: Might have been successful except for 911. Spent money like a Democrat.
Obama: I think taxing the rich will not cover what he wants to spend.
Quote from: we vs us on April 18, 2011, 08:16:09 PM
I guess I just don't know how to square it. We've been giving trickle-down the ole' college try since Bush II's tax cuts, and they've been an utter failure for everyone but the top 1%. Wages have stayed flat (even without the recession) and no real jobs have been created, even though we've pumped the richest Americans and all of our multinationals full of cash. That last decade has provided no proof whatsoever that this dynamic actually functions. In fact, we're seeing with our own eyes that the opposite is true.
So why, Conan and Red, on god's green earth do you think that doing the same thing we've always done is going to guarantee a different outcome? I get that you don't trust government, but there's even less reason to trust the current dynamic as it stands.
That's funny, trickle-down worked great throughout the Clinton years. There was also an unsustainable orgy of borrowing going on which would eventually rear it's ugly head.
Let's take a look at where Bush II foobared up. He committed to a tax cut right on the brink of a war which became far more involved and costlier than any of his neo-con cronies predicted. I'm quite certain he was convinced Iraq would be a six month milk-run and Afghanistan would be over as soon as the Taliban were rooted from power and most of the Al Qaeda network was disrupted.
Bad calculation.
Top that with several unprecedented natural disasters as well as having the foul luck to be inaugurated about the time the economic bubble popped as a result of over-aggressive development of the telecom business, the dot-bomb debacle of IPO's for companies which were worthless before the IPO and they were still worthless after the IPO, except they were paying a lot of young people with MBA's insane salaries and they financed up big lifestyles like they were a newly-minted millionaire. Suddenly, unemployment starts to spike, tax receipts are getting lower because of all these lost jobs and corporate income, foreclosures on government-backed mortgages are up
Oh, let's not forget the major cataclysm to the tourism and travel industries in the wake of 9/11.
Second love up: Bush creates a huge new and not well thought out bureaucracy in the form the Dept. of Homeland Security and it's subsidiary, TSA. How do we pay for that with reduced tax receipts from fewer people working and fewer companies paying corporate taxes, in addition to the nominal tax cut?
Third love up: Bush creates an unfunded mandate by buying pills for senior citizens.
It was a perfect storm which really didn't show much relevance between tax rates and unemployment, though it's entirely possible to argue that the recession of '00/'01 could possibly have gotten worse if not for individuals being allowed to keep more of their income and spend it throughout the economy which may have helped keep many businesses open.
Let's keep this really simple: people cannot spend money they don't have. If all their credit facilities dry up, or they are reluctant to borrow, they must pay cash. If they have less net cash to spend, it's not getting back into the economy. That is unless you want to argue that filtering that tax money through the government is a more efficient way to stimulate the economy.
I think there's enough room to point to failures in both types of economic thinking. If anything, I think the Clinton years proved the Reagan years were no fluke. If Bush II had been so fortunate to have had the kinds of technological breakthroughs like major advances in bio-tech, nano-tech, the internet, and telecom, he could have presided over great growth as well. Instead, he got stuck with the hangover of an over-heated party of the late '90's.
His fourth love up was not reigning in the financial markets which kept inventing ways to churn bad debt and conceal it. In not fully appreciating what was going on, we merely delayed the pain we began to feel with the collapse (or near collapse depending on whose viewpoint you like) of the financial markets in 2008.
I've said it a million times if I've said it once: economic theory does not take into account human behavior.
Here's the part which is troubling to me: We apparently have still not learned that borrowing with no real plan to pay it back is destined for a major calamity. It's not just comparing corporate or personal finance, it's been proven over and over throughout history. Countries have failed for this very reason. The dollar as we know it may not exist as the world's reserve currency in a matter of years for the simple notion that foreign investors will wise up that our currency is becoming worthless due to our borrowing and spending habits. For crying out loud, we had to raise our debt ceiling so we could continue to pay on previous debt or we would have wound up in default in a month.
How long do you think we can continue to do that.
And Nathan, you really prove nothing without better metrics. There's simply no getting around the basic fact that business owners and investors with more cash in their pocket have the ability to create more jobs. Aside from that, if they say they won't create more jobs with a 40% top marginal rate, they won't. It's back to human behavior at that point. If the majority of small business people think that represents a hostile investment environment- real or imagined- they won't invest in new workers or new equipment. It's that simple. No amount of Keynesian economic theory or Friedman theory will make one bit of difference. If the people who have the money say they won't spend it over a certain tax threshold, they are under no obligation to do so.
Quote from: we vs us on April 18, 2011, 09:18:22 PM
None of those things have anything to do with the trickle-down mechanism. Do you know what trickle-down is?
Trickle down is a result of trickle up. Trickle up is when the working poor, living from paycheck to paycheck, provide their employers with enough value gained to reinvest in the company (add jobs) or invest somewhere else. It is unlikely that the working poor will accumulate enough money to directly create jobs. I'm sure there are some examples but I think they fall into the statistical noise.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 09:45:21 PM
And Nathan, you really prove nothing without better metrics. There's simply no getting around the basic fact that business owners and investors with more cash in their pocket have the ability to create more jobs. Aside from that, if they say they won't create more jobs with a 40% top marginal rate, they won't. It's back to human behavior at that point. If the majority of small business people think that represents a hostile investment environment- real or imagined- they won't invest in new workers or new equipment. It's that simple. No amount of Keynesian economic theory or Friedman theory will make one bit of difference. If the people who have the money say they won't spend it over a certain tax threshold, they are under no obligation to do so.
I've learned through experience to not ever trust what people say they are going to do. Only trust that which has already happened. I'm not talking theory, I'm talking historical fact. Ignore it at our collective peril.
I agree with you on your assessment of how we got here, aside from a few minor quibbles. Jobs were being lost before Bush took office and before 9/11. We had a plan to pay back the borrowed money, until the neocons decided we didn't need to. Tax rates went up early in the Clinton administration, yet job creation boomed to near record highs. Trickle-down economics is all about tax rates. There is simply no evidence it works. The capital gains tax cut in 1997 didn't make a dent in the numbers either.
Reagan had the highest single month since BLS began keeping records when interest rates were cut after the shock treatment to kill inflation. Overall his numbers were fair-to-middling. Better than either of the Bushes, but worse than Nixon.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 09:23:57 PM
No. I am against the SCOTUS rule allowing the buying of our (conflict of interest) public deciders by corporations.
Corporations and Unions should be barred as organizations from campaign contributions. Individuals can give what they want. Keep the max limit to even the playing field between the rich and not so rich.
Quote
But those who make an inordinate income (those in the top%4) need to proportionately pay more for the privilege we give them to be able to earn more.
I have no problem with someone making 100 times what I do paying 100 times as much tax. Making them pay, for example, 300 times as much tax is not reasonable IMO. I want/need a certain amount of $ after taxes. If my taxes go up, I need a raise to have that same after tax money.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 18, 2011, 10:25:22 PM
Corporations and Unions should be barred as organizations from campaign contributions. Individuals can give what they want. Keep the max limit to even the playing field between the rich and not so rich.
I have no problem with someone making 100 times what I do paying 100 times as much tax. Making them pay, for example, 300 times as much tax is not reasonable IMO. I want/need a certain amount of $ after taxes. If my taxes go up, I need a raise to have that same after tax money.
I also have a problems with unions enjoying tax-exempt status, yet being able to openly electioneer. I think they should be faced with the same threat leveled on churches: you lose your tax exempt status if you start campaigning. Why do we treat one tax-exempt entity different than another when it comes to campaigning?
Yawn... if its all thanks to the rich. Lets have the 48% not paying taxes not spend any money. Lets see what happens.
Quote from: guido911 on April 18, 2011, 08:40:20 PM
We haven't been doing this trickle down thing for the last two years. I guess things around here are wonderful? Right?
He is saying that the companies aren't hiring anybody. They are peeing all over each other instead of on the people below them. Which is why they have prospered why everybody else has gone down. So, if the trickle down isn't working (as guido stated) the only option is to do something different.
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 10:12:17 PM
I've learned through experience to not ever trust what people say they are going to do. Only trust that which has already happened. I'm not talking theory, I'm talking historical fact. Ignore it at our collective peril.
Could be a vacant threat. That's why I said leave the Bush tax cuts in place and see what happens. If more jobs aren't created, call BS on the theory, raise taxes, and pay down the damn debt.
I suspect two or three percent uptick or downtick in taxes won't make a big enough difference in employment levels. That said, higher tax rates indicates hostility toward small business people. Keep in mind the rhetoric coming at small business people: it's not just a 2 to 3% increase in income tax, it's the added cost of Obamacare, crap-n-trade, and all sorts of other controversial revenue grabs rumored and actually proposed. It makes it look like an anti-business environment when you add it all together. Mix in small business lobbying groups whipping fear into their membership to stay relevant and to raise dues to "protect" the small businessman and the wealthy.
I'm simply stating from my personal experience as a previous small business owner and having worked for the last 6 1/2 years for another small business owner, as well as dealing with many other small business owners on a daily basis. I don't pretend that's given me a superior knowledge of how business attitudes are affected by economic policy and taxes, but it's helped me keep a pulse on what drives certain behaviors.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 11:40:25 PM
I suspect two or three percent uptick or downtick in taxes won't make a big enough difference in employment levels. That said, higher tax rates indicates hostility toward small business people. Keep in mind the rhetoric coming at small business people: it's not just a 2 to 3% increase in income tax, it's the added cost of Obamacare, crap-n-trade, and all sorts of other controversial revenue grabs rumored and actually proposed. It makes it look like an anti-business environment when you add it all together. Mix in small business lobbying groups whipping fear into their membership to stay relevant and to raise dues to "protect" the small businessman and the wealthy.
I suspect the same, right up to the point where we begin exceeding the tax rates of other industrialized nations by a significant amount. (We should be comparing ourselves to them, not to tax havens)
Regarding the other stuff, it has zero impact on truly small businesses. Only once you get up over 25 employees, for example, does "Obamacare" have any impact whatsoever on you. Aside from subsidies, of course. I suspect that taking away the fear of losing one's health insurance would actually increase entrepreneurship. Whether that's done through somehow driving down the cost of health care or by just plain having the government pay for it out of taxes, I think it would have the same effect.
In short, I agree that there is a line out there that we need to be mindful of, because small business is one of the significant drivers of employment in the US, I just don't think we're anywhere near it at present.
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2011, 11:54:17 PM
In short, I agree that there is a line out there that we need to be mindful of, because small business is one of the significant drivers of employment in the US, I just don't think we're anywhere near it at present.
The situation is a lot like looking at taxes in Oklahoma and comparing to our neighbors. Individual items are not necessarily the highest but we have them all. Income tax alone may not be stopping small business but the total of all the expenses may have come close to crossing "the line". As some posters here on TNF have noted, income tax alone is not the biggest tax the "working poor" have to deal with.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 11:15:08 PM
I also have a problems with unions enjoying tax-exempt status, yet being able to openly electioneer. I think they should be faced with the same threat leveled on churches: you lose your tax exempt status if you start campaigning. Why do we treat one tax-exempt entity different than another when it comes to campaigning?
We mostly do. Aside from churches, there are plenty of other tax exempt organizations that are able to electioneer. Like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. And the Rotary Club. And Kiwanis, and all the other various social clubs.
On the one hand, I don't like that organizations in general electioneer. On the other, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to say "if you don't pay taxes you don't get a say." Slippery slope and all that. It's not something I'm fundamentally opposed to, however, so long as the individual real persons who make up the organization are free to electioneer.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 06:43:21 AM
The situation is a lot like looking at taxes in Oklahoma and comparing to our neighbors. Individual items are not necessarily the highest but we have them all. Income tax alone may not be stopping small business but the total of all the expenses may have come close to crossing "the line".
Even accounting for it as Total Taxes/GDP, we're still very low in world rankings. Total government receipts as a percentage of GDP is and has been around 30% since the 70s.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 08:50:49 AM
We mostly do. Aside from churches, there are plenty of other tax exempt organizations that are able to electioneer. Like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. And the Rotary Club. And Kiwanis, and all the other various social clubs.
On the one hand, I don't like that organizations in general electioneer. On the other, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to say "if you don't pay taxes you don't get a say." Slippery slope and all that. It's not something I'm fundamentally opposed to, however, so long as the individual real persons who make up the organization are free to electioneer.
Then why are churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious entities specifically singled out? Seems like a selective impingement on First Amendment rights to me.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 08:54:06 AM
Even accounting for it as Total Taxes/GDP, we're still very low in world rankings.
Remember to account for cultural differences.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 08:59:21 AM
Remember to account for cultural differences.
But that would require looking at taxes and job creation with an objective eye ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2011, 08:57:05 AM
Then why are churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious entities specifically singled out? Seems like a selective impingement on First Amendment rights to me.
Probably has something to do with separation of church and state.
Here's some objectivity for you:
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/fredgraph.png?m=1303222365)
Blue line is federal receipts as a percentage of GDP. Red line is total state/local receipts as a percentage of GDP. Do keep in mind that the federal numbers include payroll tax.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 09:14:21 AM
Probably has something to do with separation of church and state.
And yet, it's perfectly acceptable to have polling booths set up in churches.
Depends on how deep we think the FF's thought that separation was supposed to be. Was the intention simply to keep us from winding up with a theocracy or barring the church from all aspects of governance?
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 09:14:36 AM
Here's some objectivity for you:
I can't get your graphic here at work.
What I had in mind was that the citizens of some countries are perfectly happy with a society/government that is a
lot more socialistic than ours. (I think the Scandinavian countries qualify.) They may or may not have a good standard of living. I believe most Americans do not want that level of socialism. Comparing our tax levels to those is not totally relevant.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2011, 09:21:29 AM
And yet, it's perfectly acceptable to have polling booths set up in churches.
Depends on how deep we think the FF's thought that separation was supposed to be. Was the intention simply to keep us from winding up with a theocracy or barring the church from all aspects of governance?
I believe the FFs didn't want the Church as an organization to influence/run government and vs. Remember reading about how the Church ruled Europe for many centuries? Kings were subservient to the Pope. Henry VIII took care of that and put himself in charge of the Church of England. Then there was continuing troubles between the Catholics and Protestants.
As far as voting in a church, it's a building. Some older churches have very interesting architecture. It gives me a chance to see something I would otherwise probably not see. Many churches around here are just another steel fab structure but with pictures of Jesus. I wouldn't mind voting in a mosque. It's likely to be the only time I would ever be in one.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 09:30:04 AM
I can't get your graphic here at work.
What I had in mind was that the citizens of some countries are perfectly happy with a society/government that is a lot more socialistic than ours. (I think the Scandinavian countries qualify.) They may or may not have a good standard of living. I believe most Americans do not want that level of socialism. Comparing our tax levels to those is not totally relevant.
Sorry about that, it should work now.
I'm not terribly interested in comparing ourselves to Scandanavian countries, as you rightly point out nobody here would be comfortable with that level of taxation. CBPP has a nice chart that clearly shows we've got a long way to go before we get to scandanavia:
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/4-13-11TopTenTaxCharts1.jpg)
The irony of it all is that by all rights we should have higher taxes than a lot of those countries. Why? Infrastructure. We are more spread out than most countries. We have a road network connecting everything. In places like Australia or Canada, there is also large land area, but their populations are much more concentrated than our own and in both there are not maintained roads to a lot of settlements. (they're more like Alaska than the lower 48) It's cheaper to provide services to a bunch of people clustered in a small area, for obvious reasons.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 10:11:20 AM
The irony of it all is that by all rights we should have higher taxes than a lot of those countries. Why? Infrastructure. We are more spread out than most countries. We have a road network connecting everything. In places like Australia or Canada, there is also large land area, but their populations are much more concentrated than our own and in both there are not maintained roads to a lot of settlements. (they're more like Alaska than the lower 48) It's cheaper to provide services to a bunch of people clustered in a small area, for obvious reasons.
Interesting point to touch on that I'd never really verbalized until now: We seem to equate liberty with our taxation level. Low taxes means more liberty, higher taxes means the government is "coming after us".
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 10:11:20 AM
Sorry about that, it should work now.
The irony of it all is that by all rights we should have higher taxes than a lot of those countries. Why? Infrastructure. We are more spread out than most countries. We have a road network connecting everything.
The only other countries I have been to are Canada when I was a kid, Bimini, a short hop across the border to Mexico, and Germany. Germany is well known for its great roads. I saw a sign on one road, "Strasse Schade" meaning bad road. That road would have qualified for a new road in Oklahoma. Perhaps one reason for your observation is the cheap way we build our infrastructure. Then we build it again a few years later, just as cheap. (Cheap being quality as well as intended price.)
Edit: Graphic came through on the second attempt. Thanks.
The Tax Compliance Industry employs more workers than Wal-Mart, UPS, McDonald's, IBM and Citigroup combined. They preside over 72,536 pages of federal tax code rules, & regulations.
"TAX" should not be the largest industry in a free republic. Our tax code is so complex that most of us don't know what we're paying, and our government has to operate on estimates of what it is actually taking in in receipts until billions of dollars in analysis is completed.
It is an embarrassment.
Weather you are a liberal who demands higher taxes, a conservative who wants lower taxes, or a libertarian who wants fair taxes, we can all agree that the current system is broken beyond repair.
We need a new way to collect taxes that is fair, simple and transparent. This would be the most painful political decision ever made, but it would also make the leader willing to take it on, a hero!
A simplified tax system would cause millions, employed in the tax industry, to lose their jobs, however it would cause such a boon to the economy that far better opportunities would present themselves to these talented individuals.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 10:42:53 AM
Perhaps one reason for your observation is the cheap way we build our infrastructure. Then we build it again a few years later, just as cheap. (Cheap being quality as well as intended price.)
It's not so much that we build things cheaply, but that we expect them to get by with little to no maintenance. For example, if you build a concrete road of reasonable quality and put a wear layer of asphalt on top which you mill down and replace every 5 years or so, the road will last essentially forever without complete reconstruction.
Similarly, if you maintain the deck of a bridge in good condition and repaint it regularly, that will prevent most problems that bridges have.
We don't really do any of that here. We just lay down a road or build a bridge and leave it be with minimal maintenance until it's falling apart. Only then do we apply stopgap measures to keep it functional until we have the funds to completely replace the road or bridge.
Gaspar, you got a cite for that?
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 18, 2011, 09:32:09 PM
And for those who forget quickly the Heritage Foundation are bad corporate shills and worse righteous fakes.
Here you go. http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/27128
For those that can't freakin read like aox, Heritage relied on Politifact as its source. Politifact isn't exactly right wing. And "the smoking chimp" is your source? Man you suck.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 10:52:36 AM
It's not so much that we build things cheaply, but that we expect them to get by with little to no maintenance. ...
I'll agree with the minimal or poor maintenance issues. I disagree that we build quality roads. I saw (somewhere) a cross section comparison of German Autobahn structure vs. our typical Interstate. We don't even come close to the Germans.
Have you driven on Memorial between the Creek Turnpike and 111th ? The new lanes have a terrible surface. How about the Creek Turnpike bridges over the 111th and Garnett area? It's enough to make even Oklahoma drivers believe in seat belts and Dramamine (sp?).
Asphalt moves around too much under concentrated loads for any heavy duty highway. It makes a good base for concrete though. This is what I saw when AR was replacing the entire structure of portions of I-40 about 10 years ago. I haven't driven it lately so I don't know how it is holding up.
In the 70s, Oklahoma had a standard for asphalt that was required to be used . It was below nation wide industry standards and "better" asphalt was not allowed to be used. I don't have any current information regarding this.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 19, 2011, 10:50:00 AM
We need a new way to collect taxes that is fair, simple and transparent.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 11:50:11 AM
Asphalt moves around too much under concentrated loads for any heavy duty highway. It makes a good base for concrete though. This is what I saw when AR was replacing the entire structure of portions of I-40 about 10 years ago. I haven't driven it lately so I don't know how it is holding up.
