51% don't pay taxes, also, the US taxes the "rich" more than other developed nations

[crb]

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BL348_TAXES_G_20110502193003.jpg

Article one:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576299560728821804.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Article two:
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Over-Half-Households-Paid-No-Income-Taxes-58240-1.html

Personally, I worry about this. If you pay no income tax, you have no incentive to elect fiscally responsible politicians, and you only need 51% to win an election. Thank god many people who don't pay taxes don't realize they don't pay taxes, or have the principles to not vote for profligate spenders.

Also, I find it hilarious that the rich pay a larger share of the US tax burden, than they do in any other major industrialized country, including socialist Europe.



A 2008 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, found that the highest-earning 10% of the U.S. population paid the largest share among 24 countries examined, even after adjusting for their relatively higher incomes. "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States," the OECD study concluded.


But yet Obama and Pelosi will demagogue me and tell me I don't pay my fair share.

I think we should broaden the base, make the AMT 1%, and have it apply to EVERYONE. Everyone should have skin in the game, 1% isn't too much to ask.

[Stretch]

I think the people making $18k a year are too busy trying to figure out how to pay rent and keep the lights on to care about voting.

[Back]

If that is really the case why isn't every one moving to Japan?

[EasternBrand]

If that is really the case why isn't every one moving to Japan?

Not sure if you've seen the news lately, but...

[Keller]

But yet Obama and Pelosi will demagogue me and tell me I don't pay my fair share.

No one cares that you got promoted to middle management and now make $115k/yr.

You look more and more like a pretentious douchebag each time you mention this.

Stop. Please.

[prance1520]

Not sure if you've seen the news lately, but...

Too funny.

Seriously, this is a tough topic for the US. As Globalization gets easier, Fortune 500 companies may seriously look at moving their Corporate Headquarters to other countries with less regulation/ more tax breaks. The scary part of that is not only do we lose a lot of Corporate taxes, but guess what jobs move with Corporate Headquarters? Its not bank tellers or mid-range sales jobs, its all the management and executive jobs that are in that upper tax tier.

I'm not saying its likely very soon, but if we're not careful this could really bite us in the future. I think we're turning our heads and giving it the old "we're America, they'll never leave" treatment.

[Warriorbird]

Too funny.

Seriously, this is a tough topic for the US. As Globalization gets easier, Fortune 500 companies may seriously look at moving their Corporate Headquarters to other countries with less regulation/ more tax breaks. The scary part of that is not only do we lose a lot of Corporate taxes, but guess what jobs move with Corporate Headquarters? Its not bank tellers or mid-range sales jobs, its all the management and executive jobs that are in that upper tax tier.

I'm not saying its likely very soon, but if we're not careful this could really bite us in the future. I think we're turning our heads and giving it the old "we're America, they'll never leave" treatment.

Hasn't this already happened? Isn't it not really due to high taxes but the relative ease of escaping a fair portion of them completely?

[Kembal]

Unless I'm severely mistaken, everyone pays tax. (Social security, medicare, state and local taxes) Just because they don't pay federal income tax doesn't mean they aren't taxed.

[Delias]

http://faireconomy.org/

[Jarvan]

http://faireconomy.org/

Are you in support of it, or against it?

Cause changing that tax code will hurt allot of seniors.

I do seriously find it disturbing that so many people are "They make money, get em!" mentality nowadays. if the Government was fiscally responsible, we wouldn't need to tax as much as we do already. yet as it stands, it's the middle class and the poor that clamor for "free" things from Uncle Sam that drives the whole "tax the Rich" Mentality. Taxing the rich more is like taxing a corporation at 50+%. You just know they are going to pass that tax onto the consumer. The Rich just bypass that tax.

If anything, we need to change our tax structure. The top rate should be for 200/250k Plus. Yeah, that's a shit lot in most suburban towns. But it's not much at all in major cities. Just look at Manhattan. Low end 2 Bedroom is min 2500 a Month.

Our president keeps harping on the super rich. Then why doesn't he propose a tax bracket just for them? Make earning 1+ mill a year 45% tax. hey, why not change the capital gains tax to be progressive too. If you earn more then 1 mill a year, you pay 45% tax.

Or, we could just round up all the rich people and shoot them. I believe the so called "death tax" is back up to 55%. That could net us allot of money.

[Nieninque]

Personally, I worry about this. If you pay no income tax, you have no incentive to elect fiscally responsible politicians

You're an idiot.

[Back]

You're an idiot.

What happened to you?

[Stanley Burrell]

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BL348_TAXES_G_20110502193003.jpg

Article one:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576299560728821804.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Article two:
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Over-Half-Households-Paid-No-Income-Taxes-58240-1.html

Personally, I worry about this. If you pay no income tax, you have no incentive to elect fiscally responsible politicians, and you only need 51% to win an election. Thank god many people who don't pay taxes don't realize they don't pay taxes, or have the principles to not vote for profligate spenders.

Also, I find it hilarious that the rich pay a larger share of the US tax burden, than they do in any other major industrialized country, including socialist Europe.



But yet Obama and Pelosi will demagogue me and tell me I don't pay my fair share.

I think we should broaden the base, make the AMT 1%, and have it apply to EVERYONE. Everyone should have skin in the game, 1% isn't too much to ask.

