and give to everyone else.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20071024%5cACQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&
The chairmen of Ways and Means committee has proposed essentially revoking income taxes altogether on the bottom half of Americans and paying them more money from the federal government in the EITC. It will be funded by raising the income tax by 4% on the top 10% of wage earners.
Other details include reduction of business taxes for certain interests and of course tons of other provisions that no citizen nor congressmen will read in full. But to summarize...
Raise taxes on the upper 10% and give that money to the bottom 50%. With liberty and justice for all. No wait, that's mob rule. They have what we want, lets use the government to take it and then give it to us. Unbelievable.
What happens when they get this extra 4-5%? Will everything be OK? It wasnt fixed by a progressive income tax, when the bottom x% was removed from the tax rolls, or when the "earned income tax credit" started "refunded" tax money never paid in. Just 5% more, come on. Oh, and health care. The rich should pay for our health care. Oh yeah, and soon social security will be broke we'll need someone else to pay for that too. Hey, I bought a house I can't afford, government subsidize my loan please. No you can't cut farm subsidies, I need the government to give me cheap food. No, don't raise taxes on gas to fix roads, use income taxes because I dont pay any. Did I mention I need prescription drugs, government! My kid wants to go to college, give him money.
Is there anything that is a citizens responsibility anymore or is everything up to the government?
This is the most overt wealth redistribution proposal I've ever seen from a ranking member of Congress. Take it because they have it and give it because they don't. Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot would be so proud. I'm rambling, this is infuriating.
What the hell is Rangel smoking?
quote:
What the hell is Rangel smoking?
It's genetic.
This reminds me of a radical capitalist that proposed a maximum wage back in the '80s. He proposed taking income in excess of the maximum wage and putting it into capital accounts for middle and lower class citizens. He claims that to pursue the Constitutional guaranty of happiness in the U.S., one must have capital.
He also argued that because of the pyramiding effect of capitalism, more and more money becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and that the money becomes unproductive and leads to obscenities like $30 Million paintings.
He said that when money is distributed to middle and lower class people through the proposed capital accounts, it becomes extremely productive and boosts the wealth effect across the board.
It's difficult to broach this subject with most people because outside of New Yorkers and money center professionals, most people have next to no idea how much money is in circulation and just how wealthy our upper class has become.
The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" has become so extreme that it has made social mobility a thing of the past. We are headed towards a permanent underclass and the middle class is going to end up in the same boat as their lower class counterparts. Of course it was social mobility that was the glue that held our society together and allowed the rag picker to live beside the wealthy heir in relative peace. The Republican policies of the last 30 years have only exacerbated the situation and have put us on a path to class war fare.
I have been waiting for a populist to arise on the left to rectify the situation. One need only listen to the speeches of Huey Long to understand the power of a populist's message.
Moderating our course and moving towords financial equity and fairness in our system might help preserve the status quo as it did in the 30s with Roosevelt's "New Deal." But I see no signs of moderating influences.
Meanwhile my once well-off hometown has lost is chubby advantage and has become home to hordes of toothless, lower-class Whites who would certainly see their reflection in a new and improved Huey Long.
Hometown, economic policies of the last 30 years have allowed far more people to break the middle class glass ceiling than any other period in American history. Why is there something wrong with that? It sure as hell doesn't lend any proof to your claims of inhibited financial mobility. I'm sure it also accounted for some modicum of your own prosperity which has allowed you to plough, by your own estimations, somewhere around $400K into the local economy since you moved back to Tulsa.
I never hear you rail against all the "dot bombs", bogus IPO's, and accounting fiascos which occured during the Clinton years which allowed many to profit off the backs of pension funds and smaller investors who lost their donkey due to other's greed.
Reagan has been out of office for almost 19 years- get over it!
It's narrow-minded wealthy liberals like Chuck Rangel, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Ted Kennedy who keep fanning the flames of class warfare. The very people you keep ripping off talking points from are from your dreaded upper-class.
We are how many TRILLIONS of dollars in debt? And we think we are going expand our economy to pay for it in how many decades? The 4% extra is on couples making more than $200K or individuals making +$150K, or like six times the median income for Tulsans, and we are supposed to feel bad for them? Raising taxes is similar to butchering dissenters? Did you not forget LIFE in front of the other two guarentees?
This gloom and doom krap about taxes got it exactly wrong during the Clinton years, got it wrong with minimum wages, and is a bunch of mamby pamby whining.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
We are how many TRILLIONS of dollars in debt? And we think we are going expand our economy to pay for it in how many decades? The 4% extra is on couples making more than $200K or individuals making +$150K, or like six times the median income for Tulsans, and we are supposed to feel bad for them? Raising taxes is similar to butchering dissenters? Did you not forget LIFE in front of the other two guarentees?
This gloom and doom krap about taxes got it exactly wrong during the Clinton years, got it wrong with minimum wages, and is a bunch of mamby pamby whining.
Tim, you are missing the point. It's shifting a higher tax burden to more wealthy and taking some off lower earners. It doesn't do anything to trim the "trillions in debt".
Capitalism is no more that a freeholder system of a selfish installation of a republic monarchy created by class action whereas a small group takes on an identity of a single person. Such groups, acting as a single person, using their compound knowledge, establish a ruling society which seeks to control those not of their class. Under our system, government has become the capitalist as they control the barter of exchange in their struggle to retain authority. Such capitalist systems that produce no product for exchange have derived on an old system of deflating the barter of exchange by over issuing paper certificates in order to maintain a very unstable economy.
Like the empires that in the past that have failed we are trying to extend our influence over other nations which by the float of our barter of exchange, it has caused the individuals of the lower class to indebt even our great grandchildren. They will pay an extending price for our negligence to address the cost of wars fought for capitalism.
Gold, held as a stable barter of exchanged in the world, has cost the devaluation of the dollar more than 50% in the last five years.
Those who suffer under the capitalism system the government's have taken are the pensioners and working poor. Tomorrow it will have to be on the shoulders of the un-conceived children of today.
It all is going down the avenue travel by many empires before but this time again there is no one available to light the street lights that show the road ahead.
In other words government acting under the guise of capitalist just plain stinks.
My point would be that we are not going to stop spending so the only thing we can do is raise taxes. Oklahoma has a surplus from its taxpayers, this could certainly happen at the Federal level and then we could - over a century - pay down the debt. I do not want to see taxes raised on anyone, but what else can we do?
Tim, Did you hear Greenspan talk recently about how freaked out they were in Clinton's second term because thanks to Clinton we faced the prospect of paying off the debt.
Anyway, Shadows, our government is as good as the people it represents.
Hey, Shadows, that post where you referred to the weight of a feather -- was beautifully written. Was that your own metaphor?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Capitalism is no more that a freeholder system of a selfish installation of a republic monarchy created by class action whereas a small group takes on an identity of a single person. Such groups, acting as a single person, using their compound knowledge, establish a ruling society which seeks to control those not of their class. Under our system, government has become the capitalist as they control the barter of exchange in their struggle to retain authority. Such capitalist systems that produce no product for exchange have derived on an old system of deflating the barter of exchange by over issuing paper certificates in order to maintain a very unstable economy.
Like the empires that in the past that have failed we are trying to extend our influence over other nations which by the float of our barter of exchange, it has caused the individuals of the lower class to indebt even our great grandchildren. They will pay an extending price for our negligence to address the cost of wars fought for capitalism.
Gold, held as a stable barter of exchanged in the world, has cost the devaluation of the dollar more than 50% in the last five years.
Those who suffer under the capitalism system the government's have taken are the pensioners and working poor. Tomorrow it will have to be on the shoulders of the un-conceived children of today.
It all is going down the avenue travel by many empires before but this time again there is no one available to light the street lights that show the road ahead.
In other words government acting under the guise of capitalist just plain stinks.
Poetry. Pure gold. Doesn't make any sense, but pure genius. This is why I come here.
I Gizoogled his post for better clarification:
quote:
"Capitizzle is no more thizzay a freeholda system of a selfish installation of a republic monarchy created by class action whereas a S-M-to-tha-izzall group takes on an identity of a single person n ****. Such groups, blingin' as a single person, using they compound knowledge, establish a rul'n society which seeks ta control those not of they class . Bounce wit me. Unda our system, government has become tha capitizzles as they control tha playa of exchange in they struggle ta retain authority. Such capitizzles systems tizzle produce no product fo` exchange hizzy derived on an old system of deflat'n tha barta of exchange by over issu'n papa certificizzles in rappa ta maintain a very unstable economy.
Like tha empires that in tha past thizzat hizzle failed we is blingin' ta extend our influence over shot calla nations W-H-to-tha-izzich by tha float of our cracka of exchange, it has caused tha individuals of tha lowa class ta indebt even our bootylicious grandchildren. They will pay an extend'n price fo` our negligence ta address tha cizzost of wars fought fo` capitizzles yaba daba dizzle.
Gold, held as a stable playa of exchanged in tha world, has cost tha devalizzles of tha dollar mizzle tizzle 50% in tha last five years ta help you tap dat donkey.
Those who suffa killa tha capitizzle system tha government's have taken is tha rappa n work'n poor . Its just anotha homocide. Tomorrow it W-to-tha-izzill have ta be on tha shoulda of tha un-conceived children of today.
It all is going down tha avenue travel by many empires before but this tizzle again there is no one available ta light tha street lights that S-H-to-tha-izzow tha road aheezee.
In hustla words government blingin' unda tha guise of capitizzles just plain stinks. "
I totally got it now!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
and give to everyone else.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20071024%5cACQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&
The chairmen of Ways and Means committee has proposed essentially revoking income taxes altogether on the bottom half of Americans and paying them more money from the federal government in the EITC. It will be funded by raising the income tax by 4% on the top 10% of wage earners.
Other details include reduction of business taxes for certain interests and of course tons of other provisions that no citizen nor congressmen will read in full. But to summarize...
Raise taxes on the upper 10% and give that money to the bottom 50%. With liberty and justice for all. No wait, that's mob rule. They have what we want, lets use the government to take it and then give it to us. Unbelievable.
How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???
"Mob rule" would take more than 4%, I bet...
It's very telling that a 4% higher tax on those who CAN afford it would raise incredibly huge sums of money... would very likely take us from huge fake-deficits to another Clinton era surplus.... acting like the rich have "earned" their money is pure folly...
The NY Times in 2005 reported that...
"Other data shows that among major world economies, the United States in recent years has the third-greatest disparity in incomes between the very top and everyone else. Only Mexico and Russia, among major economies, have greater disparity."So, why would the United States want to be MORE like Mexico and Russia... tell me this, capitalist...
And can you please share the percentage of people who earn over $200,000 per year who have family in the military who are fighting and dying for this country?
Why should someone's money make more money than I do? Is their money
that much more hard working than I am? You can make excuses in the traditions of run-of-the-mill economists...
If you make over $200,000 per year, it's not about money anymore. It's about control. It's about power. It's about prestige...
If you didn't notice, we're at war... why make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent??? Stupidity and incompetence should never be rewarded...
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
We are how many TRILLIONS of dollars in debt? And we think we are going expand our economy to pay for it in how many decades? The 4% extra is on couples making more than $200K or individuals making +$150K, or like six times the median income for Tulsans, and we are supposed to feel bad for them? Raising taxes is similar to butchering dissenters? Did you not forget LIFE in front of the other two guarentees?
This gloom and doom krap about taxes got it exactly wrong during the Clinton years, got it wrong with minimum wages, and is a bunch of mamby pamby whining.
You mean an additional 4% more on top of the MORE they already pay. Yea, that's fair.
I've posted the statistics here OVER and OVER and OVER about how the average American, MEDIAN, Mr. Middle class is far wealthier today than he historically has been in American history (forever, but for the irrational exuberance of the 1990's which led to our recession in early 2000's). Inflation, cost of living, and everything else adjusted. He makes more. Has a fancier car. A bigger house. Spends more on medicine (and lives longer). I'm not going to waste my time digging them out again for people to ignore yet again.
And no, the rich are not richer than they ever have been. The great wealthy men in the past control solid percentage points of our GDP: Astor, Ford, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller. The wealth of even the richest American's today pales in comparison to the old when viewed with regard to the rest of our wealth, let alone to the aristocrats of yesteryear.
