Obama's Taxes are about "fairness"

[crb]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910117767951201.html?mod=todays_columnists

Didn't people accuse me recently of making shit up when I said democrats always talk abuot "fairness" in their tax policy?

[Khariz]

Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is "doing well." And if you find yourself in that category, he's going to target you for a tax hike -- all in the name of creating "a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code."

:help:

[BigWorm]

Weird. It's almost like our country has a progressive income tax or something.

[Khariz]

Psst. It shouldn't.

(in my opinion)

[Audriana]

So purely curious, how do republicans propose we pay off our $9,614,016,589,315.46 + $1,860,000,000 dollar a day debt?

[Khariz]

So purely curious, how do republicans propose we pay off our $9,614,016,589,315.46 + $1,860,000,000 dollar a day debt?

I dunno how republicans propose to. But the Fair Tax plan (a flat consumption based tax) is scientifically/economically shown to collect MORE tax revenue than the current system, and would simultaneously shift the tax burden from the producers of goods to the consumers of goods, and to the persons who consume the MOST, rather than the least goods.

If you don't understand how/why this would occur, I don't have the time to re-educate myself enough to explain it. Reading the Fair Tax book, and it's followup to the critics of it are pretty good reads though.

Disclaimer: I don't imagine such a well thought out plan would ever be implemented. I have no hope that such a plan would ever be implemented. While I think it's 99% likely that we will never dissolve the federal income tax, even if we did, it would be in favor of a less sophisticated, easier to manage flat tax that would do nothing to solve the problems we have in the tax system.

[Audriana]

Sounds like socialism to me.

[Khariz]

Sounds like socialism to me.

People paying taxes on the goods they buy instead of the government seizing 50% plus of their income sounds like socialism to you?

Think you need some education.

[BigWorm]

People paying taxes on the goods they buy instead of the government seizing 50% plus of their income sounds like socialism to you?

Think you need some education.

What income bracket gets taxed over 50%? Because last time I checked the highest tax bracket was 35%. Not that you would use hyperbole to make your argument or anything.

[Khariz]

What income bracket gets taxed over 50%? Because last time I checked the highest tax bracket was 35%. Not that you would use hyperbole to make your argument or anything.

I was talking about the prospect of RAISING taxes to the 250k+ mark above the percentage that it is at now versus a consumption tax.

It was appropriate hyperbole, in my opinion.

[Daniel]

It was appropriate hyperbole, in my opinion.

I, for one, am shocked.

[Khariz]

I bet you are.

[BigWorm]

I was talking about the prospect of RAISING taxes to the 250k+ mark above the percentage that it is at now versus a consumption tax.

It was appropriate hyperbole, in my opinion.

Yeah there's no way we would just go back to the tax brackets of the 90's which were ALMOST 40%!!!!1111!!11oneoneone And if you remember what the economy was like in the 90's, it is pretty clear those taxes will destroy the U.S. economy.

[Khariz]

Yeah there's no way we would just go back to the tax brackets of the 90's which were ALMOST 40%!!!!1111!!11oneoneone And if you remember what the economy was like in the 90's, it is pretty clear those taxes will destroy the U.S. economy.

Dude, wtf are you talking about? I'm not saying anything about the current tax system other than the fact that I think there are more preferable systems out there. Audriana called a consumption tax socialist, and I responded at how rediculous that was. That's all that has occurred here.

I don't think an income tax is socialist. But if you draw a line on a piece of paper with socialist on the left side and facism on the right side, the dot that you would put on the line for increased federal income tax would be further to the left than the dot you would put for taxing consumers on the volume of their purchases. That's all I'm saying. I promise. I was just pointing out the rediculousness of her point.

[Daniel]

Okay first of all: It's fucking ridiculous. That's like the 80th time you've done that.

Second of all: Facism? Seriously..you need to get a grip. Go get laid or something, bring some beer, or at least calm the fuck down.

[Ashliana]

Sorry.. but I agree with Khariz, apparently for the first time. I'd much rather have the government tax what I buy, rather than just take take take what I earn. Eliminating the income tax and transfering it to a consumption tax makes a lot more sense a number of perspectives. He's also right on the spectrum--taxing goods that people buy, rather than taking the income people make, is inherently less "socialist" an idea.

As for the hyperbole, I don't really care. It's a bit hypocritical, since whenever I use hyperbole, the rightist attack dogs leap at a chance to find something to criticize (rather than the argument itself), but whatever.