Is there a dynamic relationship between doing this sort of macroeconomic assessment and then ... what do we throw out the window when we try and make it more finite (i.e. the fact that we're not Japan/Canada/etc.) to emphasize its importance? Is the scale part of some fundamentally flawless economic equation, er?

I just ask this because I could minimize the graphic representation even more and still not understand (the scaling of) global economics.

[Jarvan]

You're an idiot.

Pot, This is kettle. kettle, pot.

[Sam]

yeah, what he said (he said fuck poor people right?)

[Delias]

Are you in support of it, or against it?


At this particular time my brain is too scrambled to be properly for or against anything. I'll get back to you on it.

[Parkbandit]

At this particular time my brain is too scrambled to be properly for or against anything. I'll get back to you on it.

Their slogan should clue you in:

http://faireconomy.org/sites/default/themes/fairecon/images/slogan.png

[crb]

Unless I'm severely mistaken, everyone pays tax. (Social security, medicare, state and local taxes) Just because they don't pay federal income tax doesn't mean they aren't taxed.

51% of people pay $0 to support the federal budget. 30% of households make money off taxes.

Payroll taxes are forced savings, you're getting that money back one day (in theory). In fact you're getting more than it back generally.

You are though, in fact, paying nothing, to support every other federal program that isn't medicare or social security.

Look at defense spending for instance, you're paying nothing to support the Department of Defense, so what do you care about the defense budget? Let them buy all the stuff they want, you don't get the bill.

The majority of households in this country pay 0% of the federal income tax burden. Thats a travesty. Talk about fair share.

[AnticorRifling]

Homeless people need taxed they're using our bridges as housing and they don't care about the DoT budget.

[crb]

No one cares that you got promoted to middle management and now make $115k/yr.

You look more and more like a pretentious douchebag each time you mention this.

Stop. Please.


Keller you seem to have a problem with wealth, you get awfully offended when PB or I mention how we wipe our ass with benjamins.

I mentioned it simply because I thought it would be disengenuous for me to advocate against higher taxes on "the rich" while ignoring that I have a personal stake in where the top tax bracket goes. I didn't mention it to put you out of sorts.

I made this video for you to tell you how I feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4PGBSptYCI

Sorry.

[AnticorRifling]

I lol'd. Not at the video since I can't see them here but at you in general crb.

[Keller]

Keller you seem to have a problem with wealth, you get awfully offended when PB or I mention how we wipe our ass with benjamins.

I mentioned it simply because I thought it would be disengenuous for me to advocate against higher taxes on "the rich" while ignoring that I have a personal stake in where the top tax bracket goes. I didn't mention it to put you out of sorts.

Let's just fact-check your assertion.


Obama and Pelosi will demagogue me and tell me I don't pay my fair share.

That sounds a lot more like you being the whiny cunt you are than someone disclosing that they have a vested interest in reducing the top marginal rates.

Seriously - no one cares that you're middle management at 38, just in time to be laid off for some snot-nosed 27 year old that actually has a clue to take your job.

There are people on this forum that make more money than you, pay more in taxes, and yet don't feel the need to remind the community every third post.

[Parkbandit]

Keller you seem to have a problem with wealth, you get awfully offended when PB or I mention how we wipe our ass with benjamins.

I mentioned it simply because I thought it would be disengenuous for me to advocate against higher taxes on "the rich" while ignoring that I have a personal stake in where the top tax bracket goes. I didn't mention it to put you out of sorts.

I made this video for you to tell you how I feel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4PGBSptYCI

Sorry.

Not sure why you are including me in your "ZOMG I R SO RICH" rant. I happen to agree with Keller, since you mention how rich you are in almost any political discussion.

And PS - I don't hate rich people.. I hate people who portray themselves as some special class, while bemoaning how bad they have it.

[crb]

Keller, you seem very angry. Did you recently experience a difficulty? You seem like you're projecting. Were you recently replaced by some 27 year old? Did your boss do something meanie faced and now you hate your betters?

By the by, I own the company I work for. wink wink. I know I've mentioned I'm a small business owner before, but fuck, maybe I need to up it to every 3rd post. What do you think Keller?

[crb]

Not sure why you are including me in your "ZOMG I R SO RICH" rant. I happen to agree with Keller, since you mention how rich you are in almost any political discussion.

And PS - I don't hate rich people.. I hate people who portray themselves as some special class, while bemoaning how bad they have it.

Fine, from now on if I post anything on taxes I'll pretend I'm merely standing on principle (which I am, mostly) and not admit to any ulterior motives or potential financial benefit. I didn't know disclosure would be so offensive. Though I do find this bear poking to be entertaining, rarely does Keller get so riled. So maybe not... we'll have to wait and see.


PS. I included you because you've posted many times in the past about how much money you make off Obama energy policies, but ummkay.

[Parkbandit]

Fine, from now on if I post anything on taxes I'll pretend I'm merely standing on principle (which I am, mostly) and not admit to any ulterior motives or potential financial benefit. I didn't know disclosure would be so offensive. Though I do find this bear poking to be entertaining, rarely does Keller get so riled. So maybe not... we'll have to wait and see.

PS. I included you because you've posted many times in the past about how much money you make off Obama energy policies, but ummkay.

There is a difference between stating facts for bolstering your positions in a debate and mentioning you are rich just to let people know at every opportunity.

And Keller is easily riled... it takes almost no effort at all.