Furthermore, who cares? The average American is wealthier today than they used to be, why should it matter if someone else is more wealthier (actually used in the correct context, I do not think I've ever done that before)? If I am granted a 25% raise and my coworker is granted a 100% raise I am no worse off. Yeah I'm richer, but some are richer still! Economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Speaking of economics... I've argued before that wealth serves no purpose without expenditure. We should ENCOURAGE rich people to buy $30,000,000 paintings (isn't that right William!), ridiculously expensive cars, and eating at $500 restaurants. The painter, paint supplier, art dealer, car salesmen, factory worker, mechanic, insurance companies, restaurant owner, property manager, maintenance workers, waiters, and valets appreciate it. There are entire industries specialized in getting money away from those that have too much, who cares if it doesn't target you?
Finally, what justification is there to take away someone's earnings to give to someone else? Did the MD do something wrong that we wish to discourage? Did the lower middle class do something that deserves a reward? Is there some reason that the doctor, college professor, or entrepreneur is expected to support not only the government but other people - while (under the proposal) most American's should not have to? The only reason is because they have money and you can take it. I find that entire concept vile.
Now here is where you give your take care of poverty speech, and I laugh at you for calling someone with free housing, free food, free health care, a government check, a tax "refund," a car and a color TV as living in "poverty." In most places a roof over year head, food, and running water puts you into the elite crowd. Here, if you can't afford an iPhone you think the government should take someone else's money and give it to you.
Ruf:
Yes the noted despots and communists I listed would certainly be proud. Of course they would WANT to take more, as I'm sure many socialists in this country do. But they would surely be awful excited at the next great leap for more state control of wealth.
To answer your question, I have no idea what percentage of people > $200K have family in the military... is that now a prerequisite for keeping your wealth? No family in the military = government takes your money. That's called militarism and most liberals at least pretend to hate it. Encouraging the rich to control the economy, the government AND the military might be seen as a bad idea by some.
quote:
Why should someone's money make more money than I do? Is their money that much more hard working than I am?
Thank you for summing up your entire argument for me:
"They have more than I have, I deserve it at least as much as they do, I'm going to take it. I know how much money they need,
I know they don't work hard,
I will get the government to do what
I want and take what they have." That entire train of thought is why I am against this and any other wealth redistribution scheme (hint: I make far, far less than the threshold so would not be effected negatively). Its petty, contrary to the notion of freedom, and paramount to institutionalized theft.
And if someone proposed a war tax I would vote in favor of it. This is not a war tax, this is taking money from some Americans and giving it to other Americans simply because we can. We are not talking about minimum subsistence or health care, we are talking about taking working American's money who have done nothing wrong and giving it to other people so those people can buy more things. And I have yet to see a defensible position in favor of this proposal.
quote:
why make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent??? Stupidity and incompetence should never be rewarded../
You're right, the "rich" are all stupid and incompetent. That's why the vast majority of them worked their way to the top of the ladder. Buffet, Gates, Dell, the Google guys, John Edwards - stupid. Honestly, if you take the attitude that anyone who has achieved anything is stupid and doesn't deserve it you have serious responsibility issues to overcome. Most wealthy people have made it there on their own accord, most of your post just sounds bitter that you have not. Why does it matter to you what OTHER people have so long as you have what you need and they did not obtain theirs to your detriment?
Worthless argument. The "they have done well lets take it from them attitude" isn't exactly what we're founded on but I'm sure your set in your ways.
Last night on Kudlow, Robert Reich was on and he asked the konservative what was going to happen when the Alternate Minimum Tax expires, and there is a TRILLION hole in the budget and the only thing the konservative could come up with was 'we will grow our way out of it'!
I have zero sympathy for Okies making like six or seven times the average income getting taxed a little bit more. Buuuuuut I have no explanation why we would want to hurt the budget by granting rebates to the lowest class except Democant class envy.
And when I want someone on the public dole to comment on the fairness of taking taxes for redistribution I will drive without my seatbelt and ask 'em. [:D]
CF-
I guess there is a brain block for some people who don't get the idea that people's money making money for them usually is the result of direct or indirect investment in business and industry which provides good paying jobs for others throughout the economy.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???
Take a Xanax Ruf, they tell me it's a miracle drug.
There is a brain block OK, like how we are supposed to reduce the deficit and pay off the debt? And what about all that fear-based class-warfare about the effects of minimum wage and Clinton's 'tax raises'? If certain wingnuts had their way, we would have no public schools, no public universities, no immunizations, no common road system, no disability benefits, nothing but the skin on your back and the mercy of an aristocracy.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
QuoteOriginally posted by cannon_fodder
How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???
"Mob rule" would take more than 4%, I bet...
It's very telling that a 4% higher tax on those who CAN afford it would raise incredibly huge sums of money... would very likely take us from huge fake-deficits to another Clinton era surplus.... acting like the rich have "earned" their money is pure folly...
The NY Times in 2005 reported that... "Other data shows that among major world economies, the United States in recent years has the third-greatest disparity in incomes between the very top and everyone else. Only Mexico and Russia, among major economies, have greater disparity."
So, why would the United States want to be MORE like Mexico and Russia... tell me this, capitalist...
And can you please share the percentage of people who earn over $200,000 per year who have family in the military who are fighting and dying for this country?
Why should someone's money make more money than I do? Is their money that much more hard working than I am? You can make excuses in the traditions of run-of-the-mill economists...
If you make over $200,000 per year, it's not about money anymore. It's about control. It's about power. It's about prestige...
If you didn't notice, we're at war... why make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent??? Stupidity and incompetence should never be rewarded...
Spoken like a typical "have not". Well, some of the "haves" out there worked damn hard to get where they are in life and do not believe that they should be punished for their success by higher tax.
As for your BS military service comment, this "have" has served. Do I get a waiver of the 4% tax then?
If you do not like your lot in life, do better. That's what this country is supposed to be about.
It is difficult to defend tax hikes, but the fact is we are trillions in debt with no end in sight. We need to have a balanced budget amendment, a flat tax retail or otherwise, and to reduce spending. Without any of those what alternative is there? The river tax vote shows that those doing well think they can afford to pay more so what is the problem?
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
There is a brain block OK, like how we are supposed to reduce the deficit and pay off the debt? And what about all that fear-based class-warfare about the effects of minimum wage and Clinton's 'tax raises'? If certain wingnuts had their way, we would have no public schools, no public universities, no immunizations, no common road system, no disability benefits, nothing but the skin on your back and the mercy of an aristocracy.
Tim, here's the point:
This is not raising taxes. This is shifting the collection point from lower income to higher income, if I'm reading this correctly. In fact, there's even the probability that by further raising the income bar on who does not have to pay in, it might decrease overall revenue.
If it balances, it will not raise over-all revenues, just shift the collection point. Just like building more retail density in another part of a city, without an increase in personal incomes nor more influx of outside dollars, it's just a collection point shift. Doesn't do jack for the deficit.
This tax increase would not affect me, so why would I care? The reason I care is I'm sick and tired of the government telling me they need to spend more and more money. Government keeps expanding their payroll and offering fewer essential services at every level and trying to get involved in services they have no business being in.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
and give to everyone else.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20071024%5cACQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&
The chairmen of Ways and Means committee has proposed essentially revoking income taxes altogether on the bottom half of Americans and paying them more money from the federal government in the EITC. It will be funded by raising the income tax by 4% on the top 10% of wage earners.
Other details include reduction of business taxes for certain interests and of course tons of other provisions that no citizen nor congressmen will read in full. But to summarize...
Raise taxes on the upper 10% and give that money to the bottom 50%. With liberty and justice for all. No wait, that's mob rule. They have what we want, lets use the government to take it and then give it to us. Unbelievable.
How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???
"Mob rule" would take more than 4%, I bet...
It's very telling that a 4% higher tax on those who CAN afford it would raise incredibly huge sums of money... would very likely take us from huge fake-deficits to another Clinton era surplus.... acting like the rich have "earned" their money is pure folly...
The NY Times in 2005 reported that... "Other data shows that among major world economies, the United States in recent years has the third-greatest disparity in incomes between the very top and everyone else. Only Mexico and Russia, among major economies, have greater disparity."
So, why would the United States want to be MORE like Mexico and Russia... tell me this, capitalist...
And can you please share the percentage of people who earn over $200,000 per year who have family in the military who are fighting and dying for this country?
Why should someone's money make more money than I do? Is their money that much more hard working than I am? You can make excuses in the traditions of run-of-the-mill economists...
If you make over $200,000 per year, it's not about money anymore. It's about control. It's about power. It's about prestige...
If you didn't notice, we're at war... why make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent??? Stupidity and incompetence should never be rewarded...
Wow! That's an interesting viewpoint. So as I understand you, the wealthy don't deserve their wealth and anyone who makes more than $200,000 a year should just give it to someone else. Is it the poor or the rich that make this country great?
Here are my general observations on life:
1. I have never been employed by a poor person.
2. I know lots of rich people and most of them have wonderful success stories built on hard work, creativity, and an unyielding resistance to negative thought.
3. The tax cuts you mention helped me re-invest and expand my business, employ more people and, I have to admit, buy more things (that it may be worth mentioning, were made by people with jobs).
4. I certainly don't make in excess of $200,000 but I intend to make more than that someday. I own my own business and as my business grows I employ more people and pay them more money. I reward success and punish failure.
5. If you are hard working and upset about the money you make, then you are in the wrong job. You need to do what you enjoy most in life. You will do it better than anyone else and therefore be more successful.
6. Every time we cut taxes, both the economy and government revenue go up. This has never failed to be the case. It's an easy bit of research.
7. There is no such thing as a tax increase on the rich or a tax cut for the rich! Because the rich are the people who own the companies and actually create jobs, if you increase taxes they just raise their prices to compensate, therefore your can-o-beans gets more expensive. When you cut taxes on the rich they either re-invest in their business endeavors or BUY STUFF, creating more jobs and higher income for the people that work at their companies or make their STUFF.
8. Distribution of wealth (that is what you are talking about) produces nothing because the poor will simply have to pay higher prices for STUFF to compensate for for the increases. Additionally, you remove incentive for people to be more successful. Why should I make a better mouse-trap or cancer medicine if it's not going to make any difference in my income and my ability to provide for my family? Why should I work extra-hard when I can get paid the same to relax?
9. The one thing you got right and I commend you for it, was your use of the term "fake-deficit." There is no such thing as a deficit as long as the FED can control interest rates and print money!!!!!! It is an imaginary number used for measurement purposes (and political campaigns) only.
I'm sorry your life hasn't turned out like you planned.
The driving force is the expiration of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and that the index for computing that ATM is sliding lower into the middle class. Eliminating that causes a trillion dollar deficit. Repeating myself now, what else can we do?
Actually Tim I think the AMT is becoming an issue because the "middle class" is now at a level that was perceived as "rich" when enacted....
That reality does not change the fact that as you say, the government has now "counted on" this new tax that has yet to be collected. i am not sure exactly how we got to that point but the idea is that if we change the AMT back to what it was originally intended then there is a future source of revenue that has to be replaced.
Like many others, I would rather see the government become more efficient in doing what it does with resources already available but since that is a pipe dream then we are left with how to feed, in the words of Friendly Bear" the "Mother of All Tax Vampires"... The troubling aspect of the debate for me is that it has devolved into this class warfare argument that only makes sense if you ignore basic economics. This country has an economic system absed on equal opportunity... there is no guarantee of success which means there will always be failures. This in and of itself is not evil by any means and there is no one onthis board that ignores the fact that there are people that we as a society will always need to help. The issue is when people that are able to do better but don't and somehow feel they are entitled to a share of the success that those that work hard have. A government that begins a "redistribution" of its' countries wealth is not a democratic government but a socialistic or commmunistic government. For those that espouse this is the way to go then I would offer that there are countires like that in the world today and nobody here is going to stop you from going there.
Tim, there is no doubt that we as a country are not in a pristine fiscal position... but get past the sheer size of the numbers and there have been many times in our short history where the amount of debt, as a percentage of GDP, income or net worth, has been higher than it is today. Certainly the trend cannot continue but we are not on the precipice of financial ruin... not by a long shot.
That's not entirely true. The preamble to our constitution clearly mentions that part of the duty of the gov't is to "promote the general welfare". Whatever that means.