[Warriorbird]

The Fair Tax has revenue shortfalls. It's a nice concept.

The main issue with it is the refunding on basic consumer goods. If you make it properly fair you actually still have to overtarget the rich... removing the whole point of the thing.

[Khariz]

Okay first of all: It's fucking ridiculous. That's like the 80th time you've done that.

Second of all: Facism? Seriously..you need to get a grip. Go get laid or something, bring some beer, or at least calm the fuck down.

So you don't understand the two extremes on the political spectrum. Gotcha.

[Warriorbird]

More than two extremes. You claim to be a Libertarian... you should get that.

[Khariz]

More than two extremes. You claim to be a Libertarian... you should get that.

Yes...but that particular crossbeam goes like that, right?

Just for illustritive purposes lets use this chart:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png

Perhaps I should have said Communism and Fascism. Maybe that would have made everyone feel better (haha).

[Warriorbird]

Fascism wasn't terribly nice to businesses unless they were connected with cronies of the state. Then again... maybe you find that ideal.

[Parkbandit]

What income bracket gets taxed over 50%? Because last time I checked the highest tax bracket was 35%. Not that you would use hyperbole to make your argument or anything.


:rofl: @ you thinking the only income tax one pays is the federal.

[Gan]

Sorry.. but I agree with Khariz, apparently for the first time. I'd much rather have the government tax what I buy, rather than just take take take what I earn. Eliminating the income tax and transfering it to a consumption tax makes a lot more sense a number of perspectives. He's also right on the spectrum--taxing goods that people buy, rather than taking the income people make, is inherently less "socialist" an idea.

/agreed

[Khariz]

Fascism wasn't terribly nice to businesses unless they were connected with cronies of the state. Then again... maybe you find that ideal.

I understand that. That has nothing to do with me refuting higher income tax as being more socialist than a consumption tax though. Again, that was the ONLY point I was trying to make, when Audriana made her retarded comment, and Daniel flew off the hook as usual with one of his un-witty, un-intelligent one-liners.

[crb]

What income bracket gets taxed over 50%? Because last time I checked the highest tax bracket was 35%. Not that you would use hyperbole to make your argument or anything.
Federal income tax max is 35% add in fica taxes, state and local taxes, and you can get above 50%, even 60% in the worst places.

[Warriorbird]

Many people don't pay much at all in state taxes.

[Parkbandit]

Many people don't pay much at all in state taxes.

WTF is your point, Captain Obvious?

The point is that there are places in this country where the income tax rate is already over 50%. I don't think anyone has made the claim that it's like that in every state.

Wait.. I see what you are doing. You want to post something that is actually a fact.. to bring down your wrong post percentage.

Well done.

[Warriorbird]

Hmm... so what was your factually incorrect post supposed to do?

[Parkbandit]

Hmm... so what was your factually incorrect post supposed to do?

Please quote my post that was factually incorrect... or all your hard effort of posting something obvious will be in vain.

[Warriorbird]

List the STATES with over a 50% combined burden.

[Parkbandit]

List the STATES with over a 50% combined burden.


Off the top of my head:

New York
Connecticut
California

Be careful now though Simpleton... this won't include the entire state, but certain cities within these states.

I'm sure there are more. The key is to look for cesspools of rampant liberalism and you'll normally find high taxes.

[Sean]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the big deal about paying taxes. I pay what I pay and if I end up having to pay a little more or a little less c'est la vie. I'm by no means rich or even well off but I have no complaints about my life or the difference in it that paying taxes makes.

[Ashliana]

Maybe it's because of the sheer size of the government, but there seems to be a growing apathy towards politics and the government itself, where people see certain things as inevitable and sometimes even encourage them--tax increases, further intrusion of government into daily life, the removal of personal responsibility and liability..

It's truly a shame that we've gotten so utterly far away from our libertarian roots that a politician like Ron Paul would actually be laughed at and/or dismissed as "crazy," when he's actually one of the very few "conservatives" left in the congress.

We need less taxation, but more importantly less spending, in practically all areas of government. Especially "defense" and especially entitlements.

[Parkbandit]

I don't mind paying my 'fair' share either.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe it's because of the sheer size of the government, but there seems to be a growing apathy towards politics and the government itself, where people see certain things as inevitable and sometimes even encourage them--tax increases, further intrusion of government into daily life, the removal of personal responsibility and liability..