Asphalt works very well as a wear layer on top of something more substantial. It works less well as the sole surface portion of the road. Even if you make it two feet thick, it gets too gooey in hot weather and develops ruts from the heavy vehicles. A 2-3 inch layer on top of concrete, on the other hand, works much better and serves to protect the concrete. without having enough substance to get too out of shape.
They use this method a lot in Arizona and some other states I consider to generally have good roads.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 12:42:09 PM
Asphalt works very well as a wear layer on top of something more substantial. It works less well as the sole surface portion of the road. Even if you make it two feet thick, it gets too gooey in hot weather and develops ruts from the heavy vehicles. A 2-3 inch layer on top of concrete, on the other hand, works much better and serves to protect the concrete. without having enough substance to get too out of shape.
They use this method a lot in Arizona and some other states I consider to generally have good roads.
Except it requires more maintenance when it's on top of the concrete instead of under it, ergo higher maintenance costs and deferred/neglected maintenance.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 12:42:09 PM
They use this method a lot in Arizona and some other states I consider to generally have good roads.
Most of the freeways that have been built here since '98 consist of an 18" or 20" reinforced concrete base with approximately 2" to 3" rubberized asphault top layer. It was interesting to watch when they added additional lanes to one freeway I used to drive regularly. When pouring the concrete base, they could pave a section of about 3/4 to one mile a day, and then that evening start cutting the expansion joints.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Except it requires more maintenance when it's on top of the concrete instead of under it, ergo higher maintenance costs and deferred/neglected maintenance.
I beg to differ. Unless it gets damaged by fire, chemical, or severly damaged by a large vehicle rollover, the maintenance here is minimal.
I remember this hill as being steeper in the 60s. Maybe they did some dirt work. The reason I picked it to show is that I remember the side of the road coming down hill as always being rough like a washboard. The asphalt would move under the braking load of the vehicles. The uphill side was never as bad. I expect the road was all asphalt.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=villanova,+pa&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.632176,90.791016&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Villanova,+Delaware,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.036443,-75.348098&spn=0,0.015171&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.036493,-75.347987&panoid=lDonAXF_i4q-7s1Vm7HrBg&cbp=12,43.96,,0,0.06
Dbacks: Maybe the rubberization helps stabilize it.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 19, 2011, 12:52:18 PM
I beg to differ. Unless it gets damaged by fire, chemical, or severly damaged by a large vehicle rollover, the maintenance here is minimal.
There maybe, not here in Oklahoma. It seems like the OTA Turnpikes have an area being re-paved at any given time. Arizona doesn't seem to have this problem, neither do the roads on the front range of Colorado.
Most people are not aware there are also various asphalt blends, including polymers. I was unaware of this myself until I was at a customer's facility recently and he said they make about 85 different road blends for different requirements.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2011, 01:09:36 PM
There maybe, not here in Oklahoma. It seems like the OTA Turnpikes have an area being re-paved at any given time. Arizona doesn't seem to have this problem, neither do the roads on the front range of Colorado.
Most people are not aware there are also various asphalt blends, including polymers. I was unaware of this myself until I was at a customer's facility recently and he said they make about 85 different road blends for different requirements.
Maybe Oklahoma is still using its antique specs for roadway asphalt.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 01:03:00 PM
I remember this hill as being steeper in the 60s. Maybe they did some dirt work. The reason I picked it to show is that I remember the side of the road coming down hill as always being rough like a washboard. The asphalt would move under the braking load of the vehicles. The uphill side was never as bad. I expect the road was all asphalt.
That one road surface does not work in 100% of all situations does not mean it isn't applicable for most. I'm primarily talking about freeways, although it is a waste to let the concrete on 71st Street, Memorial, and a few other places around town crumble rather than protecting it from the elements (and the tires).
Quote from: guido911 on April 19, 2011, 11:03:06 AM
For those that can't freakin read like aox, Heritage relied on Politifact as its source. Politifact isn't exactly right wing. And "the smoking chimp" is your source? Man you suck.
Your bullying attempts get weaker with time. So, wikipedia was right. 8)
The times of highest general prosperity in our history have coresponded to periods of high taxation. Now, in a period of historic lows in taxation, we are suffering the cosequences. Not pretending to be an economist, but if you reduce your income and haven't reduced your debts, you build up more debt. To pay them down, you need to make more income. Cutting your income further is not going to help.
Raise taxes.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2011, 01:09:36 PM
There maybe, not here in Oklahoma. It seems like the OTA Turnpikes have an area being re-paved at any given time. Arizona doesn't seem to have this problem, neither do the roads on the front range of Colorado.
Here there is a large amount of preventive maintenance that goes on all the time, both freeways and surface streets. Usually through closure over a weekend on the various freeway they do repair and preventive projects where they will shut down a one mile to four mile segment. I-10 the central Phoenix has the Deck Park Tunnel which gets closed two to three times a year for maintenance for everything from surface and tile repair, to a matter of washing down the walls and ceilings.
I know that OTA has always had ongoing projects for repaving for small replacement to entire resurfacing. It the rest that got deferred, forgotten about, maintenace programs.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 01:16:00 PM
That one road surface does not work in 100% of all situations does not mean it isn't applicable for most many. I'm primarily talking about freeways, although it is a waste to let the concrete on 71st Street, Memorial, and a few other places around town crumble rather than protecting it from the elements (and the tires).
I think the concrete lasts longer without maintenance than asphalt but agree that an asphalt cap over 71st, Memorial, and others would be a good temporary repair. Some good patches would need to be made in some areas prior to covering with asphalt.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 19, 2011, 01:33:41 PM
The times of highest general prosperity in our history have coresponded to periods of high taxation. Now, in a period of historic lows in taxation, we are suffering the cosequences. Not pretending to be an economist, but if you reduce your income and haven't reduced your debts, you build up more debt. To pay them down, you need to make more income. Cutting your income further is not going to help.
Raise taxes.
High taxes and prosperity may have co-existed but I will be very difficult to convince that high taxes caused prosperity.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 01:52:19 PM
I think the concrete lasts longer without maintenance than asphalt but agree that an asphalt cap over 71st, Memorial, and others would be a good temporary repair. Some good patches would need to be made in some areas prior to covering with asphalt.
The bulk of the preventative maint. here is done with slurry seal, or fog seal, and it's not only done here in the valley area, but is used on all of the highways throughout the state including up in the snow country area.
http://www.southwestslurryseal.com/ (http://www.southwestslurryseal.com/)
Fog seal:
Slurry seal:
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 01:52:19 PM
I think the concrete lasts longer without maintenance than asphalt but agree that an asphalt cap over 71st, Memorial
Sure, concrete will last 20 or 30 years with almost no maintenance at all, but at the end of that time you have to dig up the entire road and start from scratch like Arkansas did to most of I-40 in the late 90s/early 00s at a cost of over a billion dollars. If you overlay it with asphalt, you can grind off the asphalt, recycle it, and relay it every 5 years or so and keep a near perfect road surface indefinitely for much less total cost.
I believe they have machines now that will do the whole process in a continuous pass, stopping only for bridges.
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 02:28:55 PM
Sure, concrete will last 20 or 30 years with almost no maintenance at all, but at the end of that time you have to dig up the entire road and start from scratch like Arkansas did to most of I-40 in the late 90s/early 00s at a cost of over a billion dollars. If you overlay it with asphalt, you can grind off the asphalt, recycle it, and relay it every 5 years or so and keep a near perfect road surface indefinitely for much less total cost.
I believe they have machines now that will do the whole process in a continuous pass, stopping only for bridges.
As you previously noted, "we" don't do the preventative maintenance.
Aside from the really crummy road surface of 30 years, it would be interesting to see a comparison of $. Do you happen to have one handy. You write as though you do.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 19, 2011, 02:11:24 PM
The bulk of the preventative maint. here is done with slurry seal, or fog seal, and it's not only done here in the valley area, but is used on all of the highways throughout the state including up in the snow country area.
The Airport Authority here recently recovered the ramps and many taxiways with something thin and slurry-like. I don't know if it's the same stuff you are talking about but after one winter, the (supposedly) sealed cracks are open again. I don't imagine your winters in snow country are any worse than ours.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 19, 2011, 02:37:13 PM
Aside from the really crummy road surface of 30 years, it would be interesting to see a comparison of $. Do you happen to have one handy. You write as though you do.
Not at hand. It's been some years since I cared enough to find references. I was trying to get my former city to spend a little extra up front on their massive road project and build some roads that would last. Didn't work, precisely because it's more expensive up front. Most everyone considers 20 or 30 years out as long enough to not be their problem.
A bit o/t, but there is this:
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_183_how-rich-secretly-amuse-themselves/
(http://www.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Evil-Laugh.png)
Quote from: nathanm on April 19, 2011, 02:43:01 PM
Not at hand. It's been some years since I cared enough to find references. I was trying to get my former city to spend a little extra up front on their massive road project and build some roads that would last. Didn't work, precisely because it's more expensive up front. Most everyone considers 20 or 30 years out as long enough to not be their problem.
I agree that we don't put up-front money in to get a good product, whether it be concrete or asphalt. Also, 20 to 30 years is someone else's problem. That brings us back to where this diversion started. Our infrastructure costs at least appear low because we don't build the quality infrastructure to begin with and then don't maintain it. We wind up with junk and an expensive rebuild that we borrow money to build.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 19, 2011, 02:11:24 PM
The bulk of the preventative maint. here is done with slurry seal, or fog seal, and it's not only done here in the valley area, but is used on all of the highways throughout the state including up in the snow country area.
http://www.southwestslurryseal.com/ (http://www.southwestslurryseal.com/)
Fog seal:
Slurry seal:
You also don't get massive ice storms or prolonged freezing temps in the valley, so I'm sure that helps. At least that's a part of the excuse we get here as to why our asphalt comes apart so easily.
Travel anywhere in the zone 6/7 transition where there is HOT,COLD,HOT,COLD temps with 30 degree shifts in 24 hour periods, and you will find the exact same problem with asphalt as we have in Tulsa.
It's not the heat, and it's not the cold. It's the shift from hot to cold and vise versa where the temperature of the road skin may have a 30 degree difference from the asphalt layers just one or two inches below it.
(http://www.citrustreesonline.com/images/usda-zone-map.gif)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 19, 2011, 03:23:26 PM
You also don't get massive ice storms or prolonged freezing temps in the valley, so I'm sure that helps. At least that's a part of the excuse we get here as to why our asphalt comes apart so easily.
Humidity also comes into play there. Since the humidity is, for the most part, low in Arizona, you don't worry so much about expansion/contraction cycles because the moisture there is not a lot. At least not compared to here.
This from Flagstaff is a good approximation of the annual snow fall in snow country.
http://www.flagstaffarizona.org/playing_winter_snow-facts.html (http://www.flagstaffarizona.org/playing_winter_snow-facts.html)
And in these area the temps ran from single digits to the 80' and some times 90's.
http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Places/mogollon_rim.htm (http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Places/mogollon_rim.htm)
How Would Jesus Do the Budget?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/04/19/us/politics/AP-US-US-WikiLeaks-Army-Private.html?_r=4&hp
"The scriptures contain the concept of "the common good"—the things we commit to do as a society that benefit us all."
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 19, 2011, 07:35:39 PM
How Would Jesus Do the Budget?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/04/19/us/politics/AP-US-US-WikiLeaks-Army-Private.html?_r=4&hp
"The scriptures contain the concept of "the common good"—the things we commit to do as a society that benefit us all."
Here is a fantastic "common good" story and tax dollars:
QuoteORLANDO, Fla. – Florida officials are investigating an unemployment agency that spent public money to give 6,000 superhero capes to the jobless.
Workforce Central Florida spent more than $14,000 on the red capes as part of its "Cape-A-Bility Challenge" public relations campaign. The campaign featured a cartoon character, "Dr. Evil Unemployment," who needs to be vanquished.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_re_us/us_capes_for_the_unemployed
Quote from: guido911 on April 20, 2011, 09:15:22 AM
Here is a fantastic "common good" story and tax dollars:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_re_us/us_capes_for_the_unemployed
That IS compassion Greedo. They can use the capes as blankets when they sleep on park benches.
Freeze/Thaw is what kills us here.....Humidity has little to no effect on paved surface after they are placed.....
dbacks,
We NEVER use 18" of concrete. It is always 10 to 12" for interstate construction. Typical international airport runway thickness is around 18 to 24".
New I-26 in North Carolina. And they have much better roads overall than we do.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/mcl0205.pdf
All,
And our turnpikes are rock covered with 2" layer after 2" layer of asphalt. Absolute crap. (At least the road matches the overall concept of turnpike to begin with.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 20, 2011, 01:04:09 PM
And our turnpikes are rock covered with 2" layer after 2" layer of asphalt. Absolute crap. (At least the road matches the overall concept of turnpike to begin with.)
No. I've seen the Cherokee and Muskogee turnpikes cut open and laid bare for all to see. That is not how they were constructed. Concrete on packed gravel in both cases. I don't recall the thickness well enough to make a comment on that. I believe ODOT's standards are online. It thought OTA's were as well, but I'm not as sure.
Quote from: Breadburner on April 20, 2011, 12:10:35 PM
Freeze/Thaw is what kills us here.....Humidity has little to no effect on paved surface after they are placed.....
Uhh..in order to have a freeze/thaw causing contraction/expansion on the order of what is needed, humidity DOES have effect. You can freeze the air at 8 percent humidity verses 50 %. Which is going thaw water out more. Obviously not the 8 percent.
There are some that have the concrete. Not the Turner or Will Rogers. And asphalt will provide a little bit of smoothing to the surface for a couple years, but it just isn't worth it. The Turner is always a mess - there are two work zones now, one at this end, one at other - building on/off at Luther. And they just finished the latest 6 years of maintenance late last year. Soon be time to close another 20 miles for resurfacing for 3 years.
Asphalt used here is just too soft for the massive truckloads that are allowed by OK. You cannot have 150,000 lb trucks running on 12" of asphalt and expect anything different than what we get. Lousy roads.
Quote from: Hoss on April 20, 2011, 01:42:43 PM
You can freeze the air at 8 percent humidity verses 50 %. Which is going thaw water out more. Obviously not the 8 percent.
When air goes from above 32 F to below 32 F, water doesn't thaw. Please clarify.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 20, 2011, 06:20:00 PM
When air goes from above 32 F to below 32 F, water doesn't thaw. Please clarify.
How about from below to above? Clear enough, sparky?
;D
Quote from: Hoss on April 20, 2011, 08:21:05 PM
How about from below to above? Clear enough, sparky?
;D
Sparky? I'm a mechanical engineer, not an electrical engineer. I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express predecessor (US Navy Aviation Electronics Technician School) a long time ago.
I think the damage is actually started when liquid water expands while freezing, opening cracks and voids with water in them. When the ice (frozen water) thaws and contracts the damage is done. I have seen the results of this in frozen water pipes. Actually, water is at its densest at approximately 4 Deg C (39 Deg F).
Sparky! I love it...haven't heard us electro-droid worker bees referred to as that for a long time! Thanks, Hoss for the little regression therapy!
Remember earlier in the year when we got some days with outside temperatures at 36 to 38? And there was frost on the windows? Water frozen above 32 degrees F. How cool is that!! And yep, it is real! (Think low pressure...)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 21, 2011, 04:11:45 AM
Remember earlier in the year when we got some days with outside temperatures at 36 to 38? And there was frost on the windows? Water frozen above 32 degrees F. How cool is that!! And yep, it is real! (Think low pressure...)
Think radiation cooling.
Edit:
The freezing point of water does indeed increase with low pressure. All the way to 0.0099 Deg C at 0.006 atmospheres of pressure. It is highly unlikely that you saw frozen water at 36 F to 39 F. Radiation cooling (or perhaps some other mechanism) cooled the window to below the local air temperature and then the water (humidity in the air) froze.
http://www.google.com/#q=water+phase+diagram&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e7f5c8c9ada6c87&hl=en
www.sciencegeek.net/Chemistry/chempdfs/phasediagrams.pdf
This should take you to a phase diagram of water showing pressure vs temperature and the solid/liquid/vapor states of water.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 21, 2011, 07:42:30 AM
Think radiation cooling.
Edit:
The freezing point of water does indeed increase with low pressure. All the way to 0.0099 Deg C at 0.006 atmospheres of pressure. It is highly unlikely that you saw frozen water at 36 F to 39 F. Radiation cooling (or perhaps some other mechanism) cooled the window to below the local air temperature and then the water (humidity in the air) froze.
http://www.google.com/#q=water+phase+diagram&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e7f5c8c9ada6c87&hl=en
www.sciencegeek.net/Chemistry/chempdfs/phasediagrams.pdf
This should take you to a phase diagram of water showing pressure vs temperature and the solid/liquid/vapor states of water.
Give 'em a lesson in carburetor icing ;)
http://bcove.me/5j32054z
Lotto Nation....DO NOT WATCH IF YOU HATE KEITH OH.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2011, 10:55:08 AM
"Working Stiffs Taxed More Than Plutocrats"
What more do you need to know?
Clowns scare me. Clowns spouting class envyisms absolutely frighten me.
Your not alone Conan.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 20, 2011, 09:10:42 PM
Sparky? I'm a mechanical engineer, not an electrical engineer. I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express predecessor (US Navy Aviation Electronics Technician School) a long time ago.
I think the damage is actually started when liquid water expands while freezing, opening cracks and voids with water in them. When the ice (frozen water) thaws and contracts the damage is done. I have seen the results of this in frozen water pipes. Actually, water is at its densest at approximately 4 Deg C (39 Deg F).
+1
But take it a step further. When it's been 27 degrees for a week and all of a sudden the temp rises to 60, and the sun it out heating the top half inch of blacktop to the point where the oil/tar softens slightly and is able to stretch and release the expansion pressure from the still frozen moisture just below the surface. POW! Welcome to Oklahoma.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 21, 2011, 05:01:12 PM
+1
But take it a step further. When it's been 27 degrees for a week and all of a sudden the temp rises to 60, and the sun it out heating the top half inch of blacktop to the point where the oil/tar softens slightly and is able to stretch and release the expansion pressure from the still frozen moisture just below the surface. POW! Welcome to Oklahoma.
Thus my point: when your average a relative humidity on the order of 10 percent, it's hard to get a lot of trapped frozen moisture in the porous contents of asphalt.
Makes me wonder how long it will be before they start blacktopping the lanes of 169 south of I-244. Two more years? Three?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 21, 2011, 05:01:12 PM
+1
But take it a step further. When it's been 27 degrees for a week and all of a sudden the temp rises to 60, and the sun it out heating the top half inch of blacktop to the point where the oil/tar softens slightly and is able to stretch and release the expansion pressure from the still frozen moisture just below the surface. POW! Welcome to Oklahoma.
Amazing how these things only manage to happen in such a way as to render roads unmaintainable in the State of Oklahoma.
Quote from: nathanm on April 22, 2011, 12:33:35 AM
Amazing how these things only manage to happen in such a way as to render roads unmaintainable in the State of Oklahoma.
We're special.
;D
So back on the topic:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_VgJQTp0Bsf0/TbG1L-PYTdI/AAAAAAAAAeM/cAtrN2W0K98/ctjshare.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on April 22, 2011, 02:39:49 PM
So back on the topic:
The way I see the chart, the rich appear to be paying a proportion of taxes higher than their proportion of income. Is that correct?
I'm curious Nate, what is the most you have ever paid in federal income tax? Is it in the six figure area? Doubtful since you are so quick to want to tax people even more who pay that in tax. Try something for me. Think about writing a 6 figure check to the U.S. Treasury not once, but every year you work through retirement. This is what many many people do--and they aren't earning millions a year in taxable income. Do you think that is fair?
I personally cannot fathom how someone could even think that another person that is already paying 5 to 10 times as much as you in fed taxes is not paying enough. The only conclusion I can reach is that sort of thinking is rooted in envy. Pretty sad.
So the poor people working through retirement because they can't make it on their 500-600kk a year? I don't feel sorry for them. If they can't make ends meet on 15-18 years of salary every year they need to reevaluate their spending.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 22, 2011, 05:02:07 PM
So the poor people working through retirement because they can't make it on their 500-600kk a year? I don't feel sorry for them. If they can't make ends meet on 15-18 years of salary every year they need to reevaluate their spending.