We're not talking about redistribution of wealth in the Marxist sense, and we're not talking about tax rates that are unheard of. The top tax rates would have to be hiked 2 to 3 times to get to historic highs. The system has been dismantled over the last few decades, it hardly resembles the old Progressive system.
And our system is far less reliant on some vague definition of "economic freedom", than it is flow of capital. Those that espouse lower tax rates on wealthy people, are general the "Trickle-Down" types. That theory is questionable at best, but it is for certain that if capital is fused into the low end of the economy, that it most definitely trickles up.
When that flow stops, so does the economy. So far, all we're doing to keep money flowing, is inflating the currency. That's completely unsustainable.
"Trickle Down" economics really mean "Tinkle On".
Nahhhh, easier to call war-hero Rangel a Marxist than to fix spending or raise taxes on the wealthiest. More evidence why a flat tax, fair tax, national retail tax, are all better than what we have now.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
"Trickle Down" economics really mean "Tinkle On".
Building set-backs in my neighborhood make it difficult for me to "Tinkle On" the peasants as they walk by. And. . .too many carry umbrellas!
Flat tax sucks. National retail tax is where it's at.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Flat tax sucks. National retail tax is where it's at.
You rock!
It's the only thing that makes sence, therefore it will infuriate some. Makes it hard for some politicians to "politic".
I would be whole heartedly in favor of a national sales tax EVEN THOUGH it would exempt everyone from poverty level taxation and would result in a greater system of progressive tax than we have now. It would close loopholes, stop favoritism (ie. oil company tax breaks, this or that tax breaks), and make people aware of how much the government actually takes in taxes.
Also, I hope people think I'm arguing against higher taxes. While I would GREATLY prefer to see reduced spending to higher taxation, if we insist on spending ridiculous sums of money taxes must rise to meet expenditures. However, the manner in which those taxes are raised seems to be a point of disagreement... also, I do not want to raise taxes (on anyone) only to see more spending (on anything).
and finally, MichaelC, our current economic policy is and has been strongly geared AGAINST inflation. It has been held below 6% for many years even during the Dot Bomb years (see: stagflation). The notion that we are growing our economy by inflation is patently false according to the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the UN and every economist on the planet that I am aware of.
and still... no one has enlightened me as to why someone who worked hard in college, spent a hundred thousand $ more to go to medical school for 4 years, then spent another 6 years on a residency to get his MD and specialty in order to work "call" hours for 60 hours a week should then have a higher percentage of his earnings taken away then the guy who graduated from high school and started pumping gas? What did he do wrong that he should be punished for? For what virtuous act is the other guy being rewarded for? I simply don't get it.
Our economy is not growing because of inflation. Our economy grows because it has to. It's a natural occurrence.
Yes, domestically, the fed is working very hard to maintain some reasonable level of inflation. Internationally, that's where were hurting. Borrowing money on weak currency, to pay interest on debts we're too irresponsible to pay ourselves. Where companies in China and Japan are floating on billions of US dollars, and making sure they don't spend it in fear that the US economy might collapse. All of that will comeback to haunt us domestically. It would be hurting us now, if the Fed wasn't working so hard, and foreign countries weren't interested in keeping us afloat.
We'd have to raise taxes just to be responsible for the gov't we have now.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
We'd have to raise taxes just to be responsible for the gov't we have now.
Not necessary. Start trimming back the gov't to match the revenue streams we have now. Somehow that message doesn't make it past the lobbyists in Washington though.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
And no, the rich are not richer than they ever have been. The great wealthy men in the past control solid percentage points of our GDP: Astor, Ford, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller. The wealth of even the richest American's today pales in comparison to the old when viewed with regard to the rest of our wealth, let alone to the aristocrats of yesteryear.
They may not have broken any records yet, but they are closing (//%22http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/10/08/daily56.html%22):
quote:
The IRS reports that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans accounted for 21 percent of all income in 2005.
That is the highest level of wealth concentration in the U.S. since before the Great Depression and World War II, according to economic studies.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Not necessary. Start trimming back the gov't to match the revenue streams we have now. Somehow that message doesn't make it past the lobbyists in Washington though.
It's not going to happen. The most conservative folks in the gov't, the anti-gov't folks, they still need a job, and they still need a target. Cut the gov't, cut your own reason for being. It's a better career choice to complain while doing nothing at all.
The gov't hasn't grown at the pace of the economy, probably a good thing. And technically, much of the tax cuts may have been useful. Some weren't, and you can't cut taxes every few months through infinity.
The only tax cuts I will ever support are cuts or outright tax exemptions on overtime pay, food, and medicine. Senator Kenneth Corn recently announced he will introduce legislation this session to end the state income tax on overtime pay.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
How dare you compare this proposal to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot???
Take a Xanax Ruf, they tell me it's a miracle drug.
CF's post implies this is some sort of pinko communist legislation... I've never been fond of liberals who compare conservative legislation to facist dictators either...
"How dare you" is my opinion and perfectly fits in this case...
Clinton era = surplus.
Bush era = deficits.
Difference between the two... massive tax cuts for the wealthy under the Bush administration. And those tax cuts have been sustained in a time of war.
When Dick Cheney says
Deficits don't matter, he fails to mention that it only applies when a Republican occupies the White House...
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Spoken like a typical "have not". Well, some of the "haves" out there worked damn hard to get where they are in life and do not believe that they should be punished for their success by higher tax.
As for your BS military service comment, this "have" has served. Do I get a waiver of the 4% tax then?
If you do not like your lot in life, do better. That's what this country is supposed to be about.
And I've worked just as "damn hard" as you did to get what I got in life..... typical of a "have" to blame the "have-nots" and insist they're all LAZY. My grandfather was a "have-not" who worked for MaBell for decades and fought for his country in WWII... back when we had a more progressive tax system... my stepfather was a "have-not" who grew up in a welfare home and fought in 'nam...
I am fully in favor of a meritocracy in this country. I am not in favor of entrenched wealth. And I believe there has been some "trickle-down" class warfare in the last 20 years in this country...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html
quote:
There was a time when Americans thought they understood class. The upper crust vacationed in Europe and worshiped an Episcopal God. The middle class drove Ford Fairlanes, settled the San Fernando Valley and enlisted as company men. The working class belonged to the A.F.L.-C.I.O., voted Democratic and did not take cruises to the Caribbean.
Today, the country has gone a long way toward an appearance of classlessness. Americans of all sorts are awash in luxuries that would have dazzled their grandparents. Social diversity has erased many of the old markers. It has become harder to read people's status in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the votes they cast, the god they worship, the color of their skin. The contours of class have blurred; some say they have disappeared.
But class is still a powerful force in American life. Over the past three decades, it has come to play a greater, not lesser, role in important ways. At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains linked tightly to class. At a time when the country is increasingly integrated racially, the rich are isolating themselves more and more. At a time of extraordinary advances in medicine, class differences in health and lifespan are wide and appear to be widening.
And new research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than most people believe. [Click here for more information on income mobility.] In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined, many researchers say.
Mobility is the promise that lies at the heart of the American dream. It is supposed to take the sting out of the widening gulf between the have-mores and the have-nots. There are poor and rich in the United States, of course, the argument goes; but as long as one can become the other, as long as there is something close to equality of opportunity, the differences between them do not add up to class barriers.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html
Murphy's Law of economic policy: "Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently." --- Princeton's Alan Blinder
^^ Feh, that's an editorial which reads like an idealistic freshman comp essay.
There are always going to be people who choose to go to Vo-Tech to learn their chosen career and those who choose to go to med school.
An economy needs people who are willing to work in the professional ranks and those who are willing to get their hands dirty.
The path is there for whichever an individual chooses regardless of what "class" they came from. There is a reason some jobs pay vastly more than others. Why should a picker in a warehouse be paid the same as the CEO of the company?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
and still... no one has enlightened me as to why someone who worked hard in college, spent a hundred thousand $ more to go to medical school for 4 years, then spent another 6 years on a residency to get his MD and specialty in order to work "call" hours for 60 hours a week should then have a higher percentage of his earnings taken away then the guy who graduated from high school and started pumping gas? What did he do wrong that he should be punished for? For what virtuous act is the other guy being rewarded for? I simply don't get it.
So, as a doctor, will you be making over $200K per year? Also, I'm surprised you're studying for an MD, since you seem to act like an expert in economics....... if we start cutting government programs, maybe we should start with those "socialistic" college grant & student loan programs, those little loan-guarantees that most college students have to rely on at some point... govt programs in the 80s that cut my grants in half one year, in half again the next year... and congress decided to also cut my eligibility for an NDSL loan the following year... thank you, Gramm-Rudman...
http://www.chessconsulting.org/financialaid/history.htm
I take responsibility for my actions. I wish I hadn't bit off more than I could chew by going above and beyond my scholarship requirements a few semesters by playing in two orchestras, singing in two choirs and doing a lead role in an opera while working 15-30+ hours with a full-time course load every week...
I am VERY, VERY appreciative of the wealthy donors who've helped me over the years, but I'm also respectful of someone like Charlie Rangel who's been around the pike in Congress for almost as long as I've been alive...
WHY CLASS WAR IN AMERICA WAS WRITTEN
Chuck Kellyhttp://www.kellysite.net/whycw.html
http://www.kellysite.net/progtax.html?
quote:
When arguing the merits of a progressive income tax, don't take the usual approach that "the rich can afford it," or that "it won't hurt them as much."
Republicans love to attack reasons like these, because of "fairness," no less. Instead, point out that our richest citizens have benefited most from the policies that right wing extremists have been implementing for the past 25 years. The wealthy caused these policies and they benefit the most from them.
Sure, Republicans work hard--at getting right wing politicians elected. And they're successful, because those politicians bias our economy to greatly favor them.
Especially since the '80s began, conservative politicians have made corporations more profitable, they've increased the wealth of the already wealthy, and they've forced huge sacrifices on middle and low income Americans. They accomplished this by:
Forcing workers to compete with the most brutalized workers in the world,
Loading the courts with Republican judges,
Manipulating the prime rate, and by
Passing all kinds of anti-worker legislation.
It is only fair that those who caused these conditions (by getting America's right wing extremists elected), and benefited from them, pay their fair share of the costs that they generated.
A second argument for the progressive tax
Never in recent history has greed been so richly rewarded. Between 1942 and 1962, the tax rate for our richest Americans was at least 88%, and as high as 91%.
In those days, when CEOs considered firing thousands of workers for a million dollar bonus, the moral condemnation didn't seem to be worth it. After taxes, it only amounted to, say, only $120,000. Today, when a CEO fires thousands of workers, he gets a two million dollar bonus, and he gets to keep a million of it. Suddenly, we're talking serious money. And when he retires he can move to one of our country's many guarded communities with his millionaire cronies, and he gets virtually no moral condemnation from his golfing buddies.
So, let's go back to the tax rates we had for our richest citizens between 1942 and 1962. Or, at least, we could go to the rates we had from 1962 to 1982, when it was at least 70%.
And by the way, over that period of forty years between '42 and '82, none of the bad things that conservatives warn about happened. We didn't have massive unemployment, we didn't stifle innovation, and, above all, we didn't become communists.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
^^ Feh, that's an editorial which reads like an idealistic freshman comp essay.
Why should a picker in a warehouse be paid the same as the CEO of the company?
Feh back at ya', Cascia boy...
Who argued that "a picker in a warehouse be paid the same as the CEO of the company"????
Please show me anywhere in this discussion where that was argued.
Maybe the Xanax you're taking is causing you to hallucinate? [}:)]
Rangel's proposal is interesting and should be considered, not rejected out of hand.
I noticed the reduction in the top tax rate for corporations while raising the rates on persons making over $ 200k a year. An interesting idea that needs more study.
Also, the part to close the loophole that allows fund managers to pay long term capital gains rate taxes ( 15% ) on earnings is something I agree with.
If the Congressman is truely intent on reducing the deficit, then along side the tax changes, he should propose a bill to limit growth in federal spending to the rate inflation and GDP. Spending is out of hand by the Federal Government and there needs to be some limit on it or else the Congress will continue to buy votes in the form of new programs and earmarks and just raise taxes to pay for it. Some limitation will force them to think hard about what is necessary and what is waste.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Spoken like a typical "have not". Well, some of the "haves" out there worked damn hard to get where they are in life and do not believe that they should be punished for their success by higher tax.