PS - I started all of my current businesses under the Bush Administration... well before Obama stepped into the spotlight.

[Keller]

Fine, from now on if I post anything on taxes I'll pretend I'm merely standing on principle (which I am, mostly) and not admit to any ulterior motives or potential financial benefit. I didn't know disclosure would be so offensive. Though I do find this bear poking to be entertaining, rarely does Keller get so riled. So maybe not... we'll have to wait and see.


PS. I included you because you've posted many times in the past about how much money you make off Obama energy policies, but ummkay.

It is basic manners. You don't ask someone how much money they make and you definitely don't just offer it up.

It makes you look like a cocksore.

And I'm hardly riled. I enjoy exposing douchebags as being douchebags. I consider my task complete.

[Parkbandit]

I enjoy exposing

Perv

[Keller]

And Keller is easily riled... it takes almost no effort at all.


:spam:

[crb]

It is basic manners. You don't ask someone how much money they make and you definitely don't just offer it up.

It makes you look like a cocksore.

And I'm hardly riled. I enjoy exposing douchebags as being douchebags. I consider my task complete.
Now, keller, I've never mentioned how much money I make. That would be crass. And it isn't even well pinned down because like most business owners it swings wildly every year depending on the economy. You're the only one who has tossed out (rofl) actual numbers.

I've only said Obama considers me rich, and would have my taxes raised, and I pay a lot of taxes. Never a specific number. I've never done that, but if you want to know PM me and I'll tell you. Okay?

I love this ad hominem stuff though, lets not address the fact that 51% people don't pay federal income tax, and instead focus on what CRB's income is!

[Cephalopod]

Random liberal bias:


THEY'RE STILL PAYING TAXES (MOST OF THEM, ANYWAY) (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/51-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/238329/)

The majority of households who pay no income tax still pay net taxes to the IRS. Federal income taxes account for about 40 percent of total government receipts. Most of the rest comes from payroll taxes, which workers of all income levels do pay. Since every dollar up to $106,800 is subject to taxes, a typical middle class family pays payroll taxes on all its income while a millionaire employee pays payroll taxes on only a tenth of his income.

At the same time, there are Americans -- millions of them -- who really do pay practically zero overall taxes. About fifteen million American households, or 10 percent of all taxpayers, receive more cash from the IRS than they contribute in federal income taxes and payroll taxes. That's thanks to "refundable credits," tax credits that can bring your tax bill into negative territory. To some, these 15 million are low-income Americans benefiting from smart and targeted welfare run through the tax code. To others, they are unacceptable free riders, citizens with a vote but no stake in federal government.




And Ezra Klein's (more liberal bias) take on this topic a year ago, when the number was 47%: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/do_the_poor_really_pay_no_taxe.html)

I'm going to be charitable on this and assume that people are biased toward their own experiences rather than playing loose with the data. For upper-income folks -- journalists, television executives, congressmen, think tank employees -- the big hit is on income taxes, so they get pretty annoyed when they hear that lots of Americans don't pay any income tax. But their experience is not typical. Most people's tax burden has a very different composition. As David Leonhardt points out in a typically excellent column today, "about three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes." And that doesn't even mention state and local income taxes.

[Cephalopod]

Also, I make a fuckton of money each year and I pay a fuckton of taxes. Thankfully, I have children and a mortgage and the tax credits make it so I can feed my $800 a week coke habit.

[Keller]

Now, keller, I've never mentioned how much money I make. That would be crass. And it isn't even well pinned down because like most business owners it swings wildly every year depending on the economy. You're the only one who has tossed out (rofl) actual numbers.

I've only said Obama considers me rich, and would have my taxes raised, and I pay a lot of taxes. Never a specific number. I've never done that, but if you want to know PM me and I'll tell you. Okay?

I love this ad hominem stuff though, lets not address the fact that 51% people don't pay federal income tax, and instead focus on what CRB's income is!

I'm not terrible concerned that 51% of people don't pay federal income taxes.

They pay taxes other than federal income taxes, ipso facto, it is inaccurate to say they don't have any vested interest in electing fiscally responsible politicians. The entire premise of your argument is wrong, which has been pointed out to you in this thread.

I've never said that your position is wrong because you're a douchebag. That is what would be required of an ad hominem attack. I've just said you're a douchebag and not argued with you about taxes. Each time I've tried to argue with you about taxes, you just regurgitate some Heritage Foundation or AFP study and pretend like you know what you're talking about. It's neither fun nor intellectually interesting to me to argue with the Tsa'ah of Taxes.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of why tax receipts went up after the Bush tax cuts. It's a pretty damned easy question and I'm not sure whether you're not answering because (i) you don't know or (ii) you do know, but you realize it would be harmful to your position on taxes to admit it.

[crb]

The child tax credit unfortunately phases out sadface. So do things like the student loan interest deduction.

These phases outs can create notches where marginal tax rates can exceed 100% (meaning, you can get a raise and be poorer for it) it'll get worse when Obamacare takes full effect.

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2154-cbo-confirms-obamacare-discourages-work
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/25/obamacare-work-more-get-less
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704628404576265692304582936.html#p rintMode

We need tax reform

[Keller]

The child tax credit unfortunately phases out sadface. So do things like the student loan interest deduction.

These phases outs can create notches where marginal tax rates can exceed 100% (meaning, you can get a raise and be poorer for it) it'll get worse when Obamacare takes full effect.