It's not about whether the rich can "make it" or not. It's about people like you with your petty jealousy that honestly believe someone other than themselves should bear nearly all the government's financial burden.
Here's a thought, instead of thinking about how the rich should perhaps reevaluate their spending, how about thinking how the government could reevaluate its spending.
Your comment "work through retirement" generally applies a need to do so. Do I feel bad Warren Buffett pays 2-3% more in his income in taxes than me? Not really. The amount of US spending is 26k per worker. The average income is 33k. If you want everybody to pay the same. It isn't going to work.
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
It's not about whether the rich can "make it" or not. It's about people like you with your petty jealousy that honestly believe someone other than themselves should bear nearly all the government's financial burden.
Here's a thought, instead of thinking about how the rich should perhaps reevaluate their spending, how about thinking how the government could reevaluate its spending.
We've been trying that method for way too long, Gwee. Too many lobbyists and bad politicians. The only way around that is to raise taxes back to where they were under Clinton. There may be some tax cuts but deduction limits....you know, enormously wealthy folks will no longer be able to get huge mortgage deductibility (and on second homes) that they don't need merely to leverage more unnecessary acquisitions of stuff. Some other write offs may vanish that favor the oligarchy. You can bet corporate tax rates and breaks will remain. Lots of loophole closures and deduction stoppages. They won't touch your future Medicare benefits nor tax them. And your Social Security will remain a government program much to your chagrin. But you have time until 2013 to absorb these low (local and state deductible for now) rates. Nothing much will happen until after the next election.
Tax reform is inevitable. Are you afraid to die as well?
Firing is the goal right? So you don't have to pay any more taxes (unless you give over 1.1 million to one person)
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 22, 2011, 05:30:59 PM
The amount of US spending is 26k per worker. The average income is 33k. If you want everybody to pay the same. It isn't going to work.
I know that. I am just fed up with those in that average income range demanding that others pay more. It makes no sense to me.
And I am sorry I pounced hard on you. You and a few others on the opposite side of me are quite reasonable and I did not take that into account.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 22, 2011, 05:35:11 PM
We've been trying that method for way too long, Gwee. Too many lobbyists and bad politicians. The only way around that is to raise taxes back to where they were under Clinton. There may be some tax cuts but deduction limits....you know, enormously wealthy folks will no longer be able to get huge mortgage deductibility (and on second homes) that they don't need merely to leverage more unnecessary acquisitions of stuff. Some other write offs may vanish that favor the oligarchy. You can bet corporate tax rates and breaks will remain. Lots of loophole closures and deduction stoppages. They won't touch your future Medicare benefits nor tax them. And your Social Security will remain a government program much to your chagrin. But you have time until 2013 to absorb these low (local and state deductible for now) rates. Nothing much will happen until after the next election.
Tax reform is inevitable. Are you afraid to die as well?
Look at my question to Nate and answer it.
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 05:45:21 PM
I know that. I am just fed up with those in that average income range demanding that others pay more. It makes no sense to me.
And I am sorry I pounced hard on you. You and a few others on the opposite side of me are quite reasonable and I did not take that into account.
I think that we need to look at REAL numbers to determine what can be done. Obviously spending needs to be cut. But when you throw in the FICA tax (which I know they aren't getting the SS benefits for it) people in the 28% range are paying 28% +16% FICA (assuming self employed). People who make much more than 106k get to skip out on a huge amount of taxes. income between 83k and 106k people are paying 28%+16% fica. Of course the huge earners still pay that as well. But once you hit a million, half on capital gains at 15% and you don't have to pay the 16% on top of that. Your tax burden drops significantly (on the basis of percentage, not of actual taxes paid)
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 05:52:09 PM
Look at my question to Nate and answer it.
Tax avoidance differs from tax cheating.....I degreed in finance.
Are they making 10-20 times more money to pay that 5-10 times more in fed taxes? And how much do they deduct for the ocean front second home mortgage?
And it is not envy but gluttonous and greedy that has caused the rift.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 22, 2011, 06:04:25 PM
Tax avoidance differs from tax cheating.....I degreed in finance.
Are they making 10-20 times more money to pay that 5-10 times more in fed taxes? And how much do they deduct for the ocean front second home mortgage?
And it is not envy but gluttonous and greedy that has caused the rift.
I am not talking about those persons earning millions/billions of dollars. I am talking about small business owners, professionals, and others that are making, gulp, between $250,000.001 and let's say $500,000 that get lumped into the mega-wealthy category. Believe it or not, a large segment of our society falls in that range. Now, if you think those people are "greedy" because they don't want to pay an additional $15-20K more in taxes under the Clinton regimen, you really are a fool. Heck, that increase alone is probably more than most in this forum pay in total fed taxes. We do know that that increase is a sh!t ton more than those 47% that pay freakin nothing.
That's weak. %47? Actually, wasn't the Clinton regiment the Bush read my lips tax structure?
Peeps making $250k-500k shouldn't be "grouped" in with with the mega wealthy just as those who earn less than $40,000 shouldn't be "grouped" in with the middle class.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 22, 2011, 05:56:35 PM
I think that we need to look at REAL numbers to determine what can be done. Obviously spending needs to be cut. But when you throw in the FICA tax (which I know they aren't getting the SS benefits for it) people in the 28% range are paying 28% +16% FICA (assuming self employed). People who make much more than 106k get to skip out on a huge amount of taxes. income between 83k and 106k people are paying 28%+16% fica. Of course the huge earners still pay that as well. But once you hit a million, half on capital gains at 15% and you don't have to pay the 16% on top of that. Your tax burden drops significantly (on the basis of percentage, not of actual taxes paid)
Social Security is a forced retirement program. (Kind of like Obamacare except they had the guts to call it a tax, avoiding the Commerce thing.)
If you want to tax all of a persons income without a cap for Social Security, are you willing to give them benefits based on that increased contribution?
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 22, 2011, 06:28:55 PM
That's weak. %47? Actually, wasn't the Clinton regiment the Bush read my lips tax structure?
Peeps making $250k-500k shouldn't be "grouped" in with with the mega wealthy just as those who earn less than $40,000 shouldn't be "grouped" in with the middle class.
I don't care whose idea it was, Clinton or GHWB. The W tax cuts are what is at issue. As for the grouping, that was not my idea, but unfortunately those at $250K are thrown in with the mega-wealthy as far as the "rich" people go.
As for the 47%, here's a link.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/04/08/47-of-americans-pay-no-income-taxes/
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 06:39:31 PM
I don't care whose idea it was, Clinton or GHWB. The W tax cuts are what is at issue. As for the grouping, that was not my idea, but unfortunately those at $250K are thrown in with the mega-wealthy as far as the "rich" people go.
As for the 47%, here's a link.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/04/08/47-of-americans-pay-no-income-taxes/
Ok. BTW, what portion of that %47 are never going to go without a meal?
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 22, 2011, 06:50:24 PM
Ok. BTW, what portion of that %47 are never going to go without a meal?
Who cares? That's not the instant issue. I am talking about those paying little or nothing declaring the "rich" aren't paying enough and demanding they do. According to Obama, everybody was going to have to have some skin in the game. Plainly, almost half of us do not. Again, is it fair that 47% pay no fed income taxes?
Yeah, the 47% should be paying in. You are making the assumption that that 47% doesn't include some major corporations.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 22, 2011, 08:19:29 PM
You are making the assumption that that 47% doesn't include some major corporations.
That's an interesting point, especially after the GE revelations. I wonder who these corps are and how many. I can tell you my little corp paid... ;)
Those that seek to make millions can afford to let their wealth grow without income distribution. What % of 47 includes the one's who can afford not to pay taxes?
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 22, 2011, 08:34:37 PM
What % of 47 includes the one's who can afford not to pay taxes?
Why does that matter? Half our country pays no federal income tax and you seem more interested in why rather than why not? I am going to ask for the last time, is it "fair" that 47% of this country pays no fed income taxes? Sheen showed fortitude and answered.
And, is it right that those paying nothing demand that those paying should pay more?
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 09:09:13 PM
Why does that matter? Half our country pays no federal income tax and you seem more interested in why rather than why not? I am going to ask for the last time, is it "fair" that 47% of this country pays no fed income taxes? Sheen showed fortitude and answered.
And, is it right that those paying nothing demand that those paying should pay more?
Is it fair? No. What would happen when you take the bottom earners and tax them more? The spend less and blow up our consumer based economy.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 22, 2011, 08:34:37 PM
Those that seek to make millions can afford to let their wealth grow without income distribution.
I seek to make millions (of $) but have not been too successful.
:D
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 22, 2011, 11:05:02 PM
Is it fair? No. What would happen when you take the bottom earners and tax them more? The spend less and blow up our consumer based economy.
Fortunately, when the rich are taxed more, they spend more to make up for it.
I remember hearing stories of when taxes were raised on things like really big yachts that the rich immediately placed more orders for yachts. This in turn caused the US yacht makers to hire more skilled yacht builders. And so on...
Well, maybe not.
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 08:33:44 PM
That's an interesting point, especially after the GE revelations. I wonder who these corps are and how many. I can tell you my little corp paid... ;)
You know this has been going on for a while now. Look at Haliburton using their offshore subsidiaries to do business with Iran, etc.
Why the focus on income tax? That tells you very little about the actual tax burden of those 47%. Your suggestion that, because they don't pay income tax, those folks somehow don't contribute to the well being of the country is just flat wrong. These people still pay sales tax, property tax, sundry state and local taxes, and fees of all sorts. They also pay payroll taxes, which support Medicare and Social Security. Also unemployment insurance. Etc.
At the same time, even though we think of "the poor" as taking more advantage of the services of the state, it's the rich who benefit most. Not as much from the social safety net, but definitely from the infrastructure investments that the government makes. How would business prosper, after all, if we didn't have roads, or rails, or airports, or ports, or energy infrastructure, or etc etc. There's also government subsidies and grants; tax credits and other incentives to invest. And how then would the top 10% make their lightly taxed income off capital gains, which are, in essence, the fruits of successful business?
The point is that we all contribute to the state, and we all benefit from it. The state helps keep the poor alive; the state helps the rich prosper.
Quote from: we vs us on April 23, 2011, 12:48:09 PM
Why the focus on income tax? That tells you very little about the actual tax burden of those 47%. Your suggestion that, because they don't pay income tax, those folks somehow don't contribute to the well being of the country is just flat wrong. These people still pay sales tax, property tax, sundry state and local taxes, and fees of all sorts. They also pay payroll taxes, which support Medicare and Social Security. Also unemployment insurance. Etc.
The "rich" pay all those same taxes as well, and at a higher rate, in additional to income tax. So what's your point? And incidentally, all those taxes you listed combined would amount to about 10% of what the rich people I am talking about pay in the real heavy federal income tax.
As for using the infrastructure, I work from my house and my wife drives to work 3-4 days a week. Does that sound like I am using up the infrastructure? How about you? Your problem is similar to many on the left. Not all "rich" people are international corporations. Many are your neighbors that just happened to work hard and sacrifice to become successful.
All I want is the bottom feeders and non-income tax payers to shut the heck up when it comes to the rich having to pay more. Seriously, can anyone explain to me how those folks have the gonads to complain? And why should I have to pay while almost half of us do not?
From the actual article cited.....
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
QuoteData from the Tax Foundation show that in 2008, the average income for the bottom half of taxpayers was $15,300.
This year the first $9,350 of income is exempt from taxes for singles and $18,700 for married couples, just slightly more than in 2008. That means millions of the poor do not make enough to owe income taxes.
But they still pay plenty of other taxes, including federal payroll taxes. Between gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes and other taxes, no one lives tax-free in America.
When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more.
QuoteThe Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.
It's true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That's because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.
QuoteWhen Reagan was elected president, the top marginal tax rate (the tax rate paid on the last dollar of income earned) was 70 percent. He cut it to 50 percent and then 28 percent starting in 1987. It was raised by George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and then cut by George W. Bush. The top rate is now 35 percent.
Since 1980, when Reagan won the presidency promising prosperity through tax cuts, the average income of the vast majority—the bottom 90 percent of Americans—has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent. Put another way, for each dollar people in the vast majority made in 1980, in 2008 their income was up to $1.01.
Those at the top did better. The top 1 percent's average income more than doubled to $1.1 million, according to an analysis of tax data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. The really rich, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, each enjoyed almost $4 in 2008 for each dollar in 1980.
The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million, the data show.
But thanks, Republicans, for coming up with a tax plan that will screw the poor/working poor/lower middle class out of medicare and medicaid, the programs payroll taxes are used to finance...
QuotePresident Reagan signed into law 11 tax increases, targeted at people down the income ladder. His administration and the Washington press corps called the increases "revenue enhancers." Reagan raised Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax.
George W. Bush signed a tax increase, too, in 2006, despite his written ironclad pledge never to raise taxes on anyone. It raised taxes on teenagers by requiring kids up to age 17, who earned money, to pay taxes at their parents' tax rate, which would almost always be higher than the rate they would otherwise pay. It was a story that ran buried inside The New York Times one Sunday, but nowhere else.
In fact, thanks to Republicans, one in three Americans will pay higher taxes this year than they did last year.
First, some history. In 2009, President Obama pushed his own tax cut—for the working class. He persuaded Congress to enact the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. Over the two years 2009 and 2010, it saved single workers up to $800 and married heterosexual couples up to $1,600, even if only one spouse worked. The top 5 percent or so of taxpayers were denied this tax break.
The Obama administration called it "the biggest middle-class tax cut" ever. Yet last December the Republicans, poised to regain control of the House of Representatives, killed Obama's Making Work Pay Credit while extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years—a policy Obama agreed to.
By doing so, Congressional Republican leaders increased taxes on a third of Americans, virtually all of them the working poor, this year.
As a result, of the 155 million households in the tax system, 51 million will pay an average of $129 more this year. That is $6.6 billion in higher taxes for the working poor, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated.
Of course, why not just end the Earned Income Tax Credit for all those "deadbeats"?
Well...... there you go again.... Ronald Reagan called the tax credit
"the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."
Quote
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That's because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.
How much more Social Security benefits will Warren Buffet get than the guy who only made $106,800?
Edit:
Quote
Reagan raised Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax.
How much of that surplus came from raising the cap on the amount of salary/wages subject to Social Security? In the late 70s/early 80s, the cap was somewhere around $20,000. Reagan had that limit raised.
I don't think Warren Buffett cares much about the taxes he pays on his first $106,800.......
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-share/
QuoteSo that got me to thinking about how fair the tax system really is. Do the well-off pay their fair share, or do they also deserve a tax break?
Well, let's start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn't being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett's 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.
So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.
And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.
So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet.
What about those of us who are merely among the well-off, and not in the Buffett-stratosphere?
Now, I'm no Warren Buffett (believe me!), but I've just finished figuring out my federal taxes for the year. I live comfortably (one of the virtues of teaching in a business school), but was dismayed to learn that my federal taxes for 2007 amount to only 16 percent of my income.
This strikes me as astonishingly low. And it's not like I have a fancy approach to tax minimization; I just write off a bunch of business-related expenses, and benefit enormously from deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Obviously city and state taxes drive my total tax bill up a bit further, as do payroll taxes, although I plan on getting some of that back as social security in my old age.
But the point remains: I had never quite realized that the Warren Buffett problem extends far enough down the income distribution that even folks like myself aren't paying their fair share.
So I repeated Warren Buffett's experiment here at Wharton. And it appears that I'm paying lower taxes than the administrative staff in my department. And if it is true here, I suspect the same goes equally for most folks in the top 10 percent of income earners. (Incidentally, according to Piketty and Saez, around half of all income in the U.S. goes to those of us in the top decile — roughly anyone with a family income of six figures or more.)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2009/04/15/no-tea-party-protests-for-teddy-roosevelt-republican-champion-of-the-income-tax
QuoteWe grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows.... We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used.
It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.
This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.
No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered—not gambling in stocks, but service rendered.
The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective—a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.
I'm wondering why we can't be a little more fixated on this quote....
"Reagan raised Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax."
Quote from: JeffM on April 23, 2011, 05:43:25 PM
I don't think Warren Buffett cares much about the taxes he pays on his first $106,800.......
I doubt it too. Social Security benefits are also down in the noise compared to the rest of his income. The point is that he paid them and his benefits are based on the first $106,800 of his income, not his total income. For most of us, the payroll tax represents more of our total income but so will our SS benefits.
Quote
I'm wondering why we can't be a little more fixated on this quote....
"Reagan raised Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax."
Because the whole story about how it got there is not included. Rates went up some but the amount of income subject to the tax also went up from somewhere around $20,000 to $106,800.
I need to quit my job as an Engineer and get job as a Secretary for Warren Buffet. For her overall (Federal) income tax to be in the 30% range, her taxable income would need to be taxed at a rate above 30%. The 2008 tax tables show for a taxpayer filing as single, the 33% bracket starts at $164,550 and goes to $357,700. The overall tax rate at $164,550 is ($40,052.25/$164,550.00) 24.34%. Even in that range the deductions for yourself, standard deduction, 401K are significant. At $357,700, the overall rate is 29%. This is obviously more than the overall rate that WB pays. However, someone is taking the marginal rate and trying to make it sound like the overall rate. The overall rate at $78,850 is 20.36%. The poor working stiff (filing single) with taxable income of $32,550 is at an overall rate of 13.77%. A married couple can have a taxable income up to $65,100 and still be at the 13.77% overall rate. A married couple with taxable income of $131,450 is taxed at an overall rate of 19.44%. Remember these are taxable incomes, not gross income. At lower income levels, the personal deduction and standard deduction are significant. At slightly higher levels which enable a 401K contribution, that deduction can be significant.
It appears that only the upper middle class is getting screwed.
Tax table info from the 2008 Form 1040 instruction booklet.
Quote from: guido911 on April 23, 2011, 01:07:13 PM
And why should I have to pay while almost half of us do not?
Because you can afford it. 8)
https://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/save-the-rich-pay-your-taxes/ (https://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/save-the-rich-pay-your-taxes/)
good example of how bad the rich have it when it comes to taxes (of course this assumes capital gains tax)
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 11:29:58 AM
https://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/save-the-rich-pay-your-taxes/ (https://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/save-the-rich-pay-your-taxes/)
good example of how bad the rich have it when it comes to taxes (of course this assumes capital gains tax)
Using the table at your link, the best way to correct the tax inequity would be to get rid of Social Security & Medicare/Medicade. That would leave the millionaire's tax at 13.66% but reduce the janitor's tax rate to a mere 9.58%. Everyone would be happy. The millionaire won't care about the loss of Social Security income since, presumably, he will be well taken care of without it. The janitor will be happy knowing that the millionaire will be burdened with a high tax rate because he makes so much money.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 02:01:08 PM
Using the table at your link, the best way to correct the tax inequity would be to get rid of Social Security & Medicare/Medicade. That would leave the millionaire's tax at 13.66% but reduce the janitor's tax rate to a mere 9.58%. Everyone would be happy. The millionaire won't care about the loss of Social Security income since, presumably, he will be well taken care of without it. The janitor will be happy knowing that the millionaire will be burdened with a high tax rate because he makes so much money.
Yeah, but we will have to raise the tax rate for all the people that don't save for retirement and live longer than they expect. Removing social security creates a new problem that will nee to be funded. I am unsure what the savings would be.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 02:28:02 PM
Yeah, but we will have to raise the tax rate for all the people that don't save for retirement and live longer than they expect. Removing social security creates a new problem that will nee to be funded. I am unsure what the savings would be.
I don't really propose to eliminate SS.
My point is that for the people that really need it, it's going to be a significant portion of their income to pay for at least some of it. It's a forced entry retirement plan. You are going to save for your retirement whether you want to or not. (Yes, kind of like ObamaCare wants to be for health care.) It is now more than a program to keep people from literally starving to death and they should be willing to pay for it. The money everyone puts in is an investment in their future with a direct benefit to them. It's not like infrastructure, the military, police, fire and so on where everyone chips in but the benefits are usually indirect. Everything that the less than really wealthy spend or buy is likely to be a greater portion of their income than the really wealthy. Housing, food, clothing, transportation, big screen TV, cell phone ... The interest deduction on your mortgage is a greater proportion of your income than for the really wealthy. The only way to "correct" that is to put a cap on income. Care to pick a number?