As for your BS military service comment, this "have" has served. Do I get a waiver of the 4% tax then?
If you do not like your lot in life, do better. That's what this country is supposed to be about.
And I've worked just as "damn hard" as you did to get what I got in life..... typical of a "have" to blame the "have-nots" and insist they're all LAZY. My grandfather was a "have-not" who worked for MaBell for decades and fought for his country in WWII... back when we had a more progressive tax system... my stepfather was a "have-not" who grew up in a welfare home and fought in 'nam...
Again, spoken like a typical have not.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like a typical have not.
Spoken like a typical Tulsa conservative elitist...
You know, I've spoken to many "haves" over the years... in quite a few different cities, different social circles... the president (or maybe he was VP) of an oil company, the wife of a university president... an affluent and extremely successful graduate of Culver Academy, a uniquely talented freshman at Harvard, arts donors, etc, etc, etc...
"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him."
"I don't pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him. I pity the creature who does not work, at whichever end of the social scale he may regard himself as being."
"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures." ---Theodore Roosevelt"It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach."
"Don't forget what I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars."
"Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."---
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Ruf:
No, I am not going to medical school. I have a BA in Accounting, a BA in Finance, and a Juris Doctorate. Medical School is not in the cards (my wife would kill me if I tried to go to college for ANOTHER 8 years).
I was referring to any individual that choses to do so. It would certainly NOT be uncommon for a specialist to earn over $200,000 a year (read: not me). And while you "calling me out" on my economics knowledge was amusing, you STILL did not answer the question: what did such a person do that deserves punishment? And yes, taking an additional 4% of someones wage certainly is punishment.
I support student government programs that loan money to any American who desires an education as they are non-dischargeable and in the long run serve to better our country. I do not support grants based on what someones parents earn, on race, nor gender. College loans are not by definition "socialist" if they provide for all members of society.
And let me assure you, getting funding for college in America today is no real chore, since it is non-dischargeable most kids can take their full $18,000 Stafford and $6,000 Perkins loans and top that off with another $15,000 if private unsecured loans. If you can't find a school to go to on $39,000 a year then you simply need to lower your standards or improve your grades (scholarship). It sucks graduating ~$100,000 in debt (trust me) but its an INVESTMENT.
and I'm sorry you failed to properly manage your time in college, but again... why punish those who did? I still fail to see any logic in punishing those members of society who exemplify what most Americans wish to achieve.
I do not understand using the word 'punish' in this context. That was never used in the river tax debate, why 'punish' County Tulsans who never use the river? You supported that. Why punish Americans who do not want to support the VOA? You supported that.
The fact is without cutting spending and increasing taxes the punishment will become 'confisticatory' very soon. Calling high tax rates punishment is like calling waterboarding 'torture.'
The easiest way to reduce federal government spending is to end the war in Iraq.
I admit to being a peace activist, but any fiscal conservative should also agree that the war has spiraled our country into deeper debt.
Look at this website...
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html
It shows how much the war has cost America and can even show how much it has cost Tulsans. For Tulsa residents, the war in Iraq has cost almost $850,000,000. That money could have done the river improvements, fixed many of our roads, and hired dozens more policemen.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The easiest way to reduce federal government spending is to end the war in Iraq.
I admit to being a peace activist, but any fiscal conservative should also agree that the war has spiraled our country into deeper debt.
Look at this website...
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html
It shows how much the war has cost America and can even show how much it has cost Tulsans. For Tulsa residents, the war in Iraq has cost almost $850,000,000. That money could have done the river improvements, fixed many of our roads, and hired dozens more policemen.
How do you propose we do that? Just curious.
As you formulate your answer, take in consideration a few things:
1. Nearly 50 million people dependant on our protection from influences from the North and within thier own radical sects.
2. A position that after Iran takes control (which they said they intend to do) will most certanly mean the invasion and control of Kuwait.
3. Because Kuwait is all that holds our small amount of control on the energy market in place, we will be choked. (I however think that the increases in oil prices have done more to help our drive for energy independence than anything else).
4. The unification of Syria, Libya and Iraq into an Islamic state under Iran (Syria and Libya to some extent have already indicated a fondness for the idea).
5. Israel will most certainly be attacked, and then we will be obligated to go back and fight unless we just want to just protest, or let the UN handle it (they do such a wonderful job!).
6. During all this fun, the individual Islamic sects will vie for dominance through the killing of each other until a respected Ayatollah provides the necessary guidance as to which sects must be exterminated.
7. The billions of dollars in oil revenue that will flow into the new capital in Iran will make the new fall fashions (the nuclear backpack, and atomic sport coat) a simple and feasible.
8. Iran is the only keystone holding everything together, so other Arab states will certainly join. Especially after the defeat of the americans and the destruction of everything we helped to create in the region.
9. Russa, China, and Korea will receive inexpensive oil, skyrocketing their economies and creating another set of problems that I cannot even begin to anticipate!
10. Money is far from the issue here. Tulsa streets have been bad for 40 years regardless of countless tax increases.
I get so tired of liberals (many of whom I respect greatly, because I used to be one) suggesting that we take a course of action that they spent no time researching. Many of our political candidates make the statement "I have a plan to get the troops out of Iraq." If you have a plan, and you would like for us to support it, then please SHARE it with us. The 1% of us that have done the research and understand the region to some extent would like to know about your PLAN and how it takes into consideration many of the negative factors (only a few of which I have mentioned).
This is a grand game of Chess that we have been playing for over 40 years. We almost lost during the late 70s when we attempted diplomacy, and again in the 90s when we thought that we could just lob missiles from afar.
I respect that you are an ACTIVIST with a CAUSE, but I also understand the political definition of both of these terms and how they affect an individual's ability to walk blindly into a situation or to defend a position regardless of fact. As a reformed activist myself I encourage you to question every position and review the outcomes. It will help you to formulate logical CAUSES that will help you to evolve from an ACTIVIST (militant slave to a doctrine), to a VISIONARY (clear, distinctive and specific understanding of the future). Your CAUSES will become GOALS and you will be much more interesting at a cocktail party.
Respectfully
Bill Spoon(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/LocationIraq.svg/800px-LocationIraq.svg.png)
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I do not understand using the word 'punish' in this context. That was never used in the river tax debate, why 'punish' County Tulsans who never use the river? You supported that. Why punish Americans who do not want to support the VOA? You supported that.
The fact is without cutting spending and increasing taxes the punishment will become 'confisticatory' very soon. Calling high tax rates punishment is like calling waterboarding 'torture.'
That analogy is completely assigning. one voluntarily engages in waterboarding for ones own pleasure. One gets taxed involuntarily and in this instance it is for another's pleasure.
Likewise, your analogy to the River Tax is not admissible because that tax was levied without regard to who was paying it. If you buy goods, you pay the tax. NOT, if you do not use the river you must pay the tax. The causal nature of a "if you earn X you pay Y" is far different than a blanket tax.
Similarly, revenue for the VOA is collected for the betterment of the nation as a whole FROM the nation as a whole. It is not taken from a specific group to bennefit another specific group.
And finally, a punishment is a devise meant to dissuade or penalize an act. "If you make more than X we are going to fine you Y" could be viewed in this context. It certainly is not a reward for doing well and it falls well below neutrality. The sole reason more money will be taken is to to the act of earning additional money. Hence, they are being punished for that act.
Do you truly not grasp the enormous differences involved or are you being obtuse just to aggravate me?
Perhaps I need to rephrase my incredibly simply question: I hereby deem your earnings to be in excess of my own. I live comfortably, but not as comfortably as you do. Therefor, I demand the government take money from you and give it to me. Explain to me why you should be force to suffer a detriment to my benefit?
- - -
and again RM, I would support a war tax proposal that reminded all Americans that our government is spending money like water. Certainly you would agree that taxing 2% of our population would do little to pass this message along and thus, not help end the war (nor would it be effective in funding the war effort really). So long as the rich are paying for it and the poor are dying (or so the perception is, when really the middle class supply the VAST majority of service members) the middle class and retired voters will not be calling for an end.
A national "war tax" in the nature of a sales tax would be required to really show Americans how much damn money we are spending daily in Iraq (specifically, $1,000,000 per day, per soldier). Or a tax on refunds... the government keeps 10% of refunds to help fund the war.
Something anyway. As it stands the politicians have an incentive to spend all they can to milk the tit of government and the people don't seem to care. Within 10 years there will be major financial chaos and everyone will be pointing fingers across the isle. Screw 'em both, the fiscal problems of this nation are very clear but no one has the balls to stand up and say we need to drastically increase taxes and/or (better yet) drastically reduce spending.
Argh!
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like a typical have not.
Spoken like a typical Tulsa conservative elitist...
You know, I've spoken to many "haves" over the years... in quite a few different cities, different social circles... the president (or maybe he was VP) of an oil company, the wife of a university president... an affluent and extremely successful graduate of Culver Academy, a uniquely talented freshman at Harvard, arts donors, etc, etc, etc...
"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him."
"I don't pity any man who does hard work worth doing. I admire him. I pity the creature who does not work, at whichever end of the social scale he may regard himself as being."
"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures."
---Theodore Roosevelt
"It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach."
"Don't forget what I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars."
"Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
First, why are you so envious of those who have succeeded. Second, do you not understand that those people earning over 200K are already in the 35% plus tax bracket. What percentage should those people pay for the same exact sort of government services those paying no taxes receive? Meanwhile, if these 200Kers pay more in taxes, what do you think will happen to the charitable donations they make? You know, money to those groups that provide services for the poor and needy by far more efficient and cost-effective means than the government.
Here's a thought, keep your typical Tulsan freeloading hand out of my pocket.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like a typical have not.
Spoken like a typical Tulsa conservative elitist...
Awww. . .Buck up, rainbow fish. We are all eliete in our own special way.
Some of us are good investers or fast runners, while others are snappy dressers or good winers. We all have our own special gifts.
Still dosent give me the right to take away someone's money because they are a good invester, or take away thier shoes because they are a fast runner, or steal their pants because they are a snappy dresser, or TAKE YOUR VOICE BECAUSE YOU ARE A GOOD WINER.
There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.--RUSH
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I do not understand using the word 'punish' in this context. That was never used in the river tax debate, why 'punish' County Tulsans who never use the river? You supported that. Why punish Americans who do not want to support the VOA? You supported that.
The fact is without cutting spending and increasing taxes the punishment will become 'confisticatory' very soon. Calling high tax rates punishment is like calling waterboarding 'torture.'
That analogy is completely assigning. one voluntarily engages in waterboarding for ones own pleasure. One gets taxed involuntarily and in this instance it is for another's pleasure.
Likewise, your analogy to the River Tax is not admissible because that tax was levied without regard to who was paying it. If you buy goods, you pay the tax. NOT, if you do not use the river you must pay the tax. The causal nature of a "if you earn X you pay Y" is far different than a blanket tax.
Similarly, revenue for the VOA is collected for the betterment of the nation as a whole FROM the nation as a whole. It is not taken from a specific group to bennefit another specific group.
And finally, a punishment is a devise meant to dissuade or penalize an act. "If you make more than X we are going to fine you Y" could be viewed in this context. It certainly is not a reward for doing well and it falls well below neutrality. The sole reason more money will be taken is to to the act of earning additional money. Hence, they are being punished for that act.
Do you truly not grasp the enormous differences involved or are you being obtuse just to aggravate me?
Perhaps I need to rephrase my incredibly simply question: I hereby deem your earnings to be in excess of my own. I live comfortably, but not as comfortably as you do. Therefor, I demand the government take money from you and give it to me. Explain to me why you should be force to suffer a detriment to my benefit?
Waterboarding is not used to punish, it is used to extract information. Punishment would be, 'Mr. Criminal, you will be waterboarded five times in addition to your sentence.' Paying taxes is certainly voluntary, if you do not like America . . . Punishment is sanctioning an act which is deemed antisocial, unsocial, or harmful. The word 'penalty' is not much better, either way
asinine for sure.
What could punish Tulsans more than taxing their food, medications, and necessities? You were all about the River Tax and now you are a tax hawk? Ha ha ha!
The VOA certainly harbors a protected class, or you have no idea how great them Fed jobs are.