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2154-cbo-confirms-obamacare-discourages-work
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/25/obamacare-work-more-get-less
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704628404576265692304582936.html#p rintMode

We need tax reform

This is actually correct and does need to be addressed.

[crb]

I'm not terrible concerned that 51% of people don't pay federal income taxes.

They pay taxes other than federal income taxes, ipso facto, it is inaccurate to say they don't have any vested interest in electing fiscally responsible politicians. The entire premise of your argument is wrong, which has been pointed out to you in this thread.


And I countered the payroll tax point by pointing out that payroll taxes go to pay for two very specific forced government savings programs that, in the end, assuming you don't die young, pay you back more than you put in. Paying them is not the same thing as paying to support all federal discretionary spending. Sales taxes are irrelevant because they aren't federal taxes, though I would support a national sales tax (but not a sneaky hidden vat).



I've never said that your position is wrong because you're a douchebag. That is what would be required of an ad hominem attack. I've just said you're a douchebag and not argued with you about taxes.

Attacking the messenger instead of the message is more or less the definition of ad hominem.



I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of why tax receipts went up after the Bush tax cuts. It's a pretty damned easy question and I'm not sure whether you're not answering because (i) you don't know or (ii) you do know, but you realize it would be harmful to your position on taxes to admit it.

It was a stupid question with an obvious answer. You can get more pie if you shrink your share of the pie while simultaneously increasing the size of the pie. Likewise, you can get less pie if you increase your share of the pie while simultaneously decreasing the size of the pie.

GDP growth is what creates more federal revenue, GDP shrinkage is what cuts federal revenue. The liberal spin will be to claim that GDP growth after Bush cut taxes was a coincidence, as were all the other times GDP grew after tax cuts in our history. They will also claim that GDP shrinkage, or more specifically, a shrinking in the rate of GDP growth, after tax increases was also a coincidence.

There is also a side discussion about capital gains incentives, taxes many can choose when to pay (and so would choose to pay when taxes are lower). But it is just a small portion of overall tax revenue.

The fact that GDP grew after Bush cut taxes does not hurt my position that low taxes are better certainly, so I don't know what you were on about.

[Keller]

They pay taxes other than federal income taxes, ipso facto, it is inaccurate to say they don't have any vested interest in electing fiscally responsible politicians. The entire premise of your argument is wrong, which has been pointed out to you in this thread.

Just to be clear, your premise should be that a lot of those same people are the recipients of entitlement programs. That is much more likely why they are voting for who they are voting for.

If we're serious about deficit reduction we need to (i) reform entitlements and (ii) raise taxes.

[Keller]

Attacking the messenger instead of the message is more or less the definition of ad hominem.

There is an actual definition of ad hominem, so I'm not so concerned with what you believe is "more or less" the definition of ad hominem

[Keller]

There is also a side discussion about capital gains incentives, taxes many can choose when to pay (and so would choose to pay when taxes are lower). But it is just a small portion of overall tax revenue.

Please let all of us know, as a percentage of the increase in tax revenues from, say, 2001 through 2007, what portion of that increase was made up of capital gains/dividends and what portion was of ordinary income or salary.

:popcorn:

[crb]

There is an actual definition of ad hominem, so I'm not so concerned with what you believe is "more or less" the definition of ad hominem

Of course there is, it means attack the messenger not the message.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

It does not merely mean a random personal attack, which you seem to think it does. It is only relevant in the context of a debate, specifically where the debate is derailed into one of the people being forced to defend himself rather than his argument.

[crb]

Just to be clear, your premise should be that a lot of those same people are the recipients of entitlement programs. That is much more likely why they are voting for who they are voting for.

If we're serious about deficit reduction we need to (i) reform entitlements and (ii) raise taxes.

I'm not sure what you're talking about now, since you quoted yourself in your response...

But... we don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. Taxes as a percentage of GDP are largely flat post WWII and have never exceeded 20.6%. Spending as a percentage of GDP is a far different story, with Obama's first budget proposing to spend 25% of GDP, an amount 20% higher than any we have gotten from taxes, no matter what rates or brackets, since we fought the nazis.

Higher taxes also shrink the pie, lower GDP growth, and so in the long run earn the government less revenue.

[crb]

Please let all of us know, as a percentage of the increase in tax revenues from, say, 2001 through 2007, what portion of that increase was made up of capital gains/dividends and what portion was of ordinary income or salary.

:popcorn:

http://tinyurl.com/6hgvjbm

[Bobmuhthol]

It does not merely mean a random personal attack, which you seem to think it does.

No, that's what you think it means. Keller explicitly said that he made no attempt to argue with you about taxes, so he can't possibly have committed a fallacy because he was not making an argument. How is this difficult to understand?

[Keller]

Of course there is, it means attack the messenger not the message.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

It does not merely mean a random personal attack, which you seem to think it does. It is only relevant in the context of a debate, specifically where the debate is derailed into one of the people being forced to defend himself rather than his argument.

:wtf:

Here is what I said.


I've never said that your position is wrong because you're a douchebag. That is what would be required of an ad hominem attack. I've just said you're a douchebag and not argued with you about taxes.

You're precisely right that it does not merely mean a random personal attack. It is a personal attack that is meant to discredit a person's argument in a debate.

So, an example would be, "crb is a douchebag, so don't listen to his argument about taxes."