I know that SS is essentially a generation behind the recipients regarding payments but the payments allow you to join the club.
The various self funded retirement programs are more benefit to the middle class than the wealthy. They have caps on them to prevent the wealthy from benefiting from the deferred tax benefit to the same percentage of their income as the less wealthy. Once a person makes enough money to save anything, there are ways to participate in the Capital gains benefit. One of the most obvious is downsizing your home, assuming you bought a home and managed to sell it for more than you paid for it. My employer has a stock purchase plan where I can buy stock at a discount twice a year. If I keep it more than a year, the gain on the value is at the capital gains rate. Dividends are taxed as ordinary income. I can guarantee you that the only way my income can be counted as 6 figures is to count numbers to the right of the decimal point.
The benefits aren't there for the higher wage earners. I agree, I don't think that they should pay on all their interest. I am trying to point out that 2-3% higher income tax is within the budget when you don't have to pay the other 13%.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
I am trying to point out that 2-3% higher income tax is within the budget when you don't have to pay the other 13%.
Which gets us back to the question of whether you think the government would spend that 2-3% more wisely than individuals. Some of us say yes, some say no.
3% of $100,000 is $3000. That's enough to tick one off and maybe delay a purchase.
3% of $10,000,000 is $300,000. Not enough to break the bank account but certainly enough to pay for a few hours of a tax accountant/attorney.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 03:21:55 PM
Which gets us back to the question of whether you think the government would spend that 2-3% more wisely than individuals. Some of us say yes, some say no.
Ahh, see you missed the the major concept. It isn't being "spent".
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 07:08:32 PM
Ahh, see you missed the the major concept. It isn't being "spent".
Ahh, I see you believe the rich stuff their mattresses with their spare money. You miss the concept that if they do anything else, someone else has access to some of it somehow.
Red,
Wow! Something we agree on absolutely 100% right down the line - the government can't spend money well or smartly or any other positive way. Look at the hundreds of billions squandered on worthless, pointless nonsense in Iraq over the last 8 years! With no real reason other than either imperialistic voyeurism OR maintaining the concept of continuous war as an economic policy!
And isn't is also amazing how when we re-focused on the REAL issue - Afghanistan and Al Qaeda - the Republicontin's jumped on the bandwagon to nay say?? But I wouldn't expect it any other way.
CharlieSheen,
You have fallen into the trap of accepting what guido spews about how horribly mistreated the rich are because they have to pay an extra 3%. When in actuality they don't. As has been shown here repeatedly. And has been voiced by Warren Buffet - you remember how he has said over an over that his rate is way less than his secretary.
And it doesn't just apply at millions - it starts WAY before the magical $250,000 of recent propaganda fame. guido has been enjoying a 15% break for years. And is now likely investigating a way to get ANOTHER 10 to 20% break.
And the other part of it where the poorest half of the country pays no income tax. Well, anyone with even half a brain knows that just isn't so. (Except of course, it they are buying anything from GE!!) But for most corporations, income tax is a pass through - passed through to the customers who buy the product or service. That was a point that was made in 8th grade economics. Too bad so many RWRE missed that one. I guess they should have stayed to actually experience 8th grade!
(It's their "handlers" that went on to college and Harvard MBA and law school!)
Don't let the rich, or even the very well off ($250,000 and above) con you into believing the RWRE Murdochian/Rove misinformation and distortion. It just ain't so.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2011, 08:34:01 PM
CharlieSheen,
You have fallen into the trap of accepting what guido spews about how horribly mistreated the rich are because they have to pay an extra 3%. When in actuality they don't. As has been shown here repeatedly. And has been voiced by Warren Buffet - you remember how he has said over an over that his rate is way less than his secretary.
The rich are being "horribly mistreated"? How about the lower/middle class getting a free ride on the rich folk's backs. Sheesh, Sheen sees the point. All of us should have at least
some skin in the game. However, you appear okay with almost half of us paying no income tax while hitting up the other half for more money.
And for finality, stop with your dumb@ssed understanding of what I pay in taxes. I am not Buffett or any other millionaire/billionaire. After the meager deductions I still qualify for, I pay much higher tax rate than your uninformed and ignorant brain believes.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 07:28:01 PM
Ahh, I see you believe the rich stuff their mattresses with their spare money. You miss the concept that if they do anything else, someone else has access to some of it somehow.
You know what i did with my free money a few years ago? Bought GE stock. Up 22%.. Good for me.. Oh, yeah the government got 0 tax revenue from them or me so far. Bought some land too, at least the real estate agent made a few bucks of it. The bank will get a little less money on the other peoples loans. Our economy is sadly based on people buying crap they don't need. The investment money is used to pay the upper management a crap load of money and hopefully make the shareholders money (which will probably be taxed 15%).
The top 95% continue to make money while the plebs at 100k below are going to stay where they are. They rich are investing it in huge companies that shift their profits to overseas units. BTW, investing in companies that don't have people buying their products doesn't help the economy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg)
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
The rich are being "horribly mistreated"? How about the lower/middle class getting a free ride on the rich folk's backs. Sheesh, Sheen sees the point. All of us should have at least some skin in the game. However, you appear okay with almost half of us paying no income tax while hitting up the other half for more money.
And for finality, stop with your dumb@ssed understanding of what I pay in taxes. I am not Buffett or any other millionaire/billionaire. After the meager deductions I still qualify for, I pay much higher tax rate than your uninformed and ignorant brain believes.
I doubt Guido is rich enough to have a substantial portion of his income coming from stocks/dividends. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 22, 2011, 03:35:26 PM
The way I see the chart, the rich appear to be paying a proportion of taxes higher than their proportion of income. Is that correct?
Slightly higher, yes. Makes sense, given that they buy more things and own more things, thus pay more sales and property tax.
I need to look around for the graph, but the rich pay significantly less tax in proportion to their wealth than the middle class (and the lowest quintile, for that matter). You'll never hear that from the Wall Street Journal, of course.
Quote from: nathanm on April 24, 2011, 09:11:06 PM
Slightly higher, yes. Makes sense, given that they buy more things and own more things, thus pay more sales and property tax.
I need to look around for the graph, but the rich pay significantly less tax in proportion to their wealth than the middle class (and the lowest quintile, for that matter). You'll never hear that from the Wall Street Journal, of course.
Well "wealth" has already been taxed. Obviously somebody make 1 million can save a lot more than somebody with 30k a year. If we based it on wealth, somebody who makes 30k a year would be taxed more because they save more money vs a 30ker who spends it all. Of course the person who spends it all is getting the economy moving more. Until they retire and we have to pay for everything.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 09:09:35 PM
I doubt Guido is rich enough to have a substantial portion of his income coming from stocks/dividends. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Spot on Sheen. Heiron is among those that think all of the "rich" should be treated the same. And dammit I'm jealous over your GE investment. ;D
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2011, 09:19:17 PM
Spot on Sheen. Heiron is among those that think all of the "rich" should be treated the same. And dammit I'm jealous over your GE investment. ;D
Well, I am saying the rich should all be treated the same. In that I shouldn't get a 20% tax cut because I have stock dividends. I am fine with the increased risk creating some benefit. But I feel that 20% is just too much. Bring it up with 23% and I would be happy. People who work for their money or own a business shouldn't get screwed because they work for their money instead of getting it from investments.
On Ge, It wasn't much :( Spent the rest on a business investment.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 23, 2011, 07:06:03 PM
I doubt it too. Social Security benefits are also down in the noise compared to the rest of his income. The point is that he be paid them and his benefits are based on the first $106,800 of his income, not his total income. For most of us, the payroll tax represents more of our total income but so will our SS benefits.
Because the whole story about how it got there is not included. Rates went up some but the amount of income subject to the tax also went up from somewhere around $20,000 to $106,800.
Tax table info from the 2008 Form 1040 instruction booklet.
...and those benefits are going to paid out higher for people making $106k than the folks making $20k..... everybody gets a statement once a year with an estimate of what benefits will be.... nobody gets rich off of social security, but the idea is that nobody is forced to eat cat food and sell everything they own at the end of their lives either... George W. Bush tried to privatize social security while the program was running a HUGE surplus from the time Reagan raised my payroll taxes.... go figure.
Maximum Taxable Earnings Each Year1937 - 50 $ 3,000
1951 - 54 3,600
1955 - 58 4,200
1959 - 65 4,800
1966 - 67 6,600
1968 - 71 7,800
1972 9,000
1973 10,800
1974 13,200
1975 14,100
1976 15,300
1977 16,500
1978 17,700
1979 22,900
1980 25,900
1981 29,700
1982 $32,400
1983 35,700
1984 37,800
1985 39,600
1986 42,000
1987 43,800
1988 45,000
1989 48,000
1990 51,300
1991 53,400
1992 55,500
1993 57,600
1994 60,600
1995 61,200
1996 62,700
1997 65,400
1998 $68,400
1999 72,600
2000 76,200
2001 80,400
2002 84,900
2003 87,000
2004 87,900
2005 90,000
2006 94,200
2007 97,500
2008 102,000
2009 106,800
2010 106,800
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 09:08:31 PM
You know what i did with my free money a few years ago? Bought GE stock. Up 22%.. Good for me.. Oh, yeah the government got 0 tax revenue from them or me so far. Bought some land too, at least the real estate agent made a few bucks of it.
GE might (unlikely) be down 22% next year. Do you think you (or a really rich person) should be taxed on unrealized gains? Same with your land purchase. Yep, the agent gets their cut, same as a stock broker etc. They make money whether you do or not. Not something I like but that's the way it is.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
People who work for their money or own a business shouldn't get screwed because they work for their money instead of getting it from investments.
I cannot argue at all with that. Folks who moronically think that ALL "rich" people get paid by investment money have zero clue about reality. Those people are just boring parrots.
Quote from: JeffM on April 24, 2011, 09:30:20 PM
...and those benefits are going to paid out higher for people making $106k than the folks making $20k..... everybody gets a statement once a year with an estimate of what benefits will be.... nobody gets rich off of social security, but the idea is that nobody is forced to eat cat food and sell everything they own at the end of their lives either... George W. Bush tried to privatize social security while the program was running a HUGE surplus from the time Reagan raised my payroll taxes.... go figure.
I agree that privatization of SS was a bad idea. What is your problem with someone paying in at rates based on $106,800/year getting more benefits than someone paying in at rates based on $20K/year as long as no one has to eat cat food?
Quote from: nathanm on April 24, 2011, 09:11:06 PM
Slightly higher, yes. Makes sense, given that they buy more things and own more things, thus pay more sales and property tax.
I need to look around for the graph, but the rich pay significantly less tax in proportion to their wealth than the middle class (and the lowest quintile, for that matter).
Then why did you post the graph you did?
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 09:13:12 PM
Well "wealth" has already been taxed. Obviously somebody make 1 million can save a lot more than somebody with 30k a year. If we based it on wealth, somebody who makes 30k a year would be taxed more because they save more money vs a 30ker who spends it all. Of course the person who spends it all is getting the economy moving more. Until they retire and we have to pay for everything.
And the guy that made $1M and saved more will be more likely to spend more in retirement and keep the economy going. Maybe we should tax all interest income at less than earned income to give the small time saver a break. More tax code....
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 09:40:56 PM
What is your problem with someone paying in at rates based on $106,800/year getting more benefits than someone paying in at rates based on $20K/year as long as no one has to eat cat food?
It's soccer boy. In his mind, the evil rich are always getting over at his expense.
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 09:09:13 PM
Why does that matter? Half our country pays no federal income tax and you seem more interested in why rather than why not? I am going to ask for the last time, is it "fair" that 47% of this country pays no fed income taxes? Sheen showed fortitude and answered.
And, is it right that those paying nothing demand that those paying should pay more?
Yes, because they count as ONE VOTE per person in a civilized democracy... (not 5 votes per landowner or 1/3 of a vote for a slave or indentured servant)...
Yawn.
And again, YES, because we have a modern progressive federal tax system in this country which has been around for decades.... it means a full time college student or a working mom with 3 kids isn't going to pay the same rate of taxes I pay..... and I shouldn't be paying the same rate as someone who makes TEN TIMES THE MONEY I DO.....
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/15/subsidies-income-tax-transparency-opinions-tax-day-10-contributors-len-burman.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/47-of-tea-partiers-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/38924/
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 09:56:30 PM
And the guy that made $1M and saved more will be more likely to spend more in retirement and keep the economy going. Maybe we should tax all interest income at less than earned income to give the small time saver a break. More tax code....
20 or 30 years from now doesn't help us today.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 09:52:41 PM
Then why did you post the graph you did?
Because it was easily at hand and clearly shows that guido (and his..sources) is talking nonsense when he claims that poor people pay no tax in a lame attempt to justify his class warfare.
Quote from: nathanm on April 24, 2011, 10:08:36 PM
Because it was easily at hand and clearly shows that guido (and his..sources) is talking nonsense when he claims that poor people pay no tax in a lame attempt to justify his class warfare.
While they are paying into social security and medicaire. They are supposed to be paying for themselves. You are correct in that a greater proportion of their income will go towards sales tax that the higher brackets.
Quote from: nathanm on April 24, 2011, 10:08:36 PM
Because it was easily at hand and clearly shows that guido (and his..sources) is talking nonsense when he claims that poor people pay no tax in a lame attempt to justify his class warfare.
Unfortunately (?) it also shows that the rich are paying taxes in a reasonable proportion to their income.
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2011, 09:57:18 PM
It's soccer boy. In his mind, the evil rich are always getting over at his expense.
First, I've done enough high end "wine and cheese" parties over the years to meet a number of well connected "philanthropists." And if I want a soccer team to play at the old Driller Park, I'll have to find some more of those people..... I DO NOT BEGRUDGE WEALTH..... but.....
The "evil rich" were paying a 35% tax rate which was reduced from 39.6% when this country was supposedly running a "surplus".... the Bush tax cuts should have expired and been replaced with War taxes earmarked for Afghanistan and Iraq a long time ago...
And yes, I worked my butt off back in the 80s as a full time college student.... while at the same time the "supply-side" Reaganistas made sure the minimum wage was frozen for the years I was in college.... and the Gramm-Rudmann budget cuts asked "shared sacrifice" of me but asked nothing of my richer college classmates who used their newfound Reaganomics tax status and sense of priviledged entitlement to "stimulate the economy" by buying their first new BMW's........ go figure.
From the mouth of Teddy Roosevelt.......
"Every dollar received should represent a dollars worth of service rendered, not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 10:11:21 PM
While they are paying into social security and medicaire. They are supposed to be paying for themselves. You are correct in that a greater proportion of their income will go towards sales tax that the higher brackets.
One way around that would be to exempt necessities like real food (not junk food snacks), clothing, and prescription drugs from sales tax. Pennsylvania did that when our family lived there (until 1971). I don't know about now.
Quote from: JeffM on April 24, 2011, 10:17:02 PM
And yes, I worked my butt off back in the 80s as a full time college student.... while at the same time the Reaganistas made sure the minimum wage was frozen for the years I was in college....
Making sure you had a job for some wages rather than nothing at all....
Quote
From the mouth of Teddy Roosevelt.......
"Every dollar received should represent a dollars worth of service rendered, not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
And when Teddy R was president there were very few social programs. Not until (I believe his second cousin) was elected did SS etc exist, changing everything.See, I know where the
BOLD button is too.
Quote from: JeffM on April 24, 2011, 09:59:27 PM
and I shouldn't be paying the same rate as someone who makes TEN TIMES THE MONEY I DO.....
Same rate, yes I believe you should. The total dollars will be a lot higher but I have no problem with the same rate (as in percentage of taxable income). Loopholes are another issue.
We will probably have to disagree on this issue.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 10:31:28 PM
Same rate, yes I believe you should. The total dollars will be a lot higher but I have no problem with the same rate (as in percentage of taxable income). Loopholes are another issue.
We will probably have to disagree on this issue.
Then you'll also have to disagree with the last 100 years of tax history in this country.....
Historical Income Tax Rates & Brackets
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
guido said;
The rich are being "horribly mistreated"? How about the lower/middle class getting a free ride on the rich folk's backs. Sheesh, Sheen sees the point. All of us should have at least some skin in the game. However, you appear okay with almost half of us paying no income tax while hitting up the other half for more money.
And for finality, stop with your dumb@ssed understanding of what I pay in taxes. I am not Buffett or any other millionaire/billionaire. After the meager deductions I still qualify for, I pay much higher tax rate than your uninformed and ignorant brain believes.
And now for something entirely different - reality!!
Ahhh...the name calling again! Yeah, team. Good to know we can always count on guido to revert. At least there is one point of stability in this world!
I wonder sometimes how someone can get through a college education with no better comprehension skills? Oh, wait, there IS the George W. Bush example...
As has been explained so many times before, the poor are not exempt from income taxes as the RWRE would have you believe. You know this for a fact, and yet persist in the misinformation and lies! And the percentage they pay is on a par with anything you pay - unless of course most of what they buy is from GE.
As for your tax situation - well, I am sorry you only get a 14% break over what I and so many on a W-2 have to pay on every penny over the $106,000 or so...
And as for the rest of the other 15% or so break, well I submit that is your own ignorance (see, not the only one who can do name calling!) for not listening to me about ISO's. I hand it to you on a silver platter, and all you can do is blather the RWRE script! What are we gonna do with you?? Buy you books, send you to school, and what? Become a lawyer.... well, we tried!
As for paying the same rates as the rich?? Would that the bulk of the middle class could get by at such low rates!! Your failure to learn how to "game the system" does not constitute either uninformed or ignorant on my behalf! I DO understand how they game the system. (And yes, I admit, I would love to be there with you! Class envy, and all that...)
The big problem is that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle, among hundreds of others of the richest have been saying for years how unfair the system is. And they are the ones that can be believed. Not Murdoch/Rove/Cheney, LLC.
The question is, is FICA a tax or a charge for a service. Obviously you shouldn't pay for a service you won't be using. I know for certain that most self employed people would much rather opt out and put the same % in their own savings account. I actually think that is a good deal. However, I still want people who can't handle money to save for retirement and have some sort of investment for dummies option.
The reality of the last 30 years or so is that it has been blended into the main general fund so deeply that it is meaningless to talk about it in terms of a "trust fund".
Investment for Dummies. Sounds like you might be buying into the idea that a 401k is the "solution", or a viable replacement for a defined benefit pension system. Sad. The 401k has been an absolute catastrophe in this country. It took professional money managers out of the equation and turned everyone into their own professional money manager. (Yeah, that was clever.) But it did allow corporate America to get a windfall raiding all those pesky old pension funds. Another Reagan benefit - pension "reform".
For dummies=treasuries
Quote from: JeffM on April 24, 2011, 11:01:19 PM
Then you'll also have to disagree with the last 100 years of tax history in this country.....
Historical Income Tax Rates & Brackets
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
Actually I do disagree with the last 100 years of tax history.
Surprised?
Quote from: CharlieSheen on April 24, 2011, 11:35:41 PM
The question is, is FICA a tax or a charge for a service. Obviously you shouldn't pay for a service you won't be using. I know for certain that most self employed people would much rather opt out and put the same % in their own savings account. I actually think that is a good deal. However, I still want people who can't handle money to save for retirement and have some sort of investment for dummies option.
Tax or service or something else? I don't know what to call it. FDR and his buddies evidently knew how to beat the Commerce Clause issues.
Opting out may sound like a good deal, right up until your intelligent investment schemes collapse for unforeseen reasons. Since SS is a bottom line starvation prevention tool, I believe that everyone needs to be in the system. That includes politicians too.
As far as paying for something you may not use, I believe most defined benefit retirement programs are that way. They are transportable to a spouse at a lower benefit rate. My dad's is that way. My mom gets benefits but they will not transfer to me upon her death. If they had both died early there woul be no money for me or my brother and sister. The hateful 401K partly addresses that issue.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 25, 2011, 06:26:37 AM
Actually I do disagree with the last 100 years of tax history.