It's truly a shame that we've gotten so utterly far away from our libertarian roots that a politician like Ron Paul would actually be laughed at and/or dismissed as "crazy," when he's actually one of the very few "conservatives" left in the congress.

We need less taxation, but more importantly less spending, in practically all areas of government. Especially "defense" and especially entitlements.


WHAT!?

Who the fuck are you?!?

[Ashliana]

I've told you repeatedly that I'm not a mindless liberal. What do you want from me? My problem lies with the current incarnation of the Republicans, whom I absolutely, sincerely loathe and despise. By courting the religious nutballs into the party, their entire message has been lost. We're left with a liberal party and an insane, reactionary party. Not much of a choice these days.

[Parkbandit]

I've told you repeatedly that I'm not a mindless liberal. What do you want from me? My problem lies with the current incarnation of the Republicans, whom I absolutely, sincerely loathe and despise. By courting the religious nutballs into the party, their entire message has been lost. We're left with a liberal party and an insane, reactionary party. Not much of a choice these days.


Man.. you are turning me on right now.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by ParkBandit
I don't mind paying my 'fair' share either.

Honest question: Do you think those extra few % you might lose from your income for making more negatively impacts the life of you and your family or is it a case of wanting to keep what's "yours" or is there some other component that I'm overlooking?

I can understand not necessarily like what the gov't does with it's programs funded by our taxes but I'm more curious about the gripes with the amount input as opposed to the resulting output.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yes. Taxes should be as burdensome to the lower class as they have been for the upper class. Suffer ye the pangs of alcoholism and the yaght club, minorities!

[Parkbandit]

Honest question: Do you think those extra few % you might lose from your income for making more negatively impacts the life of you and your family or is it a case of wanting to keep what's "yours" or is there some other component that I'm overlooking?

I can understand not necessarily like what the gov't does with it's programs funded by our taxes but I'm more curious about the gripes with the amount input as opposed to the resulting output.


Most of my complaints are about the output. 35% vs 38% vs 40% really won't affect my lifestyle at all.

The handout and victimization mentality of this country drives me absolutely insane.

[Trouble]

The only way to be truly fair about taxes is a flat tax with a standard deduction, IMO. I believe the poverty line would make a good threshold for the Std Ded.

Persons in Family Unit
1 $10,400
2 $14,000
3 $17,600
4 $21,200
5 $24,800
6 $28,400
7 $32,000
8 $35,600
For each additional person, add $3,600
(numbers are higher in AK and HI)

...and to get rid of all other deductions, which tend to make things less fair/even.

Edit: I also believe a consumption tax in lieu of income tax could be fair, but it would have to be studied a bit to see how to handle poverty type issues (e.g., no or reduced tax on things like milk and bread).

[Warriorbird]

Connecticut is the only one of those states that can potentially come out over 50...

...but it is correct that we have many places that are close.

Most of the people in those upper tiers are going to practice serious tax avoidance though. My grandfather has the highest income in my close family and I think he only paid 2% in state.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think the solution is instead of giving kids really expensive birthday and holiday presents, like video game consoles and iPods, we just have mandatorily forced child labor to reduce our expenses.

We also need to forward each PC thread about tax solutions to the IRS. Since we know stuff.

I can make up words, like "manditorily", and it bears about as much significance on how this weblog will reduce tax woes. Of course I love to hear myself speak. What are you, stupid?

[Jorddyn]

The only way to be truly fair about taxes is a flat tax with a standard deduction, IMO. I believe the poverty line would make a good threshold for the Std Ded.

To be truly fair, only wage earners would get the standard deduction. Why should I subsidize other people's munchkins?

/devil's advocate

[Daniel]

WHAT!?

Who the fuck are you?!?

Notice she said "Defense" as where we need to spend less money. A republican never saw an aircraft carrier he didn't like.

[Trouble]

To be truly fair, only wage earners would get the standard deduction. Why should I subsidize other people's munchkins?

/devil's advocate

If we taxed them on the income we gave them (via welfare) it would be a waste of resources.

I agree with your intent though, so howabout welfare counts towards meeting the deduction, but is not taxable. So if a family earned 5k on their own and received 15k in welfare, they'd be taxed on the part of the 5k that would push them over the threshold. So a family of three would be taxed on $2400 (20k - 17600).