That is not what I said. What I said was, "crb, you are a douchebag." I never stated a position one way or another on your argument.

That is not an ad hominem attack, more, less, otherwise, or at all.

[Keller]

http://tinyurl.com/6hgvjbm

I accept your surrender.

The shame is, in 6 months, we'll have this same "debate" with the same result.

Step 1: crb whines about taxes.

Step 2: Keller asks basic questions about the relationship between tax cuts and tax revenue.

Step 3: crb regurgitates basic Heritage Foundation talking points.

Step 4: Keller asks crb to provide proof for any of the shit he just said.

Step 5: crb deflects.

If I remember correctly, we actually had this debate in June/July of 2008 (I remember because I was in the last week of studying for the bar exam, not because my memory is actually that good). Maybe you should revisit that thread?

[Drunken Durfin]

Also, I find it hilarious that the rich pay a larger share of the US tax burden, than they do in any other major industrialized country, including socialist Europe.

Yeah, on paper that is what is SUPPOSED to happen, but in reality, it does not. This is not something that I read on the internoob, it is part of my job. The current case I'm working on involves tax shelters that allowed multi-millionaires to not only avoid paying taxes on capital gains in the order of millions, they also got MILLION PLUS tax refund checks in the process. The govt is alleging that these guys cost the US over 1.5B in lost tax revenues, and these are just the guys that got caught. The funniest part: as it turns out it was all legal and part of a loophole in the eff'ed up tax code.

There have been over 19,000 changes to the US tax code since 1993, and the loopholes that come with them are exploited by those who can afford the accountants/attorneys/investment bankers that can understand what it takes to take advantage of them.

The US tax code succeeds only in preventing the "middle class" from accumulating wealth.



Our president keeps harping on the super rich. Then why doesn't he propose a tax bracket just for them? Make earning 1+ mill a year 45% tax. hey, why not change the capital gains tax to be progressive too. If you earn more then 1 mill a year, you pay 45% tax.

Or, we could just round up all the rich people and shoot them. I believe the so called "death tax" is back up to 55%. That could net us allot of money.

The super rich will never pay these taxes, neither will big corporations. Case in point, GE made 14.2 BILLION in profits last year and after their tax department got through playing with they numbers they paid ZERO in taxes. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558). There are too many ways around it. Family Partnerships (which the IRS has been trying to get outlawed for years) are just one of a long list of tricks you can use to get around this stuff.

[crb]

I accept your surrender.

The shame is, in 6 months, we'll have this same "debate" with the same result.

Step 1: crb whines about taxes.

Step 2: Keller asks basic questions about the relationship between tax cuts and tax revenue.

Step 3: crb regurgitates basic Heritage Foundation talking points.

Step 4: Keller asks crb to provide proof for any of the shit he just said.

Step 5: crb deflects.

If I remember correctly, we actually had this debate in June/July of 2008 (I remember because I was in the last week of studying for the bar exam, not because my memory is actually that good). Maybe you should revisit that thread?
I merely refuse to do your research for you. If you want to debate a point, find your information yourself. I am not going to do a scavenger hunt for you.

If you want to say "You're wrong, 100% of the increase in tax receipts after the cuts were from capital gains taxes as a result of people deciding, suddenly, to sell to take advantage of new long term tax rates not set to expire for 7 years, it had nothing to do with GDP growth."

I would counter "How can GDP growth have nothing to do with tax receipts?" and also "Why would people seem a need to cash in on long term assets to take advantage of a tax rate that'll be in place for a minimum of 7 years?" and also "Hmm, wouldn't an increase in investment values due to the economy growing result in more valuable investments, and thus more tax revenue from those investments when sold..." Which leads us all back to my point of low taxes = faster growing economy = more tax revenue.

Don't ask to me to argue your side of the argument for you Keller, it is tiring carrying all that Obama water.

[Parkbandit]

If we're serious about deficit reduction we need to (i) reform entitlements and (ii) raise taxes.

I disagree.

If we're serious about deficit reduction we need to (i) reform entitlements and (ii) cut spending.

[NocturnalRob]

GE had losses used to offset their profits last year, just as any individual taxpayer can offset capital gains with capital losses (this is an oversimplification, but the premise holds).

[crb]

Yeah, on paper that is what is SUPPOSED to happen, but in reality, it does not. This is not something that I read on the internoob, it is part of my job. The current case I'm working on involves tax shelters that allowed multi-millionaires to not only avoid paying taxes on capital gains in the order of millions, they also got MILLION PLUS tax refund checks in the process. The govt is alleging that these guys cost the US over 1.5B in lost tax revenues, and these are just the guys that got caught. The funniest part: as it turns out it was all legal and part of a loophole in the eff'ed up tax code.

There have been over 19,000 changes to the US tax code since 1993, and the loopholes that come with them are exploited by those who can afford the accountants/attorneys/investment bankers that can understand what it takes to take advantage of them.

The US tax code succeeds only in preventing the "middle class" from accumulating wealth.



The super rich will never pay these taxes, neither will big corporations. Case in point, GE made 14.2 BILLION in profits last year and after their tax department got through playing with they numbers they paid ZERO in taxes. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558). There are too many ways around it. Family Partnerships (which the IRS has been trying to get outlawed for years) are just one of a long list of tricks you can use to get around this stuff.
Couple points Durfin.