Surprised?
I suppose you could disagree that it isn't fair from an ideological standpoint, but the last 100 years are undeniably successful from the standpoint of the American economic juggernaut. Our tax policy has been part and parcel of funding that success. Our current tax policy -- specifically the Bush tax cuts -- are an historical aberration, and the rich literally haven't had it this good since the Great Depression, which is 85+ years ago. It's not so for the rest of us, who have seen better days.
Conservative ideology these days seems to discount even the success of recent historical tax levels -- during Clinton, only 15 years ago! -- that helped us balance the budget and run surpluses. The Bush tax cuts certainly aren't the only problem with our budget, but they are a couple trillion dollars worth of it. Rescind them for every income level and you have a major component of the deficit solved.
And what evidence is there that the government will misspend Clinton level revenue? Why do you think that the government today will do something that the government of 15 years ago didn't? Is it the intervening years of Bush II's corruption and incompetence? I'd like to suggest that the Bush II experience isn't the way American government always has been, and isn't proof that government will always eat itself. It's more about where it will go if pushed. And it's less a lesson about the nature of government itself and a lesson about the character of the person who is installed as the chief executive.
Quote from: guido911 on April 24, 2011, 09:19:17 PM
Spot on Sheen. Heiron is among those that think all of the "rich" should be treated the same. And dammit I'm jealous over your GE investment. ;D
If you had bought significant amounts of GE, Ford, or especially Dollar Thrifty stock the first week of March of 2009 you'd be whistling Dixie out your rear end right now. ;)
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 24, 2011, 10:25:08 PM
Making sure you had a job for some wages rather than nothing at all....
I seem to recall posting the stats. Reagan made things worse on the job front. ;)
Edited to add: As long as we all realize where we are, where we've been, and where we want to go:
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh2qbgDXoj1qf10tro1_500.png)
(http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png)
Compared to who pays taxes:
(http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_7.gif)
But it's understandable why a certain segment of society would be spending a lot of money to protect themselves. They haven't had it so good since the introduction of the income tax! They get complainy about paying tax in proportion to their income because they don't want you to notice that you pay tax far out of proportion to your wealth, despite them deriving more benefit from most of the expenditure:
(http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif)
Edited again to add: One more tidbit. Those state taxes, where all of the growth in tax is coming from?
(http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_6.gif)
Quote from: we vs us on April 25, 2011, 08:31:52 AM
I suppose you could disagree that it isn't fair from an ideological standpoint,...
My personal preference (assuming we continue to tax income rather than use a different tax) would be to have a single rate (percentage of taxable income) after a reasonable deduction for the cost of living. For example (I don't know if these numbers would provide the needed income) a $15,000 deduction for every wage earner followed by a 20% tax on the remaining taxable income. This would help protect the lower wage earners and is actually the one progressive part of taxing income that I would support.
Someone with $30,000 income would pay $3000 in tax, or 10%.
Someone with $1,000,000 income would pay $197,000 in tax, or 19.7 %
This intentionally does not address Social Security. I have addressed SS in other posts in this thread.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 24, 2011, 11:23:34 PM
guido said;
The rich are being "horribly mistreated"? How about the lower/middle class getting a free ride on the rich folk's backs. Sheesh, Sheen sees the point. All of us should have at least some skin in the game. However, you appear okay with almost half of us paying no income tax while hitting up the other half for more money.
And for finality, stop with your dumb@ssed understanding of what I pay in taxes. I am not Buffett or any other millionaire/billionaire. After the meager deductions I still qualify for, I pay much higher tax rate than your uninformed and ignorant brain believes.
And now for something entirely different - reality!!
Ahhh...the name calling again! Yeah, team. Good to know we can always count on guido to revert. At least there is one point of stability in this world!
I wonder sometimes how someone can get through a college education with no better comprehension skills? Oh, wait, there IS the George W. Bush example...
As has been explained so many times before, the poor are not exempt from income taxes as the RWRE would have you believe. You know this for a fact, and yet persist in the misinformation and lies! And the percentage they pay is on a par with anything you pay - unless of course most of what they buy is from GE.
As for your tax situation - well, I am sorry you only get a 14% break over what I and so many on a W-2 have to pay on every penny over the $106,000 or so...
And as for the rest of the other 15% or so break, well I submit that is your own ignorance (see, not the only one who can do name calling!) for not listening to me about ISO's. I hand it to you on a silver platter, and all you can do is blather the RWRE script! What are we gonna do with you?? Buy you books, send you to school, and what? Become a lawyer.... well, we tried!
As for paying the same rates as the rich?? Would that the bulk of the middle class could get by at such low rates!! Your failure to learn how to "game the system" does not constitute either uninformed or ignorant on my behalf! I DO understand how they game the system. (And yes, I admit, I would love to be there with you! Class envy, and all that...)
The big problem is that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and John Bogle, among hundreds of others of the richest have been saying for years how unfair the system is. And they are the ones that can be believed. Not Murdoch/Rove/Cheney, LLC.
Calling me a liar? Did you read my link which says almost half do not pay federal income tax. Do you disagree or have an alternative source? If not, shut the hell up. And while we are at it, are you telling us that you earn a six figure income and pay more in FICA/tax than I do? And in your mind I am the economic moron?
Oh, and because some uber-rich think the tax system is unfair
ipso facto makes it so? You are a real dumbass.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2011, 10:57:24 AM
Calling me a liar? Did you read my link which says almost half do not pay federal income tax.
And yet they pay more in total tax as a percentage of their income. Quit your whining.
He is a whiner. What can ya say....
Calling you a liar? Depends on whether you embrace the lies of the extremist RWRE who have this particular point in their script 24/7, and then repeat it! With the exception of GE and a few other select corporations, the pass through income taxes are paid NOT by the corporation, but by the people who buy their product. This is such simple Econ 101, I cannot believe you are so unable to comprehend. These same people, who are in the bottom 50% of the incomes in this country may well not have a tax due on the 1040 - in fact, several of those who I help from time to time with their tax forms are in that category.
The TRUTH, though, is that they indeed DO pay income tax in this country, and many at a greater rate than if they could pay only the tax from the tax tables in the 1040 instructions.
And while I cannot pay more than you, yes, I pay as much FICA tax as you do. So there.... naw, naw, naw, naw, naw!! And it IS a much greater percentage of my income than what YOU have to pay. (Source; your comments about being one of the rich...)
But wait!! You have a corporation to hide in, so if you were at all intelligent, you would pay yourself a nominal salary, say, $50,000 per year. Enough to be a reasonable wage to keep the IRS off your back, but not enough so you would be stuck like those poor suckers who have to work for a living, paying on the whole $106,000 of salary.
Just another 50,000 or so where you get to enjoy the benefit of that cute little 14% tax break. Or putting it in dollars, over $7,000 in extra money you get to avoid paying taxes on!! Is this a great country or what?? Now that I think it through, yeah, I bet I do pay more in FICA than you do, in absolute terms, as well as percentages!
And, with the realization that this doesn't even make it in one ear to be able to go out the other, others may benefit - it is not just the uber-rich that think the tax system is unfair. The vast majority of the people in this country feel likewise. And they are right! It IS class warfare, but not the way the RWRE wants you to believe. It IS redistribution of wealth, again, not the way the RWRE wants you to believe.
But the 'regular' people in this country don't have the resources to buy their own Congress like "your kind" does. And that IS wrong!
Ahhhh, what sweet endearments - would have thought that attending law school would helped with a vocabulary and methods to create a reasoned argument or at least make a case. But hey, if name calling is all you got,...go for it!!
What is so amazing is that you actually think it IS fair, and you DO feel "entitled" (THAT'S what is meant by entitlement!) because you are just sooo special.... Like the other top 1%ers.
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2011, 11:08:50 AM
And yet they pay more in total tax as a percentage of their income. Quit your whining.
You going to answer my questions about three pages back or punk out?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2011, 01:17:49 PM
It IS class warfare, but not the way the RWRE wants you to believe. It IS redistribution of wealth, again, not the way the RWRE wants you to believe.
If wealth redistribution is such a great success, why are so many people chronically under-employed, unemployed, and living in poverty?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 25, 2011, 01:49:53 PM
If wealth redistribution is such a great success, why are so many people chronically under-employed, unemployed, and living in poverty?
Everyone has learned to eat for a day. . .no one has to fish.
Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day.
Give a man a job and he can eat for an hour, usually between noon and one.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 25, 2011, 02:21:24 PM
Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day.
Give a man a job and he can eat for an hour, usually between noon and one.
But at least he can vary his diet.
I would get tired of fish all the time.
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/boktaxes.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2011, 01:26:03 PM
You going to answer my questions about three pages back or punk out?
I see no question directed at me "about three pages back."
Quote from: guido911 on April 22, 2011, 04:45:00 PM
I'm curious Nate, what is the most you have ever paid in federal income tax? Is it in the six figure area? Doubtful since you are so quick to want to tax people even more who pay that in tax. Try something for me. Think about writing a 6 figure check to the U.S. Treasury not once, but every year you work through retirement. This is what many many people do--and they aren't earning millions a year in taxable income. Do you think that is fair?
I personally cannot fathom how someone could even think that another person that is already paying 5 to 10 times as much as you in fed taxes is not paying enough. The only conclusion I can reach is that sort of thinking is rooted in envy. Pretty sad.
Here ya go Nate.
By that so completely warped and twisted logic, then the nephew who pays about $380 per year should be my gauge so that I should never have to pay more than about $1200 (about 3 times the income). Wow, would I love that!!
So, if I should only pay 1,200, then guido should only have to pay about $3,800 on that $400,000 income (about 3 or 4 times the income?). Or less than 1%. Yeah, that would be so much more fair. I'm ready for that - let's get it started.
10 times what the lower income pays at a 1% rate - nice!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2011, 08:22:26 PM
By that so completely warped and twisted logic, then the nephew who pays about $380 per year should be my gauge so that I should never have to pay more than about $1200 (about 3 times the income). Wow, would I love that!!
So, if I should only pay 1,200, then guido should only have to pay about $3,800 on that $400,000 income (about 3 or 4 times the income?). Or less than 1%. Yeah, that would be so much more fair. I'm ready for that - let's get it started.
10 times what the lower income pays at a 1% rate - nice!
Who are you bleating at?
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2011, 07:46:32 PM
Here ya go Nate.
No, I have never had to pay $100,000 in tax in a year. That would be a greater than 100% tax for me. The absolute number is unimportant. What is important is the percentage of income and/or wealth. Besides, 6 figures in income tax is piddling. You can complain when it's over a million. After all, I know someone who pays 7 figures in income tax most years.
Personally, each time I get a raise and see my tax go up, I'm
happy. Why? Because I
made more money.
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2011, 08:39:02 PM
The absolute number is unimportant. What is important is the percentage of income and/or wealth.
Well of course to you the percent is more important than the total paid because you have ZERO context/understanding of what it is like to pay big money, which is my entire point. How many years would it take you to even pay 100K in taxes, yet still argue that the rich are not paying enough? I find your type to be nothing more than jealous ingrates.
As for six figure taxes being "piddling", write the check then.
Yeah,... according to guido, the more you make the less you should have to pay. Typical. Just what one should expect.
He is happy to see his taxes go up... but only by about $15. Any more than that would be soooo "unfair" to him. Being so special and deserving and all. But then he is one of the elite. Any more than his "fair" 17% would be just too much!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2011, 08:55:55 PM
Yeah,... according to guido, the more you make the less you should have to pay. Typical. Just what one should expect.
Um, no. The less you pay in taxes, the less you get to b!tch about how others are not paying enough. Try to keep up...Unless this is you which would explain a lot.
(http://media2.wane.com//photo/2011/04/22/Kelly_Gene_Gibson_20110422163023_320_240.JPG)
Bleating is the only language the RWRE understand, so I try to get down to that level.
guido said;
Well of course to you the percent is more important than the total paid because you have ZERO context/understanding of what it is like to pay big money, which is my entire point. How many years would it take you to even pay 100K in taxes, yet still argue that the rich are not paying enough? I find your type to be nothing more than jealous ingrates.
Incredible isn't it? He gets a 14% break to start with. Then the other 15% he could get if he could figure out incentive stock options. But a 30% break above and beyond what normal people get to pay just isn't quite enough. Goes to that entitlement mentality again. I deserve the breaks - and more! - because I make a lot of money.... Just sooo special, aren't we? Yep, we see that in Washington DC every day of the year. Every year of the world.
My guess, he only stays in Oklahoma and doesn't move to Washington is to make sure us po' folks stay in line and keep paying much more than our fair share.
Nathan, notice how he beats your chops about answering a question, but will never answer one himself? Watch out,...the name calling is next!
And the less you pay in taxes, the less right you have to grumble...yeah, right. But since I don't have the resources to buy my own Congress, I guess you are right. At least according to the RWRE script. And the reality of the last 30 years....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2011, 09:07:28 PM
Bleating is the only language the RWRE understand, so I try to get down to that level.
guido said;
Well of course to you the percent is more important than the total paid because you have ZERO context/understanding of what it is like to pay big money, which is my entire point. How many years would it take you to even pay 100K in taxes, yet still argue that the rich are not paying enough? I find your type to be nothing more than jealous ingrates.
Incredible isn't it? He gets a 14% break to start with. Then the other 15% he could get if he could figure out incentive stock options. But a 30% break above and beyond what normal people get to pay just isn't quite enough. Goes to that entitlement mentality again. I deserve the breaks - and more! - because I make a lot of money.... Just sooo special, aren't we? Yep, we see that in Washington DC every day of the year. Every year of the world.
My guess, he only stays in Oklahoma and doesn't move to Washington is to make sure us po' folks stay in line and keep paying much more than our fair share.
Nathan, notice how he beats your chops about answering a question, but will never answer one himself? Watch out,...the name calling is next!
And the less you pay in taxes, the less right you have to grumble...yeah, right. But since I don't have the resources to buy my own Congress, I guess you are right. At least according to the RWRE script. And the reality of the last 30 years....
Are you STILL TALKING? Where do you get the gonads to comment on what I pay in taxes and at what rate. I have a team of financial planners, investment advisers, and tax people. Funny how all those people are massive dumbasses and you, someone having ZERO access to my financial information, knows more than they do. Man you suck on steroids. Do me a favor, just sit in the back seat of the gravy train and get out of the way of those driving it. You know, those people you are nauseating jealous of...
Nate. A piece of advice. When heiron is on your side, you may want to rethink your side.
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2011, 08:39:02 PM
Personally, each time I get a raise and see my tax go up, I'm happy. Why? Because I made more money.
Wouldn't it be nice to keep more than half of it?
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 25, 2011, 09:53:10 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to keep more than half of it?
To this guy, paying more in taxes is a badge of honor or something. I mean, it's like, "Yay, I get to give more to the government for my hard work!"
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2011, 08:52:02 PM
As for six figure taxes being "piddling", write the check then.
Pay me $380,000 a year to do a job and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank. And I'll still be laughing when the government takes its 31.6%. Different outlook on life, I guess.
And apparently, you completely missed my point. You are trying to claim that simply because you pay more tax than I do in absolute terms that my opinion on the matter is invalid. If that's the case, you get to pay more tax, because one of my clients pays 7 figures most years and he thinks his tax rate should be higher. Of course, he's not you, so his opinion is probably still worthless in your eyes.
Quote from: guido911 on April 25, 2011, 09:59:54 PM
To this guy, paying more in taxes is a badge of honor or something. I mean, it's like, "Yay, I get to give more to the government for my hard work!"
No, it's like "yay, I live in a society that doesn't suck that costs money to keep up. I have money, so it's my responsibility to help pay for it!" I realize you think that everything you have is due solely to your own hard work, but that's just a foolish belief you hold.
Hell, as an attorney, you of all people should realize that our legal system is not the least of the things that keeps you where you are.
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2011, 10:17:36 PM
...because one of my clients pays 7 figures most years and he thinks his tax rate should be higher.
People like the client you mention should start a campaign to have a line added to Form 1040 to add a voluntary tax contribution. Then they could easily pay what they feel their fair share would be. No muss, no fuss. Just put a number on a line, do the arithmetic and write a check.
It's actually a serious suggestion. I wonder how much more money the Feds would get. I am certain they would get some.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 25, 2011, 10:33:43 PM
People like the client you mention should start a campaign to have a line added to Form 1040 to add a voluntary tax contribution. Then they could easily pay what they feel their fair share would be. No muss, no fuss. Just put a number on a line, do the arithmetic and write a check.
It's actually a serious suggestion. I wonder how much more money the Feds would get. I am certain they would get some.
Check box for "Deficit (or debt) Reduction Fund". I'd contribute even though I don't feel it's my fault a really corrupt Congress got us in this mess in the first place. I never put a dime into the Presidential Campaign Fund or whatever it is.
Put a check box in there and see what happens. One of the oldest tenets in sales (though often quite effective) is: "You don't get what you don't ask for" Ask for it and see if it raises a few billion. Hell it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.
Did I hear somebody say their fair share.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 25, 2011, 11:46:00 PM
Check box for "Deficit (or debt) Reduction Fund". I'd contribute even though I don't feel it's my fault a really corrupt Congress got us in this mess in the first place. I never put a dime into the Presidential Campaign Fund or whatever it is.
Put a check box in there and see what happens. One of the oldest tenets in sales (though often quite effective) is: "You don't get what you don't ask for" Ask for it and see if it raises a few billion. Hell it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.
A check box would be OK but not like the one for the Presidential Campaign Fund. It only earmarks funds. This one would need to be for new/additional funds.
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_fund_checkoff
The presidential election campaign fund checkoff appears on US income tax return forms as the question Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?
Checking the box does not change the amount of an individual's tax or refund. The $3 is paid by the government. In other words, checking the box causes the federal government to receive $3 less in tax revenue for other spending, than if you hadn't checked the box.
Nathan,
It's a hopeless cause. He is so deep into the magic RWRE Kool-Aid that he will never understand.
What he just can't seem to get his mind around is that if his taxes doubled every year for the rest of his life, he would be in financial heaven. Because as everyone with a brain understands, that means he gets to keep proportionally that much more! But math is obviously not the strong point here... what IS the strong point here is the concept of "it's all about me..."!
Must have hit pretty close on the numbers to get that kind of reaction (I know...I was way low on yours - there is way more than that coming in, but the most he should have to pay would be no more than 10 times what the poor guy has to pay - the $3,800 number). Oh, wait, being a reactionary, I guess it doesn't matter - there will always be that kind of reaction. If you are so dissatisfied with the results and have all those people advising, I don't know why you use such inadequate advisor's. I guess I would be expecting a lot more from them, if I were you. Maybe you got the wrong 'posse' doing the job for you? They obviously aren't getting your rates low enough and returns high enough, so they are obviously incompetent. There must be better out there for your specialness.
Are you STILL TALKING? Where do you get the gonads to comment on what I pay in taxes and at what rate. I have a team of financial planners, investment advisers, and tax people. Funny how all those people are massive dumbasses and you, someone having ZERO access to my financial information, knows more than they do. Man you suck on steroids. Do me a favor, just sit in the back seat of the gravy train and get out of the way of those driving it. You know, those people you are nauseating jealous of...
It would be 'nauseatingly'. If proper English were to be used...
Classic example of elitist mentality. You are right. You are special. The rest of us are not. We don't deserve to grovel at your feet. If you were riding the bus, we should absolutely take the back seats. Or the back seat of the gravy train... You obviously are much more suited to be at the front of the line of the gravy train. And entitled...I almost forgot entitled! We can all learn so much by just basking in the glow of your golden radiance! I am so sorry! Truly, I just don't know my place in life. I promise to always try to go to the back of the bus from now on. Again, I'm sorry!
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL...etc, etc.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2011, 08:55:55 PM
Yeah,... according to guido, the more you make the less you should have to pay. Typical. Just what one should expect.
I love the way everyone misuses percentage and number of actual dollars to try to make a point.