I am not one for a money-hungry government, but I also will not diminish the deaths of totalitarian regimes to petulantly complain about a tax hike on those making seven to eight times the average Tulsan's salary.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can
afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from
somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect
everyone's well being.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
First, the "hardship" is that to the "rich" (whoever that is) it is their money being taken from them under force of law and not your money. The hardship is that such is discriminatory and socialist.
As to revenue source, as is the case in my family, if we cannot afford something, we do not buy it. That means, if this country cannot afford the Iraq war, then we cannot have an Iraq war. If that means we cannot afford free public education or quality roads or a developed river, then we cannot have those things either. However, the notion that this country should have all these things, and that the "rich" and not everyone should pay for it even though it is for the benefit of everyone is unAmerican and smacks of redistribution of wealth.
As for "ability to pay", what exactly does that mean? Does that means that rich people are not permitted to spend their money as they see fit on larger homes, private schools for their kids, and on charitable causes but instead give it to the government?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
Well the govt allrady takes 1/3 of thier income. We will never retun to the pre-Reagan days when the government took more than half the income of the wealthy. In fact we now have a better understanding of the relationship between taxation and tax revenue.
We have demonstrated that raising taxes on the wealthy is damaging to the very people that it is supposed to benifit (the poor). When taxes on the wealthy are increased, prices for goods and services increase as well as unemployment because it is the wealthy who own the companies, and must adjust prices to compensate for lost income. In this case, unemployment increases due to reduced purchasing power.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/B_1515_chart-2.gif)
Accordingly, when tax rates are decreased on the wealthy, tax revenue increases, because there is more
volume in the purchase of goods and services, and higher levels of employment (because we need people to make those goods and services).
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/B_1515_chart_1.gif)
Middle class tax adjustments have very little affect on tax revenue, as do adjustments on the poor.
Our country is fuled on commerce. If we choose to hurt the people who engage in the commerce we will very quickly hurt everyone.
So it is actually the terminology you have wrong. You have the right idea, but if you want to raise
revenue you must decrease taxes on the wealthy. This causes everyone to make more money and therefore contribute more to income taxes and fund the government.
Rich, Poor, we are all linked by the same thread.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/bg1443cht8.gif)
No matter who you increase taxes on, you hurt revenue, but when you reduce taxes you have the most profound effect on everyone when you reduce rates on the those who control the corporations and build the economy i.e. the wealthy.
I know it dosent sound fair, and it's not what some people want to hear, but it is a fact.
Unfortunatly we will be doomed to learn it over and over again because we live in a country where it is taboo to teach young people that being successfull, and/or wealthy is a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
Following that logic in Tulsa, any family that makes more than $70,000 a year should give 100% of their income to the government. Certainly a family can live comfortably on $70,000 and the rest is just excess for unneeded luxury items. The logical conclusion follows that not just 4%, but all excess should be taken and given to families that earn less than $70,000 a year until all families earn equal.
The very notion
WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY? is the most detestable defense of a government taking someones wealth I have ever heard. How about the fact that the wealth BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. The government is taking their wealth. In this instance, they are taking it and giving it to others simply because they can. They should not do so because the wealth is private and does not belong to the government.
And I am still waiting for a defense of the practice...
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
Taxation based on consumption is the fairest way to close the loopholes that only the select are able to exploit.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
Taxation based on consumption is the fairest way to close the loopholes that only the select are able to exploit.
Agreed. But I sure like my mortgage interest deduction...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
Following that logic in Tulsa, any family that makes more than $70,000 a year should give 100% of their income to the government. Certainly a family can live comfortably on $70,000 and the rest is just excess for unneeded luxury items. The logical conclusion follows that not just 4%, but all excess should be taken and given to families that earn less than $70,000 a year until all families earn equal.
The very notion WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY? is the most detestable defense of a government taking someones wealth I have ever heard. How about the fact that the wealth BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. The government is taking their wealth. In this instance, they are taking it and giving it to others simply because they can. They should not do so because the wealth is private and does not belong to the government.
And I am still waiting for a defense of the practice...
I think you have touched on the real issue, which is that the "tax the crap out of the rich" people believe that government's purpose is to create a balance between the rich and poor under some amorphous definition of "fairness" and not perform the very limited services it is constitutionally authorized to provide.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
First, the "hardship" is that to the "rich" (whoever that is) it is their money being taken from them under force of law and not your money. The hardship is that such is discriminatory and socialist.
Is it "discriminatory", or is it
discerning?
We pay taxes for certain goods that are impossibly inefficient to secure for ourselves privately... things like national defense and roads. Taxes are also used to pay for some social goods that could be provided privately, or simply ignored. Would capitalism work without taxes? Probably, but it would look a lot more like Mad Max than America. And so, we pay taxes to support a framework that, among other things, pays close attention to the well being of our citizens. Capitalism works very well in America precisely because we don't have large numbers of starving, well-armed people running around.
That social "safety net" benefits the rich every bit as much as the poor. Since the rich are building wealth faster than the rest of us, you can argue that they have more to gain than the rest of us. So, why not pay more?
Even if they weren't building wealth at a faster rate than the rest of us, you can still argue that we need to preserve the well-being of our citizens in order for capitalism to thrive. So, why would you tax the poor, or the middle class for that matter, at rates that are harmful to their well-being, when you can tax the rich in ways that don't harm them at all?
You can argue that our system is unfair, but that is not the same as proving a hardship. How are the rich harmed by progressive levies?
Also, it's not "socialism". "Ability to pay" is not the same principle as "equal distribution of wealth". We've had progressive taxation since 1913, and last I checked, the rich are still rich.
quote:
As to revenue source, as is the case in my family, if we cannot afford something, we do not buy it. That means, if this country cannot afford the Iraq war, then we cannot have an Iraq war. If that means we cannot afford free public education or quality roads or a developed river, then we cannot have those things either.
I agree with you to a point, Guido. But if you dismantle that social framework, then you don't really have America anymore...just Mad Max. There are lines that you won't cross with your family, too. It's okay to live in a smaller house if you must, but it's not okay to live in a park or down by the River, because, how are you going to keep them safe?
quote:
However, the notion that this country should have all these things, and that the "rich" and not everyone should pay for it even though it is for the benefit of everyone is unAmerican and smacks of redistribution of wealth.
As for "ability to pay", what exactly does that mean? Does that means that rich people are not permitted to spend their money as they see fit on larger homes, private schools for their kids, and on charitable causes but instead give it to the government?
I don't think "ability to pay" is un-American. As noted, we've been doing it that way since 1913. Those that can afford to pay more, pay more, and those that can't, don't. Even if it means paying nothing at all. It's the price we pay for a stable society where capitalism can flourish. Nobody is being taxed into the poorhouse, and the rich are still able to pay for all of those things that they want, in fact, they are doing better than at any time since the before the Great Depression. Sounds pretty fair to me, even if it is discriminatory. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
Following that logic in Tulsa, any family that makes more than $70,000 a year should give 100% of their income to the government.
That's not what I'm saying at all and you know it. Having
no income would
clearly be a hardship. That's not a pedantic statement, it's illustrative of "ability to pay". As is this: taxing the income of a family making $40,000 at 32% leaves them with $26,800. That's the difference between having a roof over your head or not. Clearly, taxing them at that rate would cause harm. But taxing a family who makes $1,000,000 a year at 32% still leaves them with $670,000. They can still live comfortably, heck opulently, so I have trouble seeing the harm bestowed upon them.
quote:
Certainly a family can live comfortably on $70,000 and the rest is just excess for unneeded luxury items. The logical conclusion follows that not just 4%, but all excess should be taken and given to families that earn less than $70,000 a year until all families earn equal.
Not what I said at all. What I said is that the rich can afford to pay
more, and that's why they do...and have since 1913.
quote:
The very notion WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY? is the most detestable defense of a government taking someones wealth I have ever heard. How about the fact that the wealth BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. The government is taking their wealth. In this instance, they are taking it and giving it to others simply because they can. They should not do so because the wealth is private and does not belong to the government.
It's not a defense of government, it's a defense of society. A LOT of things belong "to the people": our fire department, Grand Lake, ICBMs, and the air we breathe. It all costs money to maintain, so spare me the righteous indignation.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I think you have touched on the real issue, which is that the "tax the crap out of the rich" people believe that government's purpose is to create a balance between the rich and poor under some amorphous definition of "fairness" and not perform the very limited services it is constitutionally authorized to provide.
Nothing amorphous about it. The rich are still getting richer and the poor aren't starting tire fires on Memorial Drive. What's so unfair about that?
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
...Accordingly, when tax rates are decreased on the wealthy, tax revenue increases, because there is more volume in the purchase of goods and services, and higher levels of employment (because we need people to make those goods and services).
Back in the Robber Baron days of the 1890's, they called it the "horse and sparrow theory": "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."
Asking the Heritage Foundation if supply side economics is a good thing is like asking Williams if natural gas is an important energy resource. Heritage's money comes entirely from rich donors and major corporations.
You know what also correlates with your supply-side tax cuts?
Deficits.
(http://www.concordcoalition.org/images/charts/070823-plausiblebaseline-small.jpg)
Check out the latest (//%22http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/%22) from the
bi-partisan Concord Coalition.
I'm not arguing that there should be no taxes. I'm not arguing that we should tax people into the poor house. I'm not even arguing against some form of progressive taxation. As you stated, the government needs money from somewhere and the poorest members of society can not pay.
I AM arguing against taxing higher wage earners because they have wealth and giving it to lower wage earners simply because they do not.
I am arguing against a taxation system that sees 50% of the population drawing more money FROM the government than paying in via income taxes.
I am arguing against a country in which 50% of the population's sole stake in the government is to ensure that they continue to take from the rich and give to them. Its easy to complain about budget deficits and demand more spending when most people do not have to pay income taxes.
quote:
so I have trouble seeing the harm bestowed upon them.
Maybe that money was going to start a new company that would have eventually employed hundreds of people. Maybe it was going to be donated to the United Way. Maybe it was funding a year sabbatical to research a cure for cancer. Who knows what that person wanted to do with THEIR MONEY. And why does there need to be a specific harm for their to be injustice anyway?
Your argument is they have lots and I'm just taking a little (a third), they have plenty left. Do you not see the glaring faults in that argument? My neighbors have a Lexus, a Hummer, and a pickup, no married couple needs 3 vehicles so I should be able to take one. I have a bass boat I rarely use and certainly can live a nice life without it, shall someone steal it? I have 3 8mm Mauser's from WWI but cannot possible use them all - take 1 and I will still have more than enough. Heck, for that matter no one really needs to kidneys. Absurd? Yes, but following the logic you outlined.
Now we all know we need taxes. We all know those with more money will inevitably pay more. No one is arguing those points. I am arguing:
1) Everyone within reason should have some stake in our government. If a family must sacrifice an iPod to pay taxes so be it. The notion that the vast middle class has become poor in America is a myth. The middle class has become spoiled and acquired a vast sense of entitlement. They want the world with someone else paying for it.
2) Wealth should not be taken from one citizen and given to enhance the lifestyle of another citizen. I'm not arguing against subsistence level aid, this tax amendment would give additional wealth to people who already have food, housing, education, transportation, health care, and job training opportunities. If Dr. X wants Joe Blow to have a little nicer Xmas he can donate on his own accord, it is not the governments place to redistribute wealth.
- - -
Finally, I'll scream it form the roof tops yet again...
THE RICH ARE NOT RICHER. For gods sake go look something up. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Astor, Girard, Carnegie, Weyerhaeuser, Hill, Derby... Rockefeller alone was worth THREE TIMES what Gates is worth today. Of the top 10 richest Americans of all time 80% lived sometime NOT now. I'm willing to bet if you add up the lifetimes and incomes that's a bracket that has been pretty steady. And in any event, those men had incomes that were not only larger than Gates, it was at a time where all 6 members of the average family worked 12 hours 6 days a week in order to just barely survive.
Statements that our rich are richer than ever are patently false, and any notion that our poor are as poor as ever is offensive to the memories of millions of tenement factory workers in NYC, share croppers in Georgia, and dust farmers in Oklahoma. Only in America do we have the balls to call anything short of HDTV and an iPod poverty.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
THE RICH ARE NOT RICHER. For gods sake go look something up.