1. This isn't on paper, the figures comparing countries were done by an international organization on actual taxes paid, not paper rates or brackets.

2. You make the same mistake (accidentially on purpose), that Obama makes all the time. "We don't need tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, so I'll raise taxes on familes making more than $200,000 a year." WTF, Since when was $200,000 a millionaire or a billionaire? People who make $200,000 a year don't have butlers, they don't have swiss tax shelters. You're lumping Bob the Plumber who owns his own business, married to Wanda who is a Physician's Assistant, in with Martha Stewart. These people are not in the same social circles.

Someone earlier (Jarvan?) asked why not a millionaire tax? New tax brackets at 1m, or 10m, or something. Why not? Because there is no money in it (and Obama might lose the support of hollywood). There are too few actual millionaires that even if you gave them a huge tax rate, it wouldn't make a big dent in our deficits. Even, truthfully, raising taxes above 200k doesn't make much of a dent. The bush tax cuts were something like 4 trillion over 10 years, less than 25% of that was to Obama's "rich." 70 billion a year or something, 700b over 10 years, or Obama's one year giveaway stimulus. I'm going from memory, so Keller, please no fits if I'm not exactly perfect on the numbers.

So lets not confuse moderately wealthy upper middle class small business owners and educated professionals with millionaires and billionaires.

3. With GE, a big reason is they had huge losses thanks to GE capital in 08 and 09 which carry forward, appropriately, to 2010. It isn't the only reason, but people tend to forget (or not understand) these things, and it doesn't tend to get mentioned in headlines. Not that I wish to defend GE, that is obviously an Obama company.

[g++]

Assuming well be keeping the military around arent your i and ii essentially the same thing pb?

[Parkbandit]

Assuming well be keeping the military around arent your i and ii essentially the same thing pb?

Unlike most "Republicans" or "Conservatives", I believe there is plenty of money that is wasted in the Defense budget that could be cut.

So no, I don't believe they are the same thing.

[4a6c1]

More taxes on the rich. Less cuts on programs for the weakest people in our society (disabled, elderly, children etc.).

If you want to live in this country and be able to make mad money on your wits alone, you have to pay for the privilege. You have to pay for those weakest people in our society. Why? Because this country that allowed you to be yourself and do what you do and become rich on your wits alone did so because it values every life equaly--or at least values the premise of valuing every life equaly--including those people that are weaker than you!

The American way. If you dont like it, move to India.

[Bobmuhthol]

America does not value every life equally. See: every court case which has involved valuing a person's life.

[4a6c1]

:(

....the premise.

[g++]

I remember some disturbing graphs from political science classes in college about the correlation between poverty and the death penalty due to the whole mitigating circumstances and good lawyer thing. Rich people tend to commit crimes of passion. Poor people tend to be cold blooded murderers.

[NocturnalRob]

More taxes on the rich. Less cuts on programs for the weakest people in our society (disabled, elderly, children etc.).

If you want to live in this country and be able to make mad money on your wits alone, you have to pay for the privilege. You have to pay for those weakest people in our society. Why? Because this country that allowed you to be yourself and do what you do and become rich on your wits alone did so because it values every life equaly--or at least values the premise of valuing every life equaly--including those people that are weaker than you!

The American way. If you dont like it, move to India.
How about this? I'm going to continue to argue that the rich shouldn't continue to shoulder so much of the burden of the weakest people in our society (disabled, elderly, children, you, etc). The country didn't ALLOW me to succeed, nor did it hold me back. If I became rich "on my wits alone," then that means I did it without help from "the country."

And I fucking laugh in your face at your belief that this country values every life equally. Laugh in your fucking face. Gay marriage. Abortion. Immigration laws. Enough said.

If you don't like it, move to India.

[Bobmuhthol]

Gay marriage. Abortion. Immigration laws. Enough said.

None of these issues speak to the value of a life.

[AnticorRifling]

Wouldn't giving someone the right to better quality raise its value? This is where Rob and Bob foam at the mouth.

[NocturnalRob]

None of these issues speak to the value of a life.
What do you think abortion is?

Wait, nevermind. Getting that point involves sex. Sorry, Bob.

[Parkbandit]

More taxes on the rich. Less cuts on programs for the weakest people in our society (disabled, elderly, children etc.).

If you want to live in this country and be able to make mad money on your wits alone, you have to pay for the privilege. You have to pay for those weakest people in our society. Why? Because this country that allowed you to be yourself and do what you do and become rich on your wits alone did so because it values every life equaly--or at least values the premise of valuing every life equaly--including those people that are weaker than you!

The American way. If you dont like it, move to India.

In your mind, who would pay for the weakest people in our society when all the evil rich people move to India?

[NocturnalRob]

In your mind, who would pay for the weakest people in our society when all the evil rich people move to India?
The blossoming middle class, I'm sure.

[4a6c1]

Also. My tax return was maaaaarvelously large. THANKS RICH PEOPLE.

[NocturnalRob]

My tax return was maaaaarvelously large.
This is all relative. Uncle Sam thanks you for the interest-free loan.

[Bobmuhthol]

I think abortion is the destruction of a mass of cells. I don't shed tears for the poor living tumors that are killed by chemotherapy for the same reason that I have no second thoughts about killing a fertilized egg.

Granted, that means I support killing a potential future president, and I am evil, etc., whatever.