I am always talking about percentages. It is the only valid comparison technique for tax calculation. And it is a grotesque mockery that the 1%ers should be averaging 17% when the bottom 99% pay so much more as a percentage.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2011, 08:46:39 AM
I am always talking about percentages.
That is not, as my college professors used to say, intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
Quote from: nathanm on April 25, 2011, 10:17:36 PM
Pay me $380,000 a year to do a job and I'll be laughing all the way to the bank. And I'll still be laughing when the government takes its 31.6%. Different outlook on life, I guess.
And apparently, you completely missed my point. You are trying to claim that simply because you pay more tax than I do in absolute terms that my opinion on the matter is invalid. If that's the case, you get to pay more tax, because one of my clients pays 7 figures most years and he thinks his tax rate should be higher. Of course, he's not you, so his opinion is probably still worthless in your eyes.
You have "clients"? Are you an attorney or something? I cannot remember.
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2011, 12:44:49 PM
You have "clients"? Are you an attorney or something? I cannot remember.
I'm no attorney, but I do have clients. Some of them are attorneys, but that doesn't make me an attorney.
I have, on occasion, written clients for clients. How's that for confusing?
Red,
That must have been the TU mantra of the day for many years. Same one I heard.
Plus LAE. "Left As Exercise" to the observer.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2011, 01:16:40 PM
Red,
That must have been the TU mantra of the day for many years. Same one I heard.
Plus LAE. "Left As Exercise" to the observer.
More universal than that... University of Delaware too.
We had "Left as an exercise for the student" rather than for the observer.
Quote from: nathanm on April 26, 2011, 01:14:17 PM
I'm no attorney, but I do have clients. Some of them are attorneys, but that doesn't make me an attorney.
You need to stay in a Holiday Inn Express.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 26, 2011, 01:51:26 PM
You need to stay in a Holiday Inn Express.
And I wasted 50K at TU...
Quote from: guido911 on April 26, 2011, 02:09:07 PM
And I wasted 50K at TU...
You left yourself wide open with that comment. :D
At times it kind of sounds like it! (wasting 50k at TU) I know better,... but sometimes....
TU is an excellent school (I got a large military supplier to pay for mine - no debt at graduation!!! And yes, they got MORE than their money's worth for what I did there. You benefited, too, believe it or not! I helped make this country safe while you were still doing the 6th-grade-crush-on-Ms.-Green thing.) I liked it better there than any of the other colleges I got degrees from.
Maybe I will have to sign up for law school. Am looking for that soft, cushy, retirement gig.... so easy a caveman could do it!!?? And I could get rich!!!!! Patent law looks pretty lucrative right now. Everyone and his backside-orifice is trying to patent things...
I am soooo ready to be a rich backside-orifice, too!! (Or would that be too much class envy?)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2011, 04:52:47 PM
At times it kind of sounds like it! (wasting 50k at TU) I know better,... but sometimes....
TU is an excellent school (I got a large military supplier to pay for mine - no debt at graduation!!! And yes, they got MORE than their money's worth for what I did there. You benefited, too, believe it or not! I helped make this country safe while you were still doing the 6th-grade-crush-on-Ms.-Green thing.) I liked it better there than any of the other colleges I got degrees from.
Maybe I will have to sign up for law school. Am looking for that soft, cushy, retirement gig.... so easy a caveman could do it!!?? And I could get rich!!!!! Patent law looks pretty lucrative right now. Everyone and his backside-orifice is trying to patent things...
I am soooo ready to be a rich backside-orifice, too!! (Or would that be too much class envy?)
Aha! I knew it all along, profiting off the treasury with the MIC and the RWRE's!
Absolutely!! Every chance I get!!
But on such a smaller scale than most the RWRE, it gets lost in the weeds. Well, I will just have to keep on trying!
Law school!! Yeah,...that's it....that's the ticket... (channeling John Lovett).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2011, 06:37:26 PM
Absolutely!! Every chance I get!!
Be careful, you may get converted!
;D
If I had a couple hundred million, I might just at that!
Probably not. I would do the Gates and Buffet thing and give it all to some charity. Maybe endow a building at TU - but they would have to name it after me.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 26, 2011, 06:50:13 PM
Probably not. I would do the Gates and Buffet thing and give it all to some charity. Maybe endow a building at TU - but they would have to name it after me.
Let me guess..a new dining hall. ;D
Something related to engineering. Maybe endow enough chairs so they could FINALLY get a doctoral program for Sparky's!
Gee, I was really hoping for "Asparagus Hall" :'(
Hot Dog Hollow...
Engineered food maybe. Oh, wait...we are already suffering with that.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 25, 2011, 09:07:28 PM
Goes to that entitlement mentality again.
Never thought wanting to pay less in taxes was an "entitlement" mentality. Thanks for the laugh. And on the subject of entitlements, here is a fantastic takedown on them.
QuoteObama's budget, and it reminds me of the joke where the wife asks her husband 'Should I get a bikini or an all-in-one?' The husband replies, 'Better get a bikini...you'll never get it all in one.'
The budget is out of control because of the thing that Obama says makes America great: Entitlements. Who knew that giving money to the shiftless and lazy is the way we are supposed to measure ourselves?
Apparently America is at the pinnacle of its greatness, because we are giving it all away. I read recently that 50% of Americans are receiving entitlements, and more shocking 56% of illegal immigrants are receiving them. I can understand 10% of Americans receiving entitlements, because Conservatives are sensitive to the plight of the underprivileged, despite the lies from the lunatic Left. But 50% just helps me understand how many lazy Leftoids there are, who believe they are entitled to our money, so 40% of Americans are as worthless as a thong in Rosie O'Donnell's wardrobe.
[
Emphasis added]
http://theblacksphere.net/entitlement-is-a-dirty-word/#IDComment145184118
He's already got the "less taxes". And I showed him a way to pay even LESS "less taxes".
Entitlement mentality is where "you" and "399 of your best buddies" make more than the combined total of the bottom 175 million people in this country.
400 > 175,000,000.
Now, if you represent each one with a stack of $1 bills, you have another meaningless comparison example.
Maybe that 50% has something to do with the fact that they make less than about $11 an hour?? And are below the poverty line?
As for illegals, well, if they really are a problem, we know what to do about it. We CHOOSE NOT TO!!
(I am not convinced they are a problem at all yet - or not. No one has made anything approaching a case on that.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 01, 2011, 02:22:32 PM
He's already got the "less taxes". And I showed him a way to pay even LESS "less taxes".
Entitlement mentality is where "you" and "399 of your best buddies" make more than the combined total of the bottom 175 million people in this country.
400 > 175,000,000.
Now, if you represent each one with a stack of $1 bills, you have another meaningless comparison example.
Maybe that 50% has something to do with the fact that they make less than about $11 an hour?? And are below the poverty line?
As for illegals, well, if they really are a problem, we know what to do about it. We CHOOSE NOT TO!!
(I am not convinced they are a problem at all yet - or not. No one has made anything approaching a case on that.)
Can someone out there interpret the above for me please?
Quote from: guido911 on May 01, 2011, 02:09:33 PM
Never thought wanting to pay less in taxes was an "entitlement" mentality. Thanks for the laugh. And on the subject of entitlements, here is a fantastic takedown on them.
It is when you still want the benefits of paying taxes.
Quote from: nathanm on May 01, 2011, 02:55:22 PM
It is when you still want the benefits of paying taxes.
"The benefits of paying taxes"? What does that even mean?
Quote from: guido911 on May 01, 2011, 03:22:41 PM
"The benefits of paying taxes"? What does that even mean?
You know, the things the government uses your tax money for. I know you're not as dense as you're pretending to be.
Quote from: nathanm on May 01, 2011, 04:57:35 PM
You know, the things the government uses your tax money for. I know you're not as dense as you're pretending to be.
Everyone has something that is tax funded or deductible that they say NO, that has to stop.
Quote from: nathanm on May 01, 2011, 04:57:35 PM
You know, the things the government uses your tax money for. I know you're not as dense as you're pretending to be.
Oh, you meant "The benefits
of from paying taxes." "Dense" fail. ::)
Quote from: guido911 on May 01, 2011, 02:09:33 PM
Never thought wanting to pay less in taxes was an "entitlement" mentality. Thanks for the laugh. And on the subject of entitlements, here is a fantastic takedown on them.
[Emphasis added]
"The budget is out of control because of the thing that Obama says makes America great: Entitlements. Who knew that giving money to the shiftless and lazy is the way we are supposed to measure ourselves?"
http://theblacksphere.net/entitlement-is-a-dirty-word/#IDComment145184118
Never mind that Obama's never said anything of the sort, and that your blogger is indulging in a huge bit of moronic strawmanning; the budget is out of control because of: 8 years of the Bush tax cuts, two ten-year long wars, a vast new security state, an unfunded Medicare drug benefit, and generally skyrocketing healthcare costs (which in turn drive up the cost of your hated entitlements). Oh, and tax revenues are way down because a major recession.
There are wishes and hopes and ideological projections about why the budget is what it is, and then there are the verifiable facts. I guess it's too much for me to hope that you've been ferreting those out all this time.
Quote from: we vs us on May 03, 2011, 10:38:00 PM
Never mind that Obama's never said anything of the sort, and that your blogger is indulging in a huge bit of moronic strawmanning; the budget is out of control because of: 8 years of the Bush tax cuts, two ten-year long wars, a vast new security state, an unfunded Medicare drug benefit, and generally skyrocketing healthcare costs (which in turn drive up the cost of your hated entitlements). Oh, and tax revenues are way down because a major recession.
There are wishes and hopes and ideological projections about why the budget is what it is, and then there are the verifiable facts. I guess it's too much for me to hope that you've been ferreting those out all this time.
It's Bush's fault. Got it.
Quote from: guido911 on May 03, 2011, 10:41:28 PM
It's Bush's fault. Got it.
So you've been doing your reading then?
EDIT: Ok, to break it down: Bush tax cuts ----> introduced and passed by Bush. 2 ten year long wars ------> both started by Bush (regardless of whether you think either or both were right to pursue). Tens of billions in new security spending --------> brainchild of the Bush Administration. Unfunded Medicare Part D --------> Bush. None of these things were mitigated by increases in revenue or decreases in spending elsewhere. We just had to figure out how to pay for 'em at a later date.
I'm more than willing to concede that neither skyrocketing healthcare costs and reduced tax revenues from the recession are Bush's fault.
And please, if I'm wrong please point out where.
Quote from: we vs us on May 03, 2011, 10:43:10 PM
So you've been doing your reading then?
I have. This is the first time I have ever heard the "It's Bush's fault" meme. Here are Obama's comments, which I disagree are plainly NOT "that Obama's never said anything of the sort".
QuoteThere but for the grace of God go I,' we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities," Obama said. "We are a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-we-would-not-be-great-country-with
Quote from: we vs us on May 03, 2011, 10:43:10 PM
So you've been doing your reading then?
EDIT: Ok, to break it down: Bush tax cuts ----> introduced and passed by Bush. 2 ten year long wars ------> both started by Bush (regardless of whether you think either or both were right to pursue). Tens of billions in new security spending --------> brainchild of the Bush Administration. Unfunded Medicare Part D --------> Bush. None of these things were mitigated by increases in revenue or decreases in spending elsewhere. We just had to figure out how to pay for 'em at a later date.
I'm more than willing to concede that neither skyrocketing healthcare costs and reduced tax revenues from the recession are Bush's fault.
And please, if I'm wrong please point out where.
Plus unprecedented natural disasters...
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2011, 09:20:21 AM
Plus unprecedented natural disasters...
. . .started by Bush!
Quote from: we vs us on May 03, 2011, 10:43:10 PM
So you've been doing your reading then?
EDIT: Ok, to break it down: Bush tax cuts ----> introduced and passed by Bush. 2 ten year long wars ------> both started by Bush (regardless of whether you think either or both were right to pursue). Tens of billions in new security spending --------> brainchild of the Bush Administration. Unfunded Medicare Part D --------> Bush. None of these things were mitigated by increases in revenue or decreases in spending elsewhere. We just had to figure out how to pay for 'em at a later date.
I'm more than willing to concede that neither skyrocketing healthcare costs and reduced tax revenues from the recession are Bush's fault.
And please, if I'm wrong please point out where.
The Iraq war lasted 10 years? Enough said.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2011, 09:20:21 AM
Plus unprecedented natural disasters...
Shhh. and that little 9/11 thingy.
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 09:49:04 AM
Shhh. and that little 9/11 thingy.
. . .caused by Bush!
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 09:46:16 AM
The Iraq war lasted 10 years? Enough said.
My bad. 7 years.
Notice that I'm not blaming the wars on Bush here. That's a much different convo. I'm blaming his financial acumen. All of these things -- accidents, natural disasters, wars of choice and wars of necessity, and sweeping social policies
weren't paid for. Instead he cut taxes, and essentially forced our payments into the future. Which happens to be now. And which as a financial strategy is completely asinine.
Again, aside from those three years of the Iraq war, what's incorrect about what I just said? Am I wrong in understanding how this occurred?
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 09:46:16 AM
The Iraq war lasted 10 years? Enough said.
Inflation is everywhere.
Quote from: we vs us on May 04, 2011, 09:54:03 AM
My bad. 7 years.
Notice that I'm not blaming the wars on Bush here. That's a much different convo. I'm blaming his financial acumen. All of these things -- accidents, natural disasters, wars of choice and wars of necessity, and sweeping social policies weren't paid for. Instead he cut taxes, and essentially forced our payments into the future. Which happens to be now. And which as a financial strategy is completely asinine.
Thank God we're not doing that now!. . .Wait?. . .meh
Quote from: Gaspar on May 04, 2011, 09:56:15 AM
Thank God we're not doing that now!. . .Wait?. . .meh
We're actually discussing ways to pay for the debt, or haven't you been paying attention? A lot of the sensible discussions are including ways to raise taxes as well as cut expenditures. Of course, a lot of the moronically ideological discussions are focused solely on destroying our safety nets, because they're viewed as inherently immoral monstrosities amongst the ranks of you New Victorians.
Quote from: we vs us on May 04, 2011, 10:09:00 AM
We're actually discussing ways to pay for the debt, or haven't you been paying attention? A lot of the sensible discussions are including ways to raise taxes as well as cut expenditures. Of course, a lot of the moronically ideological discussions are focused solely on destroying our safety nets, because they're viewed as inherently immoral monstrosities wholly unaffordable amongst the ranks of you New Victorians taxpayers.
fify. Don't worry because I'm sure you will still keep your place in line on the government, er taxpayer, teat. :o
(http://www.justmommies.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/bc9ff_sow_nursing_piglets.jpg)
Well isn't this just great news. 51% of Americans owed no federal income taxes?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/05/senate-51-of-households.html
Oh, but they pay PAYROLL taxes and every other tax the other 49% pay, so that makes everything just fine.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 04, 2011, 10:40:03 AM
(http://www.justmommies.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/bc9ff_sow_nursing_piglets.jpg)
Is WE the one in the center waiting in line?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 04, 2011, 10:40:03 AM
(http://www.justmommies.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/bc9ff_sow_nursing_piglets.jpg)
Between the BBQ topics and this, I'm craving some tasty ribs!
282 posts to this topic. Is that a TNF record ?
Geez T-Clown, stir up trouble much ?
Quote from: DolfanBob on May 04, 2011, 11:24:01 AM
282 posts to this topic. Is that a TNF record ?
Geez T-Clown, stir up trouble much ?
Actually I think a thread on "The American" statue or the 57 Belvedere thread may be the champ.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2011, 11:33:43 AM
Actually I think a thread on "The American" statue or the 57 Belvedere thread may be the champ.
Both disappointing imo.
Quote from: DolfanBob on May 04, 2011, 11:24:01 AM
282 posts to this topic. Is that a TNF record ?
Geez T-Clown, stir up trouble much ?
Hey, I just know how to stir it up!
United States Ranks At The Bottom In Total Taxation
May 4, 2011
http://www.politicususa.com/en/united-states-total-taxation
Come on, teabaggers - you having another rally soon?
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 10:41:17 AM
Oh, but they pay PAYROLL taxes and every other tax the other 49% pay, so that makes everything just fine.
And probably paid more state taxes as a percentage of their income than you did..
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 05:06:53 PM
And probably paid more state taxes as a percentage of their income than you did..
More BS about percentage paid rather than real dollars paid. I guess this approach makes it look like the lower/middle class are contributing a pant load to the U.S./State treasuries. Here's a little hint: They Don't.
When I get my taxes prepared, my last question is not what percentage of tax do I pay because the government can't cash a "percentage" check. I ask, "How much do I make the check out for?" That's the difference between your world and mine.
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 05:17:17 PM
More BS about percentage paid rather than real dollars paid. I guess this approach makes it look like the lower/middle class are contributing a pant load to the U.S./State treasuries. Here's a little hint: They Don't.
When I get my taxes prepared, my last question is not what percentage of tax do I pay because the government can't cash a "percentage" check. I ask, "How much do I make the check out for?" That's the difference between your world and mine.
It just goes to show how disconnected from the other half you are. Your tax bill is higher than most families' annual income.
Next you're going to tell me that a million dollar mansion should have the same property tax as a trailer.
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 05:38:28 PM
It just goes to show how disconnected from the other half you are. Your tax bill is higher than most families' annual income.
Next you're going to tell me that a million dollar mansion should have the same property tax as a trailer.
And yet you still think I am still not paying enough. Wow. All I want is folks like you paying nickels to stop screaming about those paying dollars. And with that statement, I am obviously including those 51%ers paying zilch in fed income tax.
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 05:46:57 PM
And yet you still think I am still not paying enough. Wow. All I want is folks like you paying nickels to stop screaming about those paying dollars. And with that statement, I am obviously including those 51%ers paying zilch in fed income tax.
Yeah, you missed my point. You complain loudly about the debt, but don't want to pay for government. You want to cut things, but not the things that would actually make a budgetary difference.
And you didn't answer my "question" about property tax.
nathanm,
That has been guido's point all along. Poor pay $10. He should pay $10. It's only fair....not.
And he never answers a question. That must be against "lawyer law".
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 05:52:15 PM
Yeah, you missed my point. You complain loudly about the debt, but don't want to pay for government. You want to cut things, but not the things that would actually make a budgetary difference.
And you didn't answer my "question" about property tax.
Are you referring to this: "Next you're going to tell me that a million dollar mansion should have the same property tax as a trailer." Because I do not see a QUESTION there. I see a statement. To answer, since I do not get a single additional benefit by paying more, I personally do not see a reason why property taxes should be different from home to home.
I have no problem with paying for government. I only wish 51% of us contributed instead of gravy training-which is just fine with you and your older brother heiron.
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 07:12:19 PM
I only wish 51% of us contributed instead of gravy training-which is just fine with you and your older brother heiron.
You must have a short attention span. You just said a few posts back that those 49% do contribute through payroll taxes and "all the taxes the other 49% pay."
You look at that statistic and think we're letting people get away without paying their own way. I look at that statistic and think that's a lot of unemployed and underemployed people and we need to improve the economy so they can start paying income tax again.
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
You must have a short attention span. You just said a few posts back that those 49% do contribute through payroll taxes and "all the taxes the other 49% pay."
You look at that statistic and think we're letting people get away without paying their own way. I look at that statistic and think that's a lot of unemployed and underemployed people and we need to improve the economy so they can start paying income tax again.
Here we go again, the poor pay payroll taxes...YAWN. You know damned well I have been talking about paying federal income tax, which in my world is way more than my payroll taxes. And also in my world, demanding less than half of us pay that tax (and pay more if you were in charge) or face jail while completely excusing the other half. There is not a single thing fair about that tax system. In fact, it's sickening.
guido is not much into reality OR consistency. Just the script.
Percentages are the ONLY thing that counts. It goes directly to the relative ability of a person to make a contribution. But since they have no math in law school, that's just another reality miss.
Just what you would expect - his million dollar McMansion should be taxed exactly the same as any little cottage on north Harvard. What's a fair number? 20 bucks? 50?? Or would that be oppressive government confiscation??