First off, don't be an *sshole. I did read this on the previous page. In fact, I posted it. Did you read it?
quote:
New tax figures show rich getting richer
The Business Journal of Phoenix - by Mike Sunnucks The Business Journal
The rich are getting even richer, according to federal tax numbers released Friday.
The IRS reports that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans accounted for 21 percent of all income in 2005.
That is the highest level of wealth concentration in the U.S. since before the Great Depression and World War II, according to economic studies.
The IRS figures also showed the median taxpayer's income fell by 2 percent between 2000 and 2005.
The tax numbers back up other recent economic data showing the most affluent have been making the greatest gains in the U.S. economy.
All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
quote:
cf said
Statements that our rich are richer than ever are patently false,
Never said it. But wealth concentration is at its highest level since before the Great Depression.
Secondly, Where did this "50% on the dole" thing come from? Rangel didn't say it. I didn't say it. Hyperbole?
And third, with this talk about Lexuses (Lexii?) Hummers, and unused bass boats, you are making my point, which is
very simply, some people can afford to pay a little more.
Lastly, you said, "it is not the governments place to redistribute wealth." As I have already said, "ability to pay" is not the same thing as "equal distribution of wealth". That's not the intent or the effect of progressive taxation. But, as also noted before, the government helps look after the welfare of everyone to one degree or another, and I'm happy that it's them doing it, subject to public scrutiny and accountability.
You are not against progressive taxation, and neither am I...I don't even know why we are arguing. And I don't disagree with you that everyone should pay
something.
The difference, possibly, is that I am using blunt rhetoric to describe what I think is good for our
society. We're all happy to argue about what's "fair". In fact, all of us are proud, rugged, individualists, at least, right up until the point where some jobless, hungry, douchebag decides it's "fair" to toss a coke bottle full of gasoline through our front window.
That's why we pay taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Again, spoken like have not. Still not getting the message.
I think he's got the message just fine.
If the rich can afford to pay more, then why shouldn't they? How are the rich being harmed by this? Where's the hardship?
1. Revenue must come from somewhere, ultimately.
2. Taxation based on ability to pay is the best way to protect everyone's well being.
Taxation based on consumption is the fairest way to close the loopholes that only the select are able to exploit.
Agreed. But I sure like my mortgage interest deduction...
Yeah, but they keep raising the standard deduction so that the threshold to be able to take advantage of the MID keeps going up.
Okay, I'll throw out a bone here, why does social security cap at $90K? Why have a cap on it at all? If there is an SSI shortfall in the future no doubt if the decision was to shore that up instead of cutting benefits, it will have to come from other tax sources.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, I'll throw out a bone here, why does social security cap at $90K? Why have a cap on it at all? If there is an SSI shortfall in the future no doubt if the decision was to shore that up instead of cutting benefits, it will have to come from other tax sources.
They put a cap on it so the rich don't get huge checks out of social security. Can you imagine what Tiger Woods' social security checks would be if he paid social security tax on all $60M every year? Please don't tell me they should pay social security tax on all their money but only receive benefits based on the first $90K.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
...Accordingly, when tax rates are decreased on the wealthy, tax revenue increases, because there is more volume in the purchase of goods and services, and higher levels of employment (because we need people to make those goods and services).
Back in the Robber Baron days of the 1890's, they called it the "horse and sparrow theory": "if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows."
Asking the Heritage Foundation if supply side economics is a good thing is like asking Williams if natural gas is an important energy resource. Heritage's money comes entirely from rich donors and major corporations.
You know what also correlates with your supply-side tax cuts? Deficits.
(http://www.concordcoalition.org/images/charts/070823-plausiblebaseline-small.jpg)
Check out the latest (//%22http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/%22) from the bi-partisan Concord Coalition.
Good point. The figures were posted by the heritage foundation but were published by the US Census Bureau, The Economic Report of the President, and the Office of Management and Budget. Not the Heritage foundation.
I went to the Concord Coalition. . . and reviewed the very article and powerpoint you are getting the graph from. I like this group and agree with most of what they say. They use good math. I agree that building a deficit of this size is not a good, but you are talking about a completely different subject.
Lets review:
1. I presented a correlation between reduced taxes and increased revenue.
2. You presented a wonderful graph related to spending and deficit.
So if you would like to change the subject than we can. Lets have everyone have a look at the site http://www.concordcoalition.org/ .
How do your reduce the deficit? You pay your bills. You reduce program spending. You increase GDP and reduce debt owed to foreign lenders.
So I ask again, How does increasing tax revenue hurt this effort, and how does decreasing tax revenue help?
Why wouldn't we try to reduce this deficit by eliminating public funding for stupid crap like the Margaret Wilson Museum of Hair, or the proposed million dollar funding for the Woodstock Memorial Museum.
Or kill the deficit all together by privatizing social security and medicare. Some places have already done it and it works http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba215.html .
It's program spending that is killing us on deficit. . . and yes the war is expensive but it's not something that we can just pack up and leave.
Thank you for pointing me to this site. I have spent quite a bit of time here and it has given me some very good insight into what they call plausible outcomes of deficit spending and reinforced my resolve to rally against political pet projects.
Chicken Little:
You are correct, I was getting out of line and I apologize. I strongly dislike the "because they can" rationale for the government requisitioning more payment. In this particular instance, they are requisitioning more wealth so they can cease taxing a larger percentage of the population. A bad tax for a bad cause. That's why it upsets me.
USRuf:
Law school tuition at TU is ~$27,000 a year. I was on a partial scholarship, I worked and my wife worked. But add in the cost of books ($600 a semester), fees ($500 a semester), the bar exam (~ $3,500 with classes), and a thousand other little things and my debt from law school is substantial. One can not work their way through law school and pay your own way in the same manner one can undergraduate (graduated from there debt free). I fail to see how choosing to go to law school makes me stupid. My debt load is far less than the average law school graduate as I managed to take only minimal tuition loans (can you imagine the poor SOBs who live off of loans AND go to school?).
and I never judged you. You said yourself that you mismanaged your time in college by participating in too many extra curricular activities and working too much. I never even implied that it was ultimately a poor decision, since I have no idea. I had to re-read my post several times in an effort to discern what you thought was judgmental: I correct your impression that I was in med school, I agreed with subsidized student loans, and I reiterated your statement about mismanaging time in college.
I hope the bad juju stays away because I neither wished you ill nor judged your decisions.
'Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot would be so proud.'
THAT makes you look . . . um . . . well . . . like an Associates in History may be in order . . . [:)]
Tim, history is actually a hobby of mine (though not really on a scholarly level). Trust me, all of those figures would (do) see such things as an incremental step in their direction. They were not (are not) stupid people. Certainly any step that enhances wealth distribution would be viewed favorably by them. Just as Smith, Malthus, Keynes, and Hamilton would all welcome incremental changes in communist countries towards capitalism.
You do realize that aside from being mostly dictators that those men were (are) all a devote of a particular brand of economics?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, I'll throw out a bone here, why does social security cap at $90K? Why have a cap on it at all? If there is an SSI shortfall in the future no doubt if the decision was to shore that up instead of cutting benefits, it will have to come from other tax sources.
They put a cap on it so the rich don't get huge checks out of social security. Can you imagine what Tiger Woods' social security checks would be if he paid social security tax on all $60M every year? Please don't tell me they should pay social security tax on all their money but only receive benefits based on the first $90K.
Why, pray tell, would someone like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or Tiger Woods
need social security benefits in the first place?
I'm just positing the question because some people think an additional 4% in tax on the wealthiest is fair whilst raising the income threshold on who must pay taxes at the lower end. They keep talking about how SS is going to crater big-time, yet the slowly raising cap apparently isn't going to cover the shortage.
Just seems like a pretty obvious "break" for the rich that the libs on here haven't tapped into yet.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You do realize that aside from being mostly dictators that those men were (are) all a devote of a particular brand of economics?
Republicans? Absolutists? Federalists? Nationalists? Dialect humanists? In any case, comparing war-hero Rangel to genocidal dictators on the 'slippery slope' theory is unfortunate and demeans the victims of humanist dictatorships.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I strongly dislike the "because they can" rationale...
But there really is no other rationale; I'm not going to lie to you. It is what it is. We have a societal framework where, in theory, nobody is completely abandoned. The rationale for
why that's there, some would say, is because we are an enlightened and beneficent society. Maybe some people think that's true, but I think a lot of us, rich and poor, selfish or not, understand that the alternative to a civil, stable, society is mobs in the street and "let them eat cake". Rolling heads are never far behind.
Oh, and I think you probably know by now that I am not the guy to be lecturing anybody on behavior.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I strongly dislike the "because they can" rationale...
But there really is no other rationale; I'm not going to lie to you. It is what it is. We have a societal framework where, in theory, nobody is completely abandoned. The rationale for why that's there, some would say, is because we are an enlightened and beneficent society. Maybe some people think that's true, but I think a lot of us, rich and poor, selfish or not, understand that the alternative to a civil, stable, society is mobs in the street and "let them eat cake". Rolling heads are never far behind.
Oh, and I think you probably know by now that I am not the guy to be lecturing anybody on behavior.[;)]
Chicken,
Be comforted in the fact that your side will eventually win, it is natural for governments like ours to evolve in to a more liberal state where wealth is taken and redistributed. As conservitives all we can do is attempt to delay this natural process as long a possable. We are seeing a great socialist movement today. Education, healthcare, savings, all flowing through the hands of the government.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
--Alexander Tyler wrote this 100 years ago. He was talking about Athens.
We are on the path. Most are demanding government to pay for our lifestyles. But a few of us recognize the independence of the human spirit and must forcefully denounce recognition of the state as our mother, father or wet-nurse!
I am not wealthy, and I do not want one man's wealth taken and given to me. Let me sink, let me swim, let me be free!
(Que. the National Anthem)
(http://www.flagamerican.net/american-flag.jpg)
Right, Rangel's tax hike to replace the ATM is a sign of America's doom, foretold by some geezer a century ago, setting us on a path of totalitarianism that is going to lead to the deaths of millions. We have a progressive tax rate, it sliiiiiiides up sometimes and sometimes it sliiiiiiides down. No great big hairy deal. All this gloom and doom high-horse catastrophizing is ridiculous.
We are largely in agreement CL... but there are a few taxation sticking points that will just have to remain.
Tim: Hitler was a war hero too, does that mean I can not criticize him? But in reality, I was not comparing the man to any of the others. I merely said those listed would approve if his idea.
Hitler suffered some mild lung damage in a trench; Rangel led 40 soldiers from an encirclement of Chinese in freezing weather (half the battalion was killed), and was awarded the Purple Heart and Medal of Valor.
No, I do not think the dictators would approve of Congress working together to craft an alternative to the ATM which, upon approval of the President, and notwithstanding a Court challenge, be enacted until a democratically elected government amended that tax. Zippo in common. Nada alli. Nyet.
Hitler was a field medic, one of the most dangerous jobs in World War I. For all the many, many, MANY bad things one can list about Hitler at very least his WWI service record was admirable.
and I was not talking about them approving our system of government, I was talking about those listed approving of further redistribution of wealth by state control. That was pretty clear in my comment:
quote:
Take it because they have it and give it because they don't. Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hugo, Fidel, and Pol Pot would be so proud.
Any indication that I was calling the form of government into question or is it perfectly clear I was commenting on redistribution of wealth? Either you failed to get the meaning out of those two sentences and there is no real point in talking to you further, or you got the meaning and chose to act the fool in which case there is no further point in talking to you.
Yeah, CF... and using your logic, your views would make a southern plantation slave owner proud!
Let's go back to this so-called "attack on the rich."
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20071024%5cACQDJON200710242253DOWJONESDJONLINE001107.htm&
UPDATE:Rangel Tax Plan's Centerpiece Is 30.5% Top Corp Rate
(Updates with source saying all industries included in proposal to tax financial managers' carried interest as regular income)
By John Godfrey
OF DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Corporations would see their top tax rate cut to 30.5% from 35% under a tax plan unveiled Wednesday by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., to fellow committee members.
Rangel plans to publicly announce the plan Thursday morning.
To offset the cost of the lower tax rate, the plan would alter a number of business tax provisions, according to lawmakers, congressional staff and lobbyists familiar with the plan as outlined Wednesday night.