[Sean of the Thread]

We've got serious TRADE issues that need to be addressed as well. All the way down to losing more jobs to dirt bag overseas.

[Warriorbird]

I really doubt either party will ever address those. They've sold American workers out a long while back.

[Jorddyn]

If we taxed them on the income we gave them (via welfare) it would be a waste of resources.

I agree with your intent though, so howabout welfare counts towards meeting the deduction, but is not taxable. So if a family earned 5k on their own and received 15k in welfare, they'd be taxed on the part of the 5k that would push them over the threshold. So a family of three would be taxed on $2400 (20k - 17600).

I was just making the point that to be truly fair, a single person with no children shouldn't have to pay more in taxes than a married person with 5 children, especially considering the married person with 5 children uses more resources.

Nothing really to do with welfare.

[Sean of the Thread]

I really doubt either party will ever address those. They've sold American workers out a long while back.

An example locally (although nationally as well) is Neilsen Media moved all their shit and consolidated to a new super HQ in Oldsmar here in TampaBay with all kinds of tax cuts and subsidiaries and other little perks with promoting job growth etc for the area as part of their platform.

Then fired everyone and outsourced their call centers (majority of their employee base) overseas. Oldsmar is fucking pissed and I don't blame them.

[sst]

So purely curious, how do republicans propose we pay off our $9,614,016,589,315.46 + $1,860,000,000 dollar a day debt?

Easy stop spending money on frivolous programs.

freeze non-defense non-homeland security discretionary spending.

Revamp the excess bureaucracy when it comes to government procurement by the GSA. They racked up something ridiculous like 25billion in fees to purchase 70billion in product.

stop giving government grants to "scientists" studying if people drink more at bars when loud music is playing.

That's just a start and no taxes need to be raised.

[Daniel]

An example locally (although nationally as well) is Neilsen Media moved all their shit and consolidated to a new super HQ in Oldsmar here in TampaBay with all kinds of tax cuts and subsidiaries and other little perks with promoting job growth etc for the area as part of their platform.

Then fired everyone and outsourced their call centers (majority of their employee base) overseas. Oldsmar is fucking pissed and I don't blame them.

You're obviously a socialist.

[Daniel]

Easy stop spending money on frivolous programs.

freeze non-defense non-homeland security discretionary spending.

Revamp the excess bureaucracy when it comes to government procurement by the GSA. They racked up something ridiculous like 25billion in fees to purchase 70billion in product.

stop giving government grants to "scientists" studying if people drink more at bars when loud music is playing.

That's just a start and no taxes need to be raised.


Can you explain to me how the Paladin would have assisted you in your combat operations in Iraq?

[crb]

We've got serious TRADE issues that need to be addressed as well. All the way down to losing more jobs to dirt bag overseas.
Since Nafta...

1. Wages have increased for blue collar workers... and at faster rates than previous.

2. Umemployement dropped and stayed averagly lower than in the previous time period before nafta.

3. In flat terms we've added something like 25+ million jobs.

4. Manufacturing productivity has increased.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2489
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9322
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_democratic_trade_myths.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486862248217593.html?mod=todays_columnists
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424592454501493.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/business/13view.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ7LnK_5L74

Trade == Good. Infact, right now, exports are more or less the best part of our economy (weak dollar, etc).

I saw on the news the other day that Toyota is thinking about building a plant here in the US for exporting... currently they build here for the domestic market, but they want to build here and ship cars elsewhere, which would be a first. Why? Because probusiness southern states have attracted them. In addition to free trade being good, to create jobs the US needs more probusiness policies and not, youknow, the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, miles of red tape, etc. The same way southern states compete with shitty ass states like where I live (Michigan) for new auto plants/other businesses, the US competes globally, and too often we lose.

We had a great advantage for a long time because we had abundant natural resources, good labor pools, and a stable government (our government wouldn't come in and steal from businesses like Russia and baby-russias do). Now though with the rest of the world catching up with more stable governments and modern economies we're losing these advantages, we're no longer unique.

A great case study would be Ireland, I highly recommend reading up on the economic history of Ireland for the past around 10 years. They've gone from having one of the most dismal economies in Europe to having one of the most vibrant and lots of businesses are moving operations there. All from changing their government to be probusiness.