There is no understanding of his relative position in society. He is benefiting the most from the lawyers that have gone before him, making his million(s?) every year, NOT due to any inherent intellectual superiority - there are lawyers of at least as much, and many with much more talent and competence in every country in the world - as well as this country. (And yes, I have known a couple.) Most don't make anywhere near what he does. (Goes to the whole accident of birth enjoyed by most of the people in this country.) He enjoys the best bargain in the world - living here and enjoying all the benefits this society brings to him - and still complains about supporting that lifestyle. It should be free to him.
So his exceptional wealth is more due to the efforts of ALL around him rather than natural or trained talent. And as such, he is obligated to contribute at the same relative level as all those of that society. By percentage established by that society. There is no recognition or understanding of this fact. There is also no legitimate basis for his bitching. It is the whining of a spoiled child.
In any other country, as shown by that chart, he is grotesquely under-taxed. But that is not good enough. He deserves more....
Now watch the insults come again. But that's what spoiled children do, isn't it. Rather than a rational, reasoned response. And an actual answer to a question.
Quote from: guido911 on May 04, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
Here we go again, the poor pay payroll taxes...YAWN. You know damned well I have been talking about paying federal income tax, which in my world is way more than my payroll taxes. And also in my world, demanding less than half of us pay that tax (and pay more if you were in charge) or face jail while completely excusing the other half. There is not a single thing fair about that tax system. In fact, it's sickening.
They're not completely excused. They don't not pay income tax because of who they are. They don't pay income tax because of their circumstances. If you were in their circumstances, you would pay no income tax. If they were in yours, they would pay the same income tax you do. By your standard, I should be upset that you get a tax break for having dependents (assuming you do). I don't, and I'm not.
I think I've mentioned repeatedly that I think my tax rate should be higher, so your attempts to paint me as some sort of hypocrite on this are getting ridiculous.
Your complaints to me sound very much like "40% of us don't pay property tax" or "90% of us don't pay import tariffs." Again, the bills have to be paid at some point. As I've also previously stated, I don't really have a problem running a deficit through a weak economy. It's the fiscally prudent thing to do. What would not be fiscally prudent is you or I whining about paying the bill when the economy is better.
Edited to add: And let's not forget that the bottom 40% of the population in terms of wealth owns a mere
0.3% of the nation's wealth, include the next 20% to make it the bottom 60% and they collectively control about 6% of the nation's wealth. I dare say they're not the ones seeing the lion's share of the benefits of taxation.
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 05:06:53 PM
And probably paid more state taxes as a percentage of their income than you did..
Most of us pay more as a percentage of our income than Guido for everything. A burger a McDonalds, a shirt at WalMart, a gallon of gas...
Are you saying these item should be free or at least less expensive for us because we don't make as much as Guido? Do we need our W2 or 1040 information encoded into our credit and debit cards? Would the price of an item vary based on our income? Hi Ms WalMart person. I'd really like that flat screen TV you have priced at $600. for only $50. Since I don't make much money it would be too large a percentage of my income if I have to pay $600.
As long as we keep repeating ourselves hoping for a different reception of the information, I'll re-insert my thoughts.
If we are going to continue taxing income, I think it should be a flat percentage with a generous deduction for the cost of living for everyone regardless of their income.
Most of our payroll taxes go to our personal retirement (admittedly somewhat indirectly) and those benefits will be based on our contributions. Guido is not going to get SS retirement benefits based on his total income, only the portion he paid payroll taxes on.
Sales taxes should not be added to food, clothing, and prescription drugs.
So Nate, is it fair that less than half of us have to pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX and more than half do not? What happened to everyone having skin in the game?
And please explain how the poor/middle class people possession of a small percentage of the wealth is relevant to tax policy. Is it because your idea of tax policy is confiscating from those having a higher percentage of the wealth should be taken and given to other people? Or, is it that since the rich, who apparently are NOT getting richer via innovation, hard work, sacrifice, etc. but by other means, and are not voluntarily giving it to the poor or by providing more/better jobs, higher wages/better benefits for workers, etc., need to have the government level the playing field?
And heiron, I assume you are at Nate's house given your close connection to his beliefs, my family does not earn millions a year. Not even close to "million" a year. If you read through my history, you will learn that the majority of my current legal work is providing assistance to those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer or need very specific assistance (such as licensing, regulatory matters). I bill my clients far less than many attorneys with the same level of education and experience. I also have a fairly decent civil rights and appellate practice. Why is it that some people in this forum believe they know me?
edited. Most know in this forum that I come from nothing. NOTHING. I had to struggle to get into law school and pay for it, then later commuting to work more than 200 miles per day for four years while my better half completed her training, and waiting to start a family in my freakin thirties, is where I come from. So back off.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 04, 2011, 08:43:34 PM
Most of us pay more as a percentage of our income than Guido for everything. A burger a McDonalds, a shirt at WalMart, a gallon of gas...
Are you saying these item should be free or at least less expensive for us because we don't make as much as Guido?
...
Sales taxes should not be added to food, clothing, and prescription drugs.
Nope, I'm saying that it's good policy for the government to take from each what they can afford. Trying to take blood from a stone just leaves more people in jail and doesn't close the budget deficit. Economists talk about it in terms of marginal utility. If a person making $10,000 a year gets a dollar, it's almost certain it will be spent and start flying around the economy, making things better. If a person making more gets a dollar, it's not likely that entire dollar will be spent.
Moreover, homeless/carless/foodless people make for a really crappy workforce. Give people the tools necessary to lift themselves up and most of them will. This provides a benefit for everyone, not just the people who didn't pay income tax.
I agree with that last sentence.
Guido, it's just as fair as more than half the country having less than 15% of the wealth. If fairness is what you're looking for in this life, you're going to spend the rest of your days bitterly disappointed.
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 10:16:19 PM
Nope, I'm saying that it's good policy for the government to take from each what they can afford.
The problem with that policy is that ultimately the government gets to set ones standard of living. I actually believe the rich should pay more $ but at the same percentage. See my previous post. You stated that about 30% overall Fed Tax rate would seem fair to you at your income. Someone with a lesser income might think you need to pay more. All the percentages are somewhat arbitrary. Flat rate or graduated, they can be manipulated to get the same tax income to the government.
QuoteTrying to take blood from a stone just leaves more people in jail and doesn't close the budget deficit. Economists talk about it in terms of marginal utility. If a person making $10,000 a year gets a dollar, it's almost certain it will be spent and start flying around the economy, making things better. If a person making more gets a dollar, it's not likely that entire dollar will be spent.
Agreed, no blood from turnips. See previous post regarding deduction for cost of living, at least part of the cost. I don't intend for this basic cost of living to be something to aspire to, only for basics.
I guess I should withdraw my money in the credit union savings/CD and sew it into my mattress since it is not doing the economy any good in the credit union.
QuoteMoreover, homeless/carless/foodless people make for a really crappy workforce. Give people the tools necessary to lift themselves up and most of them will. This provides a benefit for everyone, not just the people who didn't pay income tax.
I have often said that although I might grumble, I am willing to help someone get an education. I prefer it to be a loan rather than a grant but grants based on academic merit are OK. By the way, I lost a "merit scholarship" (partial, but it would have helped) for my first year at college because my dad "made too much money". What happened to the "merit" part?
Quote
I agree with that last sentence.
Guido, it's just as fair as more than half the country having less than 15% of the wealth. If fairness is what you're looking for in this life, you're going to spend the rest of your days bitterly disappointed.
I expect you will be disappointed too if your ultimate goal is to share the wealth equally. Less lopsided is probably achievable.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 04, 2011, 11:06:00 PM
The problem with that policy is that ultimately the government gets to set ones standard of living. I actually believe the rich should pay more $ but at the same percentage. See my previous post. You stated that about 30% overall Fed Tax rate would seem fair to you at your income.
To be fair to me, the 30% is predicated on present state/local taxes. Were state and local taxes what they were 30 years ago, that number could be higher and still be a reasonable overall tax burden.
That's one of my biggest complaints about Guido's attitude. His "class" has been seeing a steady reduction in its tax rate while those lower on the ladder have been seeing a steady increase at the state and local levels to pay for it, yet he continues to complain in a way that sounds completely ignorant of what the situation really is.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 04, 2011, 08:43:34 PM
Most of us pay more as a percentage of our income than Guido for everything. A burger a McDonalds, a shirt at WalMart, a gallon of gas...
Are you saying these item should be free or at least less expensive for us because we don't make as much as Guido? Do we need our W2 or 1040 information encoded into our credit and debit cards? Would the price of an item vary based on our income? Hi Ms WalMart person. I'd really like that flat screen TV you have priced at $600. for only $50. Since I don't make much money it would be too large a percentage of my income if I have to pay $600.
As long as we keep repeating ourselves hoping for a different reception of the information, I'll re-insert my thoughts.
If we are going to continue taxing income, I think it should be a flat percentage with a generous deduction for the cost of living for everyone regardless of their income.
Most of our payroll taxes go to our personal retirement (admittedly somewhat indirectly) and those benefits will be based on our contributions. Guido is not going to get SS retirement benefits based on his total income, only the portion he paid payroll taxes on.
Sales taxes should not be added to food, clothing, and prescription drugs.
Thank you Red, someone finally put into words what I've been thinking for years. That's some darn good logic BTW.
Granted,
every outlay for someone with a lower income than mine is a higher percentage of their total income. That's simply not my fault and I shouldn't pay more for a box of Kraft Mac & Cheese (not that I'd eat that crap anymore) simply because I can. As well, I shouldn't be faced with people trying to guilt me into thinking either I make too much or pay too little for every purchase because, based on percentages, I should be obligated to cover the economic shortfalls of my fellow man.
Thanks for making the point. I'm sure it's already been spun by some true libtard logic before I got to your post.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2011, 11:20:19 PM
Thanks for making the point. I'm sure it's already been spun by some true libtard logic before I got to your post.
Taxes and purchases are a completely different class of things. How's that for libtard logic?
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 11:22:12 PM
Taxes and purchases are a completely different class of things. How's that for libtard logic?
Not in the world of class envy they aren't because ostensibly we are purchasing something of value from the government for our contribution of taxes.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 04, 2011, 08:43:34 PM
Sales taxes should not be added to food, clothing, and prescription drugs.
Food and clothing, yes. Prescription drugs, no. The government should pay for those. ;)
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 04, 2011, 11:32:02 PM
Food and clothing, yes. Prescription drugs, no. The government should pay for those. ;)
With what? A Bush era unfunded mandate?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2011, 11:35:13 PM
With what? A Bush era unfunded mandate?
You betcha....(4th qtr...gotta run) :P
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 11:10:57 PM
To be fair to me, the 30% is predicated on present state/local taxes. Were state and local taxes what they were 30 years ago, that number could be higher and still be a reasonable overall tax burden.
That's one of my biggest complaints about Guido's attitude. His "class" has been seeing a steady reduction in its tax rate while those lower on the ladder have been seeing a steady increase at the state and local levels to pay for it, yet he continues to complain in a way that sounds completely ignorant of what the situation really is.
Not surprisingly, we disagree on what a fair share is, especially regarding social engineering with the graduated income tax. I have mixed feelings about many deductions as they help the middle class significantly, probably more than the poor. The obvious example is home mortgage interest deduction. Phasing it out for the rich would be discrimination/unfair/whatever.
Guido can and probably will speak for himself.
I believe that the rich have probably contributed more to the state and local taxes than the unrich. Unless they live like the poor, they are spending a lot more money and paying a lot more sales tax. Discretionary spending which the poor are incapable of doing will help boost the state sales tax the rich pay as a percentage of their income. I'll agree it will still be less of a percentage than the poor. See my previous post about burgers, shirts, and gasoline. Property taxes are based on size/value and there the rich will again pay more $. Oklahoma income tax receipts are probably largely not from the poor.
Income of the lower brackets is up from 30 years ago. Inflation, which some on TNF have touted as good for the country, has largely negated those gains. Income taxes are such a jumble of standard deductions, personal exemptions, earned income credits, and a bunch of other stuff I don't receive has made it difficult to determine if the tax structure has helped diminish the effects of inflation.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 04, 2011, 11:32:02 PM
Food and clothing, yes. Prescription drugs, no. The government should pay for those. ;)
Sale tax on food and clothing are what help make the sales tax burden such a high percentage of the poor's income. Are you saying to keep sales tax on food and clothing? The rate would need to go up to even be revenue neutral but it would help shift the burden to the rich. I thought you would be in favor of that.
Prescription drug prices are a mess. That could be a thread in itself. The insurance industry and the government have made the list price out of sight so that the discounted price will still make money. I don't believe the government should pay for run of the mill prescriptions. Some specialized medicines are so stupidly expensive that there should be a safety net. Whether is should be the government or private healthcare is obviously a big issue. I call it healthcare rather than health insurance since I believe the two are not the same. For example, you don't buy a new insurance policy to fix an already wrecked car. Ultimately, the stuff gets paid for. Who pays and when is the issue. Healthy people will always help pay for the unhealthy.
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 11:22:12 PM
Taxes and purchases are a completely different class of things. How's that for libtard logic?
One way to die and avoid taxes is to not purchase food and clothing. Some purchases are necessary and will consume a considerable portion of the lower income earner's wages. Maybe I should have used a Big Mac in my example rather than a TV.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 04, 2011, 11:26:23 PM
Not in the world of class envy they aren't because ostensibly we are purchasing something of value from the government for our contribution of taxes.
If you don't see the difference between something you're required to pay on penalty of incarceration and something you have a choice of purchasing or doing without, there's not much to be discussed.
RA, you might be interested in these graphs. Do note the differing time scales.
(http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_9.gif)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png)
I have been following this, and I have yet to see anyone bare their donkey and show some real world numbers as to what the effects are in the real world. I work for a city gov't, and have for just over ten years. My starting salary sans benifits and deductions when I started in Febuary of '01 was $36,000.00 per year. Through merit and cost of living increases I made it to a gross of $57,000.00 in six years. To get to that point, my last increases were a 3% merit and 2% COLA in '06, and a 2% COLA in '07. I have not had any increase in pay for four years, yet my contributions to retirement, cost of insurance, and tax changes have only kept me at the same pay that I was getting four years ago. If you take my base pay and subtract pre and post tax deductions 28% of my income is taken. These are the mandatory, involuntary deductions. I am not a union member, the union where I work is SEIU, and don't give me that crap that all gov't employees are so over paid compared to the rest of the world, my position in the private sector is about $10k to $20k higher, and that's another issue.
Also, I don't work in a department where you might see four people standing around watching someone with a shovel, I work in the department when you pay your utility bill on line your credit card info is safe, and I work on the systems that if you dial "911" someone answers your call for help.
I guess what I'm saying is before you bash and beat me up as being a gov't employee, you have no idea of the things that I am involved with and the agencies that I work with.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 05, 2011, 02:48:03 AM
I have been following this, ...
What kind of retirement plan if any do you have? I only have a 401K but my employer does match my contributions up to 4%. I pay part of my health care, dental care (they are separate), some imputed income for company sponsored life insurance. I'll have to get my paycheck stub to find them all. Including some non-mandatory after tax savings that I consider mandatory to have a reasonable retirement, I take home less than half my gross salary.
Other than the obvious taxes, what are your mandatory deductions?
Quote from: nathanm on May 05, 2011, 12:17:20 AM
RA, you might be interested in these graphs. Do note the differing time scales.
The first graph doesn't have a label. (I had to go directly to the URL to see it, I don't know why.) I don't remember the $/hr going down for the Federal Minimum Wage so there must be some adjustment. Do you know what it is? I expect inflation.
I agree that CEO pay is absurd but if a private sector business wants to pay that much I guess that's their business. Looks like CEOs took a huge hit between '00 and '02 kind of following the S&P 500 and a moderate hit between '04 and '05. If that graph had started in '00, it would have painted a different picture.
The second graph tells me everyone's income is up or at least not declining. Filtering out some short period fluctuations, the little guys' income in constant year 2007 $ is holding or getting slightly better. If the rich are truly taking from the bottom, I would expect the 20th percentile to go negative as fast or faster than the 95th went positive. Maybe you need a graph showing the 5th and 10th percentiles.
RA, the first graph is (was, it don't work for me anymore, oddly) also adjusted for inflation. I pointed out the time scale because if you look at 1946-2008, you get a different picture than looking at 1990-2005. It could look misleading.
Note how the bottom 20% has basically been stagnant since the late 70s. There have been some minor ups and downs, but they're all a wash. The peak may have actually been in the late 90s, but I'd have to go look at the raw data to be able to see the tiny difference there.
The point is that the bottom 40% have gone basically nowhere since the late 70s and even the next 20% aren't doing a whole lot better. Clearly something about our society is not working for everyone. I guess it could just be that 40% of our population has gotten lazy and decided they don't want to work hard even though they seemed to have a work ethic prior to the late 60s, but somehow I doubt that is the case.
Edited to add: CEO pay wasn't really my point, but since you touched on it, I'll say this: In most cases, I agree that it's not our place to do anything more than "tsk tsk" at companies for their absurd CEO pay. However, when there's no real choice as to whether or not to buy a product it becomes our problem. There is no room for the market to operate and bring equilibrium. (Although apparently the market isn't working too well if CEO pay is getting that high..in a Friedmanite sense, corporate profit is an inefficiency that the market should stamp out over time)
Quote from: nathanm on May 04, 2011, 11:10:57 PM
To be fair to me, the 30% is predicated on present state/local taxes. Were state and local taxes what they were 30 years ago, that number could be higher and still be a reasonable overall tax burden.
That's one of my biggest complaints about Guido's attitude. His "class" has been seeing a steady reduction in its tax rate while those lower on the ladder have been seeing a steady increase at the state and local levels to pay for it, yet he continues to complain in a way that sounds completely ignorant of what the situation really is.
As I have repeatedly stated, I do not live in a world of percentages. I live in the real world where my real dollars (lots of them) are taken from my family. If you want to pay a higher percentage (whatever the hell that means in reality), have at it.
Wow! Just shows how delusional it can be in there!
The world is all about percentages. At least the real, real world.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2011, 02:44:17 PM
As I have repeatedly stated, I do not live in a world of percentages. I live in the real world where my real dollars (lots of them) are taken from my family. If you want to pay a higher percentage (whatever the hell that means in reality), have at it.
So what, there shouldn't be a tax rate? You're not making sense.
Percentage vs. real dollars. Reminds me of inches vs. millimeters or RPM on a piston engine vs. % of Maximum RPM on a turbine. One is primary, the other is a conversion.
Income Taxes are typically determined by a percentage. A percentage based income tax is somewhat easily converted to real dollars. We all do it on one of the variants of Form 1040. In the end we pay real dollars. The check you send or refund you receive from over withholding is in dollars, not percent.
Sales tax is a percent of the purchase price. This is quickly converted to dollars before you pay the cashier. Added up at the end of the year, a percentage of ones income confiscated by sales tax can be determined and frequently is to express how oppressive it is to low income earners.
Most things we buy have a dollar price, not a percentage of some unknown or variable quantity. Perhaps the unknown or variable quantity vs. a known quantity is the key to choosing a dollar amount vs. a percentage. A gallon of gasoline does not have a price on the pump of xx.x% (of your income or anything else). Today regular gas was $3.68/gal for regular at QT. (Down a penny. I expect it will go up a $.11/gal tomorrow like the last time there was a penny drop.) At the end of the year, your purchases can be converted to a percentage of pretty much anything. A percentage of your income, the price of your home, the price of your neighbor's home, the amount you spent for your college education (assuming you have one) can be calculated. These percentages are good for statistical purposes but if Bill Gates and I walk into the same McDonald's, we will both pay the same amount of dollars for a burger. The price on the menu is in dollars, not percent.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2011, 02:44:17 PM
As I have repeatedly stated, I do not live in a world of percentages. I live in the real world where my real dollars (lots of them) are taken from my family. If you want to pay a higher percentage (whatever the hell that means in reality), have at it.