The plan will repeal a tax deduction for domestic manufacturers. It will prevent companies from using an accounting method known as last-in, first-out, or LIFO, that can cut their taxes during times of rising prices. Repealing LIFO could result in a substantial tax for companies currently using the method, but aides briefed on the plan say the change would be phased in over eight years, thereby blunting the initial impact.
The plan would also require companies to defer deductions for certain expenses of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies until the money is repatriated to the U.S.
A lobbyist tracking the bill said the provision would likely hurt those who benefited most from an October 2004 Act allowing a one-time amnesty to repatriate foreign income at reduced tax rates. Companies lobbied for the break arguing they would be able to use the money to create new jobs, but there has been little evidence to suggest that is what happened.
"That's going to get thrown into their faces," the lobbyist said.
Middle and upper-middle income families would benefit under the plan by a repeal of the alternative minimum tax starting Jan. 1, 2008.
Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.
The surtax will also make possible an expansion of the earned income tax credit, an increase in the standard deduction, and an increase in the value of the child tax credit for those earning too little to owe federal income taxes.
A third section of the plan would address a number of pressing tax issues, including a temporary patch of the alternative minimum tax prior to Jan. 1, 2008, and the extension of a number of expiring tax provisions.
Absent a patch, the alternative minimum tax will expand to hit roughly 25 million taxpayers, up from 4.4 million in 2006, increasing their taxes by a total of nearly $50 billion, according to congressional estimates.
Expiring tax breaks, known colloquially on Capitol Hill as "extenders," include the research-and-development tax credit, tax breaks for teachers buying schools supplies and a deduction for state and local sales taxes.
Part of the cost of the third section of the bill would be offset by taxing carried interest paid to financial managers as regular income and not as capital gains. While some said the change wouldn't apply to real estate investment trust managers, a source familiar with the plan said all industries are included.
Revenue-raising measures in this third section also include a tax on deferred compensation plans of offshore hedge funds and a requirement that financial service providers give customers information on basis of sold securities.
The plan also changes current laws to require small businesses in the services sector to pay payroll taxes for their workers.
Rangel doesn't expect his plan to come to a vote before the House this year. But the third section of temporary provisions will be stripped from the plan and introduced as a separate bill next week.
Rangel said Wednesday night he may disaggregrate the bill further, splitting the third section into an AMT patch bill and an extenders bill, both with separate revenue offsets.
This two-bill approach could help Senate Democrats maintain fiscal discipline.
Lawmakers there are balking at raising revenues to offset the cost of the AMT bill. Separating the extenders from the AMT bill, therefore, could protect the extenders from getting stuck in that fight, Rangel said Wednesday night.
-By John Godfrey, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6601; John.Godfrey@dowjones.com
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Hitler suffered some mild lung damage in a trench; Rangel led 40 soldiers from an encirclement of Chinese in freezing weather (half the battalion was killed), and was awarded the Purple Heart and Medal of Valor.
No, I do not think the dictators would approve of Congress working together to craft an alternative to the ATM which, upon approval of the President, and notwithstanding a Court challenge, be enacted until a democratically elected government amended that tax. Zippo in common. Nada alli. Nyet.
Tim,
I can respect anyone who gives service and displays great courage and leadership in battle. In that regard they deserve the honor and gratitude of every American. But that does not make them a great leader in every venue.
Rangel has a history of proposing some of the most outrageous and ridiculous legislation simply for political/publicity reasons. From his proposal to reinstate the draft to what they are now calling the "Mother of all Tax Bills" or "Rangel's Gift to Republican Candidates." I must admit his loose economic understanding and ability to speak frankly with reporters, before actually thinking about what he is saying is pretty good for Republicans. He is one of the folks that you can always rely on shooting himself, or his party in the foot at a very inappropriate time.
"Oops! sorry Mr. Dean" "Oops! Sorry people of Mississippi." "Oops! Sorry soldiers." "Oops! Sorry Martin Luther King family."
and sorry CL I do get a bit melodramatic don't I. [:)]
My wife and I were recently participating in a political conversation at one of our wine dinners, and a young girl with pinkish hair and a pierced bottom lip called me a radical pig because I voiced my opinions on the exact topic we are discussing here. It was wonderful!
I asked her why she was so angry and she said that "This is America and everything should be fair, we should all share (or something to that extent)." She then related the sad story that she had just been fired from her job at some law firm for poor attendance and not presenting a professional appearance.
A bit gregarious from 2 or 3 glasses of wine, I said "I'd probably fire you for that too." She choked with a full mouth of wine and a thin red spray of Merlot came from around the stud of her lip piercing, spraying everyone sitting around the coffee table. "I am very professional!" "S#^ew him if he doesn't like the way I look."
This is a better forum, no one gets sprayed with wine!
Sure, Rangel is doing the Lord's work, then, nothing to worry about. What a flake, Chair of Ways and Means, huh, sounds like he has really been a failure.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I strongly dislike the "because they can" rationale...
But there really is no other rationale; I'm not going to lie to you. It is what it is. We have a societal framework where, in theory, nobody is completely abandoned. The rationale for why that's there, some would say, is because we are an enlightened and beneficent society. Maybe some people think that's true, but I think a lot of us, rich and poor, selfish or not, understand that the alternative to a civil, stable, society is mobs in the street and "let them eat cake". Rolling heads are never far behind.
Oh, and I think you probably know by now that I am not the guy to be lecturing anybody on behavior.[;)]
There has been several posts in this thread that the rich should be willing to pay more basically to avoid getting killed by angry mobs of poor people. Where does that come from? Stop the baseless fear-mongering, pre-Napoleonic France crap.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
There has been several posts in this thread that the rich should be willing to pay more basically to avoid getting killed by angry mobs of poor people. Where does that come from? Stop the baseless fear-mongering, pre-Napoleonic France crap.
Hyperbole much?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
There has been several posts in this thread that the rich should be willing to pay more basically to avoid getting killed by angry mobs of poor people. Where does that come from? Stop the baseless fear-mongering, pre-Napoleonic France crap.
I'm not fear-mongering; sorry, didn't mean to scare you.[:O] I'm simply pointing out that there is a reason that the rich would want to pay for common goods (like roads) and social goods (like social security). And that reason IS NOT benevolence. If you are rich and getting richer at a very fast clip (as the top 1% presently are), then the "system" is working for you and there is real value in keeping it going.
The "system" includes a societal framework that keeps commerce running smoothly and the oft mentioned "have-not's" reasonably quiet and non-threatening. For a very wealthy person, then, taxes are
overhead, simply the cost of doing business in this great country.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, I'll throw out a bone here, why does social security cap at $90K? Why have a cap on it at all? If there is an SSI shortfall in the future no doubt if the decision was to shore that up instead of cutting benefits, it will have to come from other tax sources.
They put a cap on it so the rich don't get huge checks out of social security. Can you imagine what Tiger Woods' social security checks would be if he paid social security tax on all $60M every year? Please don't tell me they should pay social security tax on all their money but only receive benefits based on the first $90K.
Why, pray tell, would someone like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or Tiger Woods need social security benefits in the first place?
I'm just positing the question because some people think an additional 4% in tax on the wealthiest is fair whilst raising the income threshold on who must pay taxes at the lower end. They keep talking about how SS is going to crater big-time, yet the slowly raising cap apparently isn't going to cover the shortage.
Just seems like a pretty obvious "break" for the rich that the libs on here haven't tapped into yet.
The reason Buffett, Woods and Gates would take THEIR social security is because it is THEIR social security. I saw an interview with Buffett once who joked about himself getting social security (what a joke it was, that is.... all his money and the government will give him more), but he never said he would decline it.
Social Security was put in place many years ago when the average life expectancy was 63, yet you could start collecting at 65. The life expectancy is now at 77, yet you still collect at 65.
It was also promised that social security would be optional, that the tax would never go above 1%, .........
Funny you should mention Warren Buffett... some quotes...
"There's class warfare, all right," Mr. Buffett said, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society," he said. "At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."
Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax "would be a terrible mistake," the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." ...
"We have come closer to a true meritocracy than anywhere else around the world. You have mobility so people with talents can be put to the best use. Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit."
"Of the billionaires I have known, money just brings out the basic traits in them. If they were jerks before they had money, they are simply jerks with a billion dollars."
-----------------------------------------------
Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.
To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates.
"I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett.
"Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent"
Umm, that's only $814,200.00 in taxes. Buffett's a cheapskate. I bet USRUF and Chicken Little paid that much.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
There has been several posts in this thread that the rich should be willing to pay more basically to avoid getting killed by angry mobs of poor people. Where does that come from? Stop the baseless fear-mongering, pre-Napoleonic France crap.
Hyperbole much?
Are you asking if I "hyberbole" much? I was responding to the "let them eat cake" and heads rolling in the streets posts if the rich did not pay their more in taxes. That's hyberbole...
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
"Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent"
Umm, that's only $814,200.00 in taxes. Buffett's a cheapskate. I bet USRUF and Chicken Little paid that much.
But in order to get to that 17.7% rate, what is he doing in deductions? And how much of those deductions are going to charity? I'll bet far more that that $814K.
Buffet was paying tax on what mostly amounts to dividends which were already taxed once as corporate taxes through Berkshire-Hathaway and subsidiary companies it owns. He's right that his tax rate was somewhere around 17.5% but the gov't likely got in the neighborhood of 50% all together between corp. taxes and his personal taxes.
The Buffet analogy is one reason the wealthy liberals in Congress don't have a problem raising taxes for those making over $200K per year. A lot of them recieve dividends from passive business interests which are taxed at roughly 15%, so they really don't care, because the higher tax rate will not affect them. Their salary is what, $168K?
Liberals in no danger of makindg $200K per year either don't seem to give a crap about it. I'm not worried about making $200K per year, but I'm still pretty miffed about this re-allocation of wealth.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
The reason Buffett, Woods and Gates would take THEIR social security is because it is THEIR social security. I saw an interview with Buffett once who joked about himself getting social security (what a joke it was, that is.... all his money and the government will give him more), but he never said he would decline it.
Social Security was put in place many years ago when the average life expectancy was 63, yet you could start collecting at 65. The life expectancy is now at 77, yet you still collect at 65.
It was also promised that social security would be optional, that the tax would never go above 1%, .........
Never go beyond 1%. Yeah well the government lies. [:P]
Wilbur, all understood, trust me I'm incredibly fiscally conservative, but I honestly don't see the point in the wealthiest retirees withdrawing a pittance from the system when they don't need it.
By your logic, why not remove the cap and allow Tiger Woods to get a huge check when he retires, as his larger contribution to the trust will help the growth of the trust as a whole and could help offset the present costs of benefits for others presently elligible for benefits. I mean it would be his property.
How do you feel about people who have never paid into the Social Security system drawing disability payments from it? Is it their property? Is it okay that people can draw out far more than they ever put in, accounting for the growth of the money in the trust?
Social Security was designed as a way to provide benefits for those with disabilities which prevent them from working, survivor's benefits for the families of those who die an untimely death, and for those who are too old and broken down to continue to work. SSI was enacted when America was still very much a manufacturing/industrial economy.
What is noble about drawing a monthly income from it when you've set yourself up to where you don't need it?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
"Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent"
Umm, that's only $814,200.00 in taxes. Buffett's a cheapskate. I bet USRUF and Chicken Little paid that much.
LOL. There you go again...
Buffett's not a cheapskate...
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/
George Kaiser was accused of being one for the river tax... but I've argued what he did was the equivalent of somebody offering to put down a huge down payment on a new car for ya... to have Tulsans complain that the car is the wrong color or has too many features or isn't as eco-friendly as they'd like just sounds like the actions of a spoiled brat... if you don't want it, you don't want it. Tulsa has a shrewd philanthropist in Kaiser... too bad we don't have a shrewd politician to match... [;)]
You know, money/finances is probably the only catagory I figure I'd qualify as a "have-not"-- yet I'm still happy with what I've achieved moneywise of late ("regrets, I've had a few...")... I've had to attend and sing in enough opera galas over the years to see the usual suspects... I don't covet their money, as nice as it'd be to have a back bay condo in Boston, etc... I do question the choices of anti-tax rheteric made by certain "social climbers" and the wanna-be rich who really do COVET what others have...