[NocturnalRob]

I think abortion is the destruction of a mass of cells. I don't shed tears for the poor living tumors that are killed by chemotherapy for the same reason that I have no second thoughts about killing a fertilized egg.

Granted, that means I support killing a potential future president, and I am evil, etc., whatever.
By that logic, you support the death penalty. Granted, I do too. So...hi there.

[DoctorUnne]

Abortion.


None of these issues speak to the value of a life.

Haha

[AnticorRifling]

Why would we tax the rich more because they are successful? I thought the point was to be successful ie winning not being successful to pay more ie not winning.

I make X a year, I pay Y (where Y is a %) in taxes. You make Z (where Z > X) and pay Y in taxes. You pay more taxes because Y of X is less than Y of Z, Y shouldn't change.

[AnticorRifling]

I think abortion is the destruction of a mass of cells. I don't shed tears for the poor living tumors that are killed by chemotherapy for the same reason that I have no second thoughts about killing a fertilized egg.

Granted, that means I support killing a potential future president, and I am evil, etc., whatever.

Not evil, just retarded (not the coloring book kind).

[NocturnalRob]

Why would we tax the rich more because they are successful? I thought the point was to be successful ie winning not being successful to pay more ie not winning.

I make X a year, I pay Y (where Y is a %) in taxes. You make Z (where Z > X) and pay Y in taxes. You pay more taxes because Y of X is less than Y of Z, Y shouldn't change.
You, Dick Armey, and Trent Lott should hang out.

[AnticorRifling]

Can't hear you, busy reading Animal Farm and changing the animal names to PC posters.

[Drunken Durfin]

2. You make the same mistake (accidentially on purpose), that Obama makes all the time. "We don't need tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, so I'll raise taxes on familes making more than $200,000 a year." WTF, Since when was $200,000 a millionaire or a billionaire? People who make $200,000 a year don't have butlers, they don't have swiss tax shelters. You're lumping Bob the Plumber who owns his own business, married to Wanda who is a Physician's Assistant, in with Martha Stewart. These people are not in the same social circles.


I think you are confusing my post with someone else. Where did I say anything about raising taxes, on anyone? I am a small business owner who makes more than $200K a year. Trust me, I am not in any way supporting raising taxes on what is essentially my family. I get BOHICA'ed every year.

Yes, GE had special circumstances. Still, the premise holds. Big business will always find ways to get around paying their full 35%.

The U.S. Tax code longer than the Bible, and it is not printed on onion skin. It is fraught with more contradictions than the Old Testament and tons of loopholes. It needs to go and be replaced with something that makes sense.

[4a6c1]

It was really big though. And apparently I got extra money for volunteer work with minorities. And for working with hazmat. And cats. I guess Obama likes cats. THANKS RICH PEOPLE.

[AnticorRifling]

To each according to their need, from each according to their ability! Wait...

[NocturnalRob]

I think you are confusing my post with someone else. Where did I say anything about raising taxes, on anyone? I am a small business owner who makes more than $200K a year. Trust me, I am not in any way supporting raising taxes on what is essentially my family. I get BOHICA'ed every year.

Yes, GE had special circumstances. Still, the premise holds. Big business will always find ways to get around paying their full 35%.

The U.S. Tax code longer than the Bible, and it is not printed on onion skin. It is fraught with more contradictions than the Old Testament and tons of loopholes. It needs to go and be replaced with something that makes sense.
In before AR accidentally

[Bobmuhthol]

By that logic, you support the death penalty.

The idea that something is living does not make it human. I eat slaughtered animals all the time and it doesn't really make me feel bad. However, I don't like the idea of a societal system allowing for the termination of human life. Like I said, I liken abortions to treating cancer; in both cases, the cells are living, but not human.

[AnticorRifling]

It was really big though. And apparently I got extra money for volunteer work with minorities. And for working with hazmat. And cats. I guess Obama likes cats. THANKS RICH PEOPLE.

Way to be racist and not volunteer to work with white people. You sicken me. Volunteer work that is not colorblind is a pox unto itself!!!!

[AnticorRifling]

The idea that something is living does not make it human. I eat slaughtered animals all the time and it doesn't really make me feel bad. However, I don't like the idea of a societal system allowing for the termination of human life. Like I said, I liken abortions to treating cancer; in both cases, the cells are living, but not human.

So because cows aren't people then a human fetus isn't human?

You don't like abortion because it's like treating cancer so you don't like cancer treatments.

YOU IS A MONSTER!

[g++]

I wonder if the black people in my office get a tax break for working with me.

[NocturnalRob]

So because cows aren't people then a human fetus isn't human?

You don't like abortion because it's like treating cancer so you don't like cancer treatments.

YOU IS A MONSTER!
Did you fall off the wagon and consume a gallon of coffee this morning?

CALM. THE FUCK. DOWN.

[NocturnalRob]

I wonder if the black people in my office get a tax break for working for me.
Presumptive fix.

[Bobmuhthol]

So because cows aren't people then a human fetus isn't human?

I don't remember much of my life as a fetus, but I'm fairly confident that I started out as a formless mass of stem cells, and there was even a chance for a while that I could have randomly developed into a giant fingernail.

[AnticorRifling]

Did you fall off the wagon and consume a gallon of coffee this morning?

CALM. THE FUCK. DOWN.