Do you ever think that since you are a lawyer you work on a contractional basis, and you are responsible for your own taxes? Or do you sit in "your world" and complain about taxes between yourself, and those of us poor bastard working stiffs on the payroll of an employer? You bark about how lots of your money is taken from your family, and you don't live in a world of percentages. So what effing world do you live in? Appereantly it's not the rest of us.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 05, 2011, 11:38:14 PM
Do you ever think that since you are a lawyer you work on a contractional basis, and you are responsible for your own taxes? Or do you sit in "your world" and complain about taxes between yourself, and those of us poor bastard working stiffs on the payroll of an employer? You bark about how lots of your money is taken from your family, and you don't live in a world of percentages. So what effing world do you live in? Appereantly it's not the rest of us.
The "effing" world is the check one writes to the treasury each year. Do you really ask yourself at tax time, assuming you are among the 49% that does pay federal income tax, gee, what percentage is that? Well, I don't. If you do, you really are a "poor bastard working stiff[]". All I know is that a crap ton of my money gets sent to the feds while more than half pay 0. That's my effing world.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 05, 2011, 11:14:26 PM
Percentage vs. real dollars. Reminds me of inches vs. millimeters or RPM on a piston engine vs. % of Maximum RPM on a turbine. One is primary, the other is a conversion.
Income Taxes are typically determined by a percentage. A percentage based income tax is somewhat easily converted to real dollars. We all do it on one of the variants of Form 1040. In the end we pay real dollars. The check you send or refund you receive from over withholding is in dollars, not percent.
Sales tax is a percent of the purchase price. This is quickly converted to dollars before you pay the cashier. Added up at the end of the year, a percentage of ones income confiscated by sales tax can be determined and frequently is to express how oppressive it is to low income earners.
Most things we buy have a dollar price, not a percentage of some unknown or variable quantity. Perhaps the unknown or variable quantity vs. a known quantity is the key to choosing a dollar amount vs. a percentage. A gallon of gasoline does not have a price on the pump of xx.x% (of your income or anything else). Today regular gas was $3.68/gal for regular at QT. (Down a penny. I expect it will go up a $.11/gal tomorrow like the last time there was a penny drop.) At the end of the year, your purchases can be converted to a percentage of pretty much anything. A percentage of your income, the price of your home, the price of your neighbor's home, the amount you spent for your college education (assuming you have one) can be calculated. These percentages are good for statistical purposes but if Bill Gates and I walk into the same McDonald's, we will both pay the same amount of dollars for a burger. The price on the menu is in dollars, not percent.
I guess my point is that I am a bottom line person. Listening to people who claim, "Sure, I wouldn't mind paying a higher percentage in taxes to match the identical increase on the 'rich'" means nothing if it resulted in a $50.00 increase in
their tax and untold thousands increase on a rich person. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
Quote from: guido911 on May 06, 2011, 10:55:17 AM
The "effing" world is the check one writes to the treasury each year. Do you really ask yourself at tax time, assuming you are among the 49% that does pay federal income tax, gee, what percentage is that? Well, I don't. If you do, you really are a "poor bastard working stiff[]". All I know is that a crap ton of my money gets sent to the feds while more than half pay 0. That's my effing world.
The world of delusion, folks. (once again, your statistic is incorrect)
Funny how your complaint earlier in the thread was that us deadbeats who make less than you didn't want to see our taxes increase. Then when a bunch of us point out that we could stand to have that happen you launch into a rage about the people who don't pay income tax and complain about how you still pay more in absolute dollars.
Let's put it this way: I'd happily trade you, even with a tax increase. You remind me of the fellow last year who was trying to claim that his family was "middle class" when they make over half a million a year and have substantial assets other than their home.
Quote from: nathanm on May 05, 2011, 02:27:16 PM
Note how the bottom 20% has basically been stagnant since the late 70s. There have been some minor ups and downs, but they're all a wash. The peak may have actually been in the late 90s, but I'd have to go look at the raw data to be able to see the tiny difference there.
The point is that the bottom 40% have gone basically nowhere since the late 70s and even the next 20% aren't doing a whole lot better. Clearly something about our society is not working for everyone. I guess it could just be that 40% of our population has gotten lazy and decided they don't want to work hard even though they seemed to have a work ethic prior to the late 60s, but somehow I doubt that is the case.
Ultimately, a real raise in the value of an employee must be tied to an increase in productivity. (CEO and top executives have a good deal going.) Folks in the middle have probably seen some increase in productivity due to computers since the late 70s. I believe I am more productive with a computer and CAD system than with only a calculator and some drafting triangles. They guys pushing brooms are mostly at the same productivity level as always.
As a coincidence, we quit allowing foreign entities to exchange paper dollars for real metalic gold about 1971 according to wikipedia. Seems the French/DeGaul were trading all their paper $ for actual gold.
Quote from: nathanm on May 06, 2011, 01:40:15 PM
The world of delusion, folks. (once again, your statistic is incorrect)
Funny how your complaint earlier in the thread was that us deadbeats who make less than you didn't want to see our taxes increase. Then when a bunch of us point out that we could stand to have that happen you launch into a rage about the people who don't pay income tax and complain about how you still pay more in absolute dollars.
Let's put it this way: I'd happily trade you, even with a tax increase. You remind me of the fellow last year who was trying to claim that his family was "middle class" when they make over half a million a year and have substantial assets other than their home.
BFD if you want to pay a "higher percentage". Chip in $50.00 more so others can chip in $5,000.00. WOW. Thanks for the big help there Mr. Charitable.
And stop with interpreting what my positions are. Bottom line. If you don't pay, or pay little, federal income tax, don't b!tch about raising taxes on anyone. Man, your jealousy is bordering on embarrassing.
Quote from: nathanm on May 05, 2011, 02:27:16 PM
Note how the bottom 20% has basically been stagnant since the late 70s. There have been some minor ups and downs, but they're all a wash. The peak may have actually been in the late 90s, but I'd have to go look at the raw data to be able to see the tiny difference there.
The point is that the bottom 40% have gone basically nowhere since the late 70s and even the next 20% aren't doing a whole lot better. Clearly something about our society is not working for everyone. I guess it could just be that 40% of our population has gotten lazy and decided they don't want to work hard even though they seemed to have a work ethic prior to the late 60s, but somehow I doubt that is the case.
What does any of this have to do with tax policy?
Quote from: guido911 on May 06, 2011, 02:04:56 PM
BFD if you want to pay a "higher percentage". Chip in $50.00 more so others can chip in $5,000.00. WOW. Thanks for the big help there Mr. Charitable.
And stop with interpreting what my positions are. Bottom line. If you don't pay, or pay little, federal income tax, don't b!tch about raising taxes on anyone. Man, your jealousy is bordering on embarrassing.
More like an extra $10,000, actually. ;)
Note that I don't
want to. Of course I'd rather keep my ten grand. Hell, I'd
rather keep all of my money. However, I look at my country's finances, see that it can't all be resolved with budget cuts, and realize that those of us who have the means to make sacrifices are going to have to do so.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 05, 2011, 05:52:58 PM
The world is all about percentages. At least the real, real world.
Well, at least for increases. Whenever there is a rebate or rate decrease the fact that "rich" are getting a bigger rebate or tax cut is
all over the media.
Quote from: nathanm on May 06, 2011, 02:31:20 PM
Note that I don't want to. Of course I'd rather keep my ten grand. Hell, I'd rather keep all of my money.
I think you actually do want to pay it. You just don't want to be alone and you want to have everyone else be forced to do the same thing. In percentage of course.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 06, 2011, 03:59:03 PM
I think you actually do want to pay it. You just don't want to be alone and you want to have everyone else be forced to do the same thing. In percentage of course.
No, I'd rather everything get paid for with
magic. But since ifs and buts are not in fact candy and nuts I have to deal with the world as it actually is.
Think of it this way: I don't really want to pay for my house. I'd much rather it be free. Think of all the vacations I could take. Or maybe I could buy an airplane. But I have to have someplace to live, so here I sit, writing on TNF about how I have to make money to pay my mortgage instead of doing fun things.
And yes, I do think that all of us who have the means have the responsibility to dig our collective selves out of the hole we're in. I didn't ask for our wars, but I get to pay for them. Similarly, guido didn't ask for funding for planned parenthood, but he gets to pay for it.
By the way, I don't want any of this right now. It's bad economics to commit to austerity measures at present.
Quote from: nathanm on May 06, 2011, 04:44:16 PM
And yes, I do think that all of us who have the means have the responsibility to dig our collective selves out of the hole we're in.
I agree with the statement above. I also agree about no blood from turnips. We disagree on how much is a fair share.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 06, 2011, 06:47:51 PM
We disagree on how much is a fair share.
Here's the thing, the bottom half of income earners only earn 13% of the income. A 100% tax rate on them would (in 2009) have gotten you a little over a trillion dollars. The top 50% of taxpayers, on the other hand, earned almost 7.4 trillion. Of that, the top 25% earned over 5.6 trillion.
Put another way, the 1,685,000 families like Guido's in America last year collectively earned half again as much money as the 69,980,000 families of the bottom 50% in 2008. And 2008 was an off year.
Why again is it that we're even talking about the bottom 50% at all? They collectively hold almost no wealth and collectively make about an eighth of all income.
Quote from: nathanm on May 07, 2011, 12:26:26 AM
Here's the thing,
Here's the thing, you aren't going to convince me that I should pay 30% of my AGI in Federal income taxes. Period.
I am not going to try to convince you that you are paying your fair share.
That's called a disagreement.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 07, 2011, 11:21:17 AM
Here's the thing, you aren't going to convince me that I should pay 30% of my AGI in Federal income taxes. Period.
OK, what are we going to cut?
Quote from: nathanm on May 07, 2011, 11:30:55 AM
OK, what are we going to cut?
We can start with the subsidy for corn based ethanol for fuel. NPR, I sent a contribution to KWTU this year. Mom always sends some money to OETA. Close the loopholes that allowed GE to pay no income tax last year. There are purchasing requirements when participating in a government contract that are definitely price adders. Many of those are social engineering. We need to evaluate the cost/benefit of them to determine if we are willing to continue paying that price.
I don't have a complete list. My list would probably be different than yours. That is what our elected law makers are supposed to be doing for us.
Quote from: nathanm on May 07, 2011, 12:26:26 AM
Here's the thing, the bottom half of income earners only earn 13% of the income. A 100% tax rate on them would (in 2009) have gotten you a little over a trillion dollars. The top 50% of taxpayers, on the other hand, earned almost 7.4 trillion. Of that, the top 25% earned over 5.6 trillion.
Put another way, the 1,685,000 families like Guido's in America last year collectively earned half again as much money as the 69,980,000 families of the bottom 50% in 2008. And 2008 was an off year.
Why again is it that we're even talking about the bottom 50% at all? They collectively hold almost no wealth and collectively make about an eighth of all income.
For I think the third time in this thread, what does this have to do with tax policy? The fact you are avoiding this question tells me that your point is that a fair tax policy would be to close the income gap by seizing money from the rich and just giving it to the poor. Is that tax policy or social justice/wealth redistribution?
Quote from: guido911 on May 07, 2011, 02:48:41 PM
For I think the third time in this thread, what does this have to do with tax policy? The fact you are avoiding this question tells me that your point is that a fair tax policy would be to close the income gap by seizing money from the rich and just giving it to the poor. Is that tax policy or social justice/wealth redistribution?
Read the first and second sentences you quoted and maybe then you'll grasp what it has to do with tax policy.
Quote from: nathanm on May 07, 2011, 07:46:08 PM
Read the first and second sentences you quoted and maybe then you'll grasp what it has to do with tax policy.
Nope. It doesn't. It sounds like a justification, or perhaps an excuse, to take more from one group of people, which in my opinion is not what income tax is supposed to. I thought the purpose of an income tax is to raise money for government and not to redistribute wealth.
Quote from: guido911 on May 07, 2011, 08:37:37 PM
I thought the purpose of an income tax is to raise money for government and not to redistribute wealth.
Thinking ist verboten!
Quote from: guido911 on May 07, 2011, 08:37:37 PM
Nope. It doesn't. It sounds like a justification, or perhaps an excuse, to take more from one group of people, which in my opinion is not what income tax is supposed to. I thought the purpose of an income tax is to raise money for government and not to redistribute wealth.
It doesn't what? The numbers don't demonstrate that asking the bottom 50% of income earners for more money is useless? An extra 5% on them (assuming the entirety of the increase is actually paid) would net the government $55 billion. A pittance. Tax us in the top 50% of income earners an extra 5% and you generate $355 billion.
I'm talking about raising money for the government's operations. You're talking about a bunch of irrelevant class warfare bullshit so you don't have to pay more tax while still receiving the benefits while trying to smear me as attempting to perpetrate class warfare against you.
I know you don't like it, but one of the implications of the extreme income inequality we have in this country is that almost all the money to run things has to come from the top. There just isn't enough money at the bottom to make a whit of difference to the federal government's budget.
Edited to add: Put another way, and I'm not advocating this as good tax policy, a 50% tax rate on the top 50% of income earners and zero percent on everyone else would pay all the federal government's bills. A 100% tax rate on the bottom 50% would cover less than a third of the federal budget. Perhaps that illustrates why I don't really give a smile whether or not we tax poor people, at least insofar as getting the bills paid goes. (I think there is a societal benefit to having them pay
something, actually, but it doesn't actually solve any budgetary problems)
Quote from: nathanm on May 07, 2011, 08:52:38 PM
(I think there is a societal benefit to having them pay something, actually, but it doesn't actually solve any budgetary problems)
You found something I can agree with. I don't care if it's only $1.00, everyone should contribute something so they don't feel like a freeloader. I also agree it won't do anything to solve the nation's budget.
Quote from: nathanm on May 07, 2011, 08:52:38 PM
It doesn't what? The numbers don't demonstrate that asking the bottom 50% of income earners for more money is useless? An extra 5% on them (assuming the entirety of the increase is actually paid) would net the government $55 billion. A pittance. Tax us in the top 50% of income earners an extra 5% and you generate $355 billion.
I'm talking about raising money for the government's operations. You're talking about a bunch of irrelevant class warfare bullshit so you don't have to pay more tax while still receiving the benefits while trying to smear me as attempting to perpetrate class warfare against you.
I know you don't like it, but one of the implications of the extreme income inequality we have in this country is that almost all the money to run things has to come from the top. There just isn't enough money at the bottom to make a whit of difference to the federal government's budget.
Edited to add: Put another way, and I'm not advocating this as good tax policy, a 50% tax rate on the top 50% of income earners and zero percent on everyone else would pay all the federal government's bills. A 100% tax rate on the bottom 50% would cover less than a third of the federal budget. Perhaps that illustrates why I don't really give a smile whether or not we tax poor people, at least insofar as getting the bills paid goes. (I think there is a societal benefit to having them pay something, actually, but it doesn't actually solve any budgetary problems)
Seriously? You want me to believe that your posts about the income gap was all about how taxing/raising taxes on the poor will not raise enough money? Whatever.
And $55B is a pittance? Well then let's just forget about raising it altogether then. What a waste of everyone's time.
Quote from: guido911 on May 07, 2011, 10:04:27 PM
And $55B is a pittance? Well then let's just forget about raising it altogether then. What a waste of everyone's time.
Think about what a small percentage of the budget 55 billion dollars actually is and get back to me.
Still thinking about it?
Guido, you asked earlier how it is you and the other high income earners owe the rest of us a tax increase? Let's think about that for a minute. Since the mid-80s, surpluses in payroll tax collections have been used to provide tax cuts for the top brackets. Those tax cuts were paid for with borrowed money. Now that it's time to repay, all we hear about is how Social Security and Medicare are out of money. They wouldn't be out of money at all if their deadbeat borrowers would repay their debt.
Funny how when we're talking about homeowners facing foreclosure it's all the borrower's fault and they should be made to pay up...
Nickel and Dime and Nickel and Dime. ::)
That's how the libs have always done it.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 10, 2011, 10:22:40 AM
Nickel and Dime and Nickel and Dime. ::)
That's how the libs have always done it.
Dime & quarter
Inflation at your service
Quote from: Gaspar on May 10, 2011, 10:22:40 AM
Nickel and Dime and Nickel and Dime. ::)
That's how the libs have always done it.
Do you just have idiotic sayings that you paste randomly from a Word document without bothering to read the post you're responding to?
Deadbeat.
Quote from: nathanm on May 10, 2011, 10:50:13 AM
Do you just have idiotic sayings that you paste randomly from a Word document without bothering to read the post you're responding to?
Deadbeat.
Your response is so sad. :(
You ok today?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 10, 2011, 11:53:31 AM
Your response is so sad. :(
You ok today?
I'm sad that there are so many deadbeats who refuse to pay their debts.
Quote from: nathanm on May 10, 2011, 09:38:24 AM
Still thinking about it?
Guido, you asked earlier how it is you and the other high income earners owe the rest of us a tax increase? Let's think about that for a minute. Since the mid-80s, surpluses in payroll tax collections have been used to provide tax cuts for the top brackets. Those tax cuts were paid for with borrowed money. Now that it's time to repay, all we hear about is how Social Security and Medicare are out of money. They wouldn't be out of money at all if their deadbeat borrowers would repay their debt.
Funny how when we're talking about homeowners facing foreclosure it's all the borrower's fault and they should be made to pay up...
So now the wealthy today are deadbeats because of something that began in the 1980s? Me thinks someone is a bit low on the Thorazine. Incidentally, in that decade, I was in high school and then the military. Not exactly making a fortune during that decade.
Everyone: This is what wealth envy looks like.
Quote from: guido911 on May 10, 2011, 03:32:34 PM
So now the wealthy today are deadbeats because of something that began in the 1980s? Me thinks someone is a bit low on the Thorazine. Incidentally, in that decade, I was in high school and then the military. Not exactly making a fortune during that decade.
What does it matter when it began? You're still benefiting from that deal.
Deadbeat.
Quote from: nathanm on May 10, 2011, 04:31:45 PM
What does it matter when it began? You're still benefiting from that deal.
Deadbeat.
You are so full of FAIL in this thread, and probably at life in general, that your opinions have officially achieved JOKE status.
But please, keep calling me a deadbeat. Because being called that by a bottom feeder who will always be a bottom feeder is freakin hilarious.
Everyone breathe. . .
Debate always ends with growth or name calling. Either way the loser is obvious.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 10, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
Everyone breathe. . .
Debate always ends with growth or name calling. Either way the loser is obvious.
Sorry Gasman, but you helped a bit getting us to this point.
The horse has gone completely skeletal at this point guys...
Funny how neither of you two call out guido for his name calling. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on May 11, 2011, 12:13:41 AM
Funny how neither of you two call out guido for his name calling. ;)
guido reminds me of one of my ex-wife in Oklahoma many attorneys. Specifically a guy by the name of Mark Zanotti.
There will be more thing, 9 are not enough.
Quote from: nathanm on May 11, 2011, 12:13:41 AM
Funny how neither of you two call out guido for his name calling. ;)
You're all fartknockers.
Happy now?
Quote from: nathanm on May 11, 2011, 12:13:41 AM
Funny how neither of you two call out guido for his name calling. ;)
Was talking about both of you!
Quote from: Gaspar on May 11, 2011, 09:46:03 AM
Was talking about both of you!
And what about you?
(http://piggington.com/files/images/high_horse_0.jpg)
Someone call someone's parents and get this over with.
Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2011, 09:56:42 AM
And what about you?
I try never to call other members of this forum names. Sometimes I get lost, but I typically bite my tongue. ::)
I seldom get angry. The wife says I'm passive aggressive. . .She's adorable! ;)
Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2011, 09:56:42 AM
And what about you?
(http://piggington.com/files/images/high_horse_0.jpg)
Whiffed that one way over my head
Looks like the committee only got part way through that horse design. (Must be the Chrysler version.)
Aww. I'd never seen a person on their high Horse.
Isnt that special ?
Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2011, 02:20:15 PM
High horse?
Sorry, I think I brewed Chock Full O' Stupid coffee this morning.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 11, 2011, 03:33:21 PM
Sorry, I think I brewed Chock Full O' Stupid coffee this morning.
I mainline that stuff.
Quote from: guido911 on May 11, 2011, 04:34:41 PM
I mainline that stuff.
I'm hooked on that damn VIA now!