When I earn three times the $$$ as somebody struggling to get by, I don't expect them to pay the same percentage of their wages as I do. And I don't see a new tax bracket being created here... just a 4% surcharge on wages over 200K in addition to the 35% rate... kinda creates its own, new mini-tax bracket...
Let's get real. This is close, but it is NOT a return to the Clinton tax code. I'd be willing to do that though, if it would get us closer to a balanced budget. After all, Bush's 2003 tax cuts were specifically proposed because there was a budget surplus. Those cuts lowered everyone's taxes by a few percentage points... lowering the top rate of 39.6% to 35%... then we got a Republican president and congress that should have been able to pass balanced budgets by cutting spending... but did they?... heLL no.
The well-funded republican think tanks have spared no expense in poisoning the "shared sacrifice" tax well... back in my college days, Mondale was going to raise everyone's taxes and said as much... and we all know how Fritz-n-tits did in that election. So the dems are just going to go the easy route... accuse the repubs of being the party of the rich, and then raise taxes on high-wage earners a few percentage points to tame the deficit... in contrast to what congress did in the 80s when in the middle of my school year, Gramm-Rudman cuts caused a few of my classmates to have to drop out, and forced me to work graveyard shifts at a pancake house to make up the difference... so no, I'm not really very empathetic towards your plight...
Don't hate the playazz, hate the game... [:P]
But then again, y'all think Bill Clinton's a communist anyway... while spoon wraps himself in the flag, spouts partisan talking points from the Heritage Foundation and Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and pretends Reaganomics would actually function without huge deficits...
Actually Ruf, Bill's not the communist, Hillary is. I think Bill is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants. He might even be a conservative morally, his sexual proclivities mirror that of a lot of prominent conservatives as well.
The Republican control of the White House and Congress from 2001 through 2006 has been a huge disappointment from a fiscal stand-point. It's just proof that legislators no longer control the houses of the legislature, lobbyists do.
I don't think anyone in Washington views the Federal budget as their own money anymore. They are spending someone else's money all for the sake of keeping that 168K per year paycheck and all the attendant perks which come with it.
Actually Reaganomics works when you don't have Congressmen spending money like drunken liberals, you don't have unprecidented natural disasters and you have a president with little patience for asshat dictators.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Are you asking if I "hyberbole" much? I was responding to the "let them eat cake" and heads rolling in the streets posts if the rich did not pay their more in taxes. That's hyberbole...
You are not going to win any arguments by twisting people's words, Guido. I did not say that heads would roll unless the rich paid
more, I said that if
we, as in
all of us as a society, choose to let enough people slip through the cracks, there will be trouble.
That's not hyperbole, that's history. Employment riots and "bread riots" (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots%22) used to be common before the "New Deal" reforms.
And, I'll repeat what USRufnex said again while you recalibrate the part of your head that wants to ignore the parts of this conversation that you don't like. Buffet isn't giving his fortune to his kids; he believes that this kind of hereditary power is bad for America.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Are you asking if I "hyberbole" much? I was responding to the "let them eat cake" and heads rolling in the streets posts if the rich did not pay their more in taxes. That's hyberbole...
You are not going to win any arguments by twisting people's words, Guido. I did not say that heads would roll unless the rich paid more, I said that if we, as in all of us as a society, choose to let enough people slip through the cracks, there will be trouble.
That's not hyperbole, that's history. Employment riots and "bread riots" (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots%22) used to be common before the "New Deal" reforms.
And, I'll repeat what USRufnex said again while you recalibrate the part of your head that wants to ignore the parts of this conversation that you don't like. Buffet isn't giving his fortune to his kids; he believes that this kind of hereditary power is bad for America.
Great list CL. I especially like the trend in the 21st century as prosperity increased in the US there are no riots associated with anything other than a sporting event or a bunch of students following a dumb@$$ idea.
Would be fun to corrilate with http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
I'm just waiting for the Liberal Riot of 2008. When the market hits 20k and quality of life in United States becomes so high that Liberals march in the streets demanding that the {please insert favorite cause from list below} is/are being destroyed and we must abandon {please insert favorite evil concept from list below}.
Causes:
Country
Economy
Environment
Deep Ocean
Public Education
Coastline
Polar Bears
Polar Ice Cubes
Welfare System
Medicare System
Ozone Layer
California
Dennis Kucinich's Mind
Liberal Voting Base
Evil Concepts:
The United States
The Constitution
Technology
Capitalism
The Representative Republic
The Automobile
The Wheel
Air Travel (except private jets!)
Private Medicine
Private Business
Individual Rights
Accountability
Reason
Lessons of History
It's coming. . .
the best thing about this is it gets rid of the AMT and then adds on the 4%... i'm all for it even if i pay more... the AMT sucks... u still have to do all the calculations and paper work but wind up back at the damn AMT, it is stupid...
the wife and i have been lucky and worked hard enough to wind up "haves"... anyone who knows me, knows that i (like everyone) hate paying taxes but we all have to and since the wife and i can afford more, we should pay more... it just makes sense...
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That's not entirely true. The preamble to our constitution clearly mentions that part of the duty of the gov't is to "promote the general welfare". Whatever that means.
We're not talking about redistribution of wealth in the Marxist sense, and we're not talking about tax rates that are unheard of. The top tax rates would have to be hiked 2 to 3 times to get to historic highs. The system has been dismantled over the last few decades, it hardly resembles the old Progressive system.
And our system is far less reliant on some vague definition of "economic freedom", than it is flow of capital. Those that espouse lower tax rates on wealthy people, are general the "Trickle-Down" types. That theory is questionable at best, but it is for certain that if capital is fused into the low end of the economy, that it most definitely trickles up.
When that flow stops, so does the economy. So far, all we're doing to keep money flowing, is inflating the currency. That's completely unsustainable.
You can think of the economy as the bloodstream of a capitalist society. Money injected into the top, bottom, middle "trickles" throughout the blood stream. There is very little difference in Trickle-Down and Trickle-Up models except where the money is injected, and the speed at which it flows.
They have both been proven to produce positive effects on the economy.
Here's the problem. There are two ways you can inject money into the economy.
# 1. Is the closed system where you take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. This money eventually winds up back in the hands of the wealthy, but it stunts the growth of the economy in the process, because nothing is added to the system, and the incentive for growth is reduced.
# 2. In the open loop system, the restrictions on the growth of wealth for the poor, middle, and wealthy classes are relaxed (tax cuts), causing economic growth for all classes, and as a byproduct, increased tax revenue. Yes, the wealthy become wealthier at a faster pace (duh! they have more to invest in the economy and already posses the knowledge and resources to invest it correctly), but that's just how things work.
The best way to promote the general welfare is to stop taking money from the general public. Wealthy or poor, the only way to build prosperity is through open loop economics. Wealth distribution is only good for political campaigns (buying votes).
There is no way for us to define what is "sustainable." It's hard to measure VALUE and it's affects on prosperity over time in terms of currency. Currency is simply a vehicle that must be adjusted in terms of VALUE.
Economic understanding from the 40's or 50's applied to todays economy simply cannot account for how we "sustain" economic growth. I would argue that in the year 2040, today's economic understanding will be far obsolete and archaic.
Use of the terminology "sustainable" and "unsustainable" requires a vision we simply do not have.
<Conan wrote:
Actually Ruf, Bill's not the communist, Hillary is. I think Bill is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants. He might even be a conservative morally, his sexual proclivities mirror that of a lot of prominent conservatives as well.
The Republican control of the White House and Congress from 2001 through 2006 has been a huge disappointment from a fiscal stand-point. It's just proof that legislators no longer control the houses of the legislature, lobbyists do.
<end clip>
Well, the president has a lot of say on budgets and how the deficit will end up. You can't just blame it all on lobbyists.
In the matter of the last few weeks, I've read studies that show Bill Clinton is the most fiscally conservative president of the modern era.
Another study shows, by a conservative think tank, that George W. Bush is the least fiscally conservative (worse than LBJ, even).
It shoots that "fiscally conservative Republicans" and "spendthrift Democrats" stereotypes out of the water.
Sources: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/09/ranking-presidents-fiscal.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html
First, wow. This continues as a viable discussion. I'm impressed.
1) Clinton did well with the economy by having the good sense to stand away and let the good times roll. He did not try to over tax the new found wealth and even signed tax exemption bills for IPs and Backbones to encourage tech growth. And as revenue grew at amazing rates spending only grew at high levels (short of amazing). Granting spending still grew too fast and as soon as anything hiccuped we were screwed again... but nonetheless.
2) Capital gains taxes are "only" taxed on the going out side at 15% because they are taxed as income by the corporation prior to that at a max bracket of 38%. So REALLY dividends and other corporate earnings are taxed at 41.3%. It doesn't matter which side of the equation pays the tax, employees only pay 6.2% for FICA but the employer matches it... clearly the matching 6.2% is worked into salaries already.
So the effective tax rate on Buffet's earnings is 41.3% and the effective rate on his lower employees is far lesser. But stating it like that would not help make his point. I admire Warren and hope he choses to keep donating his money to better causes than the government.
3) Trickle Down Economics. Before anyone argues against it... think about this. Even if you do not think the rich allow much wealth to trickle down, remember that without the creation of wealth there simply isnt money for anyone. As a wise man once said, the great virtue of [a poor nation] is that all share equally in the misery.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Actually Ruf, Bill's not the communist, Hillary is. I think Bill is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants. He might even be a conservative morally, his sexual proclivities mirror that of a lot of prominent conservatives as well.
"Actually Ruf, George Dubya's not spending like a drunken liberal, Laura "no child left behind" Bush is. I think George W is a closet fiscal conservative, but he'd get beat in the face with a cast iron skillet if he acted too conservative around iron pants. He might even be a liberal morally, his youthful indiscretions of drugs, drinking and draft-dodging mirror that of a lot of prominent liberals as well...."
There, fixed your post.Happy Halloween!(http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2007/10/30/12/255-aria071031.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg)
thanks, RW for the link where I found the cartoon...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
First, wow. This continues as a viable discussion. I'm impressed.
1) Clinton did well with the economy by having the good sense to stand away and let the good times roll. He did not try to over tax the new found wealth and even signed tax exemption bills for IPs and Backbones to encourage tech growth. And as revenue grew at amazing rates spending only grew at high levels (short of amazing). Granting spending still grew too fast and as soon as anything hiccuped we were screwed again... but nonetheless.
2) Capital gains taxes are "only" taxed on the going out side at 15% because they are taxed as income by the corporation prior to that at a max bracket of 38%. So REALLY dividends and other corporate earnings are taxed at 41.3%. It doesn't matter which side of the equation pays the tax, employees only pay 6.2% for FICA but the employer matches it... clearly the matching 6.2% is worked into salaries already.
So the effective tax rate on Buffet's earnings is 41.3% and the effective rate on his lower employees is far lesser. But stating it like that would not help make his point. I admire Warren and hope he choses to keep donating his money to better causes than the government.
3) Trickle Down Economics. Before anyone argues against it... think about this. Even if you do not think the rich allow much wealth to trickle down, remember that without the creation of wealth there simply isnt money for anyone. As a wise man once said, the great virtue of [a poor nation] is that all share equally in the misery.
1)Yup, Clinton was Republican Lite. And Hillary will be, too. She's not my favorite candidate, btw. If Bill Clinton's policies caused an economic "hiccup", then what do you call 'lil Bush's economic policies? I'd call them a violent, toilet bowl hugging, vomit launch, the likes of which a frat house has
never seen! [xx(][xx(][xx(] Explain to me how a bad war, plus tax cuts for the rich, equals anything other than perpetual deficit. 'Guess he never were much for cipherin', huh?
And his civil liberties practices have amounted to a simultaneous pantscr*pping. [xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(] But, that's another topic.
2) I disagree with your analysis. Berkshire Hathaway is, legally, somebody else. Buffet disagrees, too, that's why he insists that he is taxed at a far lower rate than his secretary. But, I'll give you this...why the heck is a man that rich paying his secretary only 60K a year?
3) Okay, I've thought about it for a week, and I think trickle-down (a.k.a. supply-side) economics is still 'Horse and Sparrow Theory' (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics%22). I think the last seven decades or so indicate that we do pretty darn well as a society when
everybody is building a little wealth. Unfortunately, a great many Americans are not getting there fast enough, and many more just aren't getting there at all. Instead, they're building debt, just like the government.