[Khariz]

Maybe it's because of the sheer size of the government, but there seems to be a growing apathy towards politics and the government itself, where people see certain things as inevitable and sometimes even encourage them--tax increases, further intrusion of government into daily life, the removal of personal responsibility and liability..

It's truly a shame that we've gotten so utterly far away from our libertarian roots that a politician like Ron Paul would actually be laughed at and/or dismissed as "crazy," when he's actually one of the very few "conservatives" left in the congress.

We need less taxation, but more importantly less spending, in practically all areas of government. Especially "defense" and especially entitlements.

I'm with PB on this one. I pegged you completely wrong, and for that I apologize. My respect for you and your opinions just climbed a great deal. I know that probably doesn't, and shouldn't, matter to you, but I just wanted to let you know.

Again, sorry for making stupid assumptions about you.

[BigWorm]

Actually, Ron Paul is seriously crazy. Can you explain how the fuck we could possibly go back to the gold standard?

[sst]

Can you explain to me how the Paladin would have assisted you in your combat operations in Iraq?

We had fires from 155's depending where we were. Especially south of Baghdad in the more remote area's. A great example was Mahmudiya, where the Arty unit who owned the battlespace at the time we were running ops ran counter fire drills like magic, which were effective.

Counter fire for that area was cleared at the Brigade Level which was co-located with the Battalion TOC.

EDIT: wanted to add that when we were down there they tossed out a few of the new GPS guided Artillery rounds which is pretty sweet, and an example of how a traditionally effective area weapon like a 155mm can be turned into a ground based long range precision round.

Iraq also is not the only battlespace that we have a potential to fight, and it would be a poor decision on the military leadership if they were to stop acquisition of conventional warfare equipment due to the current conflict with countries like Russia, China, North Korea still around.

[sst]

Originally Posted by Ashliana
We need less taxation, but more importantly less spending, in practically all areas of government. Especially "defense" and especially entitlements.

I disagree with the defense part. Defense is the main reason for the government to exist and the most money should be spent on it. However, they should revamp the whole process and cut out a lot of the red tape that goes along with the purchasing process and the red tape with research and development which would save a lot of money.

[Khariz]

I disagree with the defense part. Defense is the main reason for the government to exist and the most money should be spent on it.

I actually disagree with the defense part as well. I forgot to bifurcate that when I applied my agreement.

[Methais]

Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is "doing well." And if you find yourself in that category, he's going to target you for a tax hike -- all in the name of creating "a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code."

What category to the $150,001 - $249,999 people fall into?

[sst]

i just read that again... Making 150,000 is poor or middle class?!

[crb]

Definition of rich: People with more money than you.

[Stanley Burrell]

Definition of rich: People with more money than you.

Definition of rich:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/chappelle1.jpg

You are very welcome.

[Parkbandit]

Definition of rich: People with more money than you.


AND IT'S NOT FAIR!

:cry:

[Daniel]

We had fires from 155's depending where we were. Especially south of Baghdad in the more remote area's. A great example was Mahmudiya, where the Arty unit who owned the battlespace at the time we were running ops ran counter fire drills like magic, which were effective.

Counter fire for that area was cleared at the Brigade Level which was co-located with the Battalion TOC.

EDIT: wanted to add that when we were down there they tossed out a few of the new GPS guided Artillery rounds which is pretty sweet, and an example of how a traditionally effective area weapon like a 155mm can be turned into a ground based long range precision round.

Iraq also is not the only battlespace that we have a potential to fight, and it would be a poor decision on the military leadership if they were to stop acquisition of conventional warfare equipment due to the current conflict with countries like Russia, China, North Korea still around.



Okay. So with that said, was the billions of dollars spent on the Crusader system really going to give you that much more bang for your buck?

[sst]

Okay. So with that said, was the billions of dollars spent on the Crusader system really going to give you that much more bang for your buck?

Daniel, that's the problem with the current acquisition and R&D system we have in place. It depends, what other technology came out of it in the R&D process to develop the system. I am not familiar with it so i cant say one way or another. It all goes into what i was talking about with the bureaucracy that causes the defense industry to go over budget in almost every project.

The Comanche cost $20billion before they nixed it. However, almost all of the new technology that they came up with during the R&D faze is being passed around though other programs and upgrading other systems. Is 20 billion a lot of money to waste on a project that gets canceled, yes. In the long run was it a waste of money, no.