Dude I just went thru 219,475 LINES OF FUCKING DATA for a customer to find a $17,000 variance in their shipped order values vs taxed order values because they don't understand why shipping a "misc. item" doesn't reduce inventory or capture the cost of what that "misc. item" actually is. I'm on lunch, I'm eating some chicken and peas, and I'll DO WHAT I WANT!!!!


And yes I had some coffee this morning and it was awesome.

[AnticorRifling]

I don't remember much of my life as a fetus, but I'm fairly confident that I started out as a formless mass of stem cells, and there was even a chance for a while that I could have randomly developed into a giant fingernail.

Instead you developed into a giant dbag? OH SNAP.

Sorry Rob, I shall now calm down.

[NocturnalRob]

And yes I had some coffee this morning and it was awesome.
I skimmed until I got to this. Vindication!!

[NocturnalRob]

Instead you developed into a giant dbag?
Randomly.

[Parkbandit]

Also. My tax return was maaaaarvelously large. THANKS RICH PEOPLE.

That has less to do with the evil rich people and more to do with your inability to correctly estimate the tax amount you would owe the government at the end of the year. Essentially, you gave the government a tax free loan for the year.

[4a6c1]

Really? Maybe. That little dude from Singapore was like pulling rabbits out of his ass and shit. That was the look on my face every time he told me stuff. And I've had a hazmat license my entire adult life and have never recieved shit for it. I did have to supply the tax codes of universities I shuttle for. That was new this year. And the NAACP. Did anyone else know they dont pay taxes and their volunteers get paid a salary wage by the government?! APPROVE!!!!!

[Tgo01]

I don't remember much of my life as a fetus, but I'm fairly confident that I started out as a formless mass of stem cells, and there was even a chance for a while that I could have randomly developed into a giant fingernail.

Wait what?

[Warriorbird]

So because cows aren't people then a human fetus isn't human?

You don't like abortion because it's like treating cancer so you don't like cancer treatments.

YOU IS A MONSTER!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ona42jz8w0k (proper version)

[AnticorRifling]

Really? Maybe. That little dude from Singapore was like pulling rabbits out of his ass and shit. That was the look on my face every time he told me stuff. And I've had a hazmat license my entire adult life and have never recieved shit for it. I did have to supply the tax codes of universities I shuttle for. That was new this year. And the NAACP. Did anyone else know they dont pay taxes and their volunteers get paid a salary wage by the government?! APPROVE!!!!!

I don't approve. They are a racist organization.

[Bobmuhthol]

You heard me.

[g++]

When will this country stop oppressing giant white bearded men holding dynamite and wearing a turban. Its like we live in the dark ages in this country.

[Parkbandit]

I don't remember much of my life as a fetus, but I'm fairly confident that I started out as a formless mass of stem cells, and there was even a chance for a while that I could have randomly developed into a giant fingernail.

You don't remember much in your first year or two of life.. so by your logic, you feel it's ok to simply kill the kid if you are tired of dealing with it?

PS - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-bYaXed-rQU/TUIlbGAdfGI/AAAAAAAAFY0/6VeXQitYfhI/s1600/fail.jpg

[AnticorRifling]

Gandalf was the smart one, he changed his hat.

[Tgo01]

Rojo demands compensation for volunteering to work with minorities. Doesn't that make it...like...not volunteer work?

[Bobmuhthol]

You don't remember much in your first year or two of life.. so by your logic, you feel it's ok to simply kill the kid if you are tired of dealing with it?

If my argument was that people who can't remember a past period of their life should be killed, then yes, I would agree that that's okay. I never made that argument.

On a related note, I think "logic" is possibly the most abused word in language. Very rarely do I see people say, "According to your logic..." and actually make a logical argument. Just saying.

[4a6c1]

I like 3.14 infinity.

[Parkbandit]

If my argument was that people who can't remember a past period of their life should be killed, then yes, I would agree that that's okay. I never made that argument.

On a related note, I think "logic" is possibly the most abused word in language. Very rarely do I see people say, "According to your logic..." and actually make a logical argument. Just saying.

Given your "arguments" in this thread, I wouldn't use "logic" if I were you either.

[Bobmuhthol]

Just because you think you make coherent points doesn't make anything logical. I hate to pull this card, but get back to me when you study logic formally.

[4a6c1]

I don't approve. They are a racist organization.

Psht.. They are nice to me there. All of that seems like political mumbo jumbo.

[HJFudge]

Excuse me if I don't shed any tears for people making 6 digit salaries having to pay more than those who do not.

[AnticorRifling]

Psht.. They are nice to me there. All of that seems like political mumbo jumbo.

Their name is racist, I can't get a scholorship from them because I'm not black. It's racist.

[Bobmuhthol]

This guy knows what's up.

Edit: I guess this applies to the previous two posts equally. It's all good.

[Tgo01]

Excuse me if I don't shed any tears for people making 6 digit salaries having to pay more than those who do not.

You're excused from this discussion.

[Drunken Durfin]

Excuse me if I don't shed any tears for people making 6 digit salaries having to pay more than those who do not.

I'm fairly certain that the guy who cuts my grass makes 6 digits.

What pains me are the people who make 7 digits and end up paying less (dollar amount, not percentage) than I do. That is just plain wrong.

[crb]

More taxes on the rich. Less cuts on programs for the weakest people in our society (disabled, elderly, children etc.).

If you want to live in this country and be able to make mad money on your wits alone, you have to pay for the privilege. You have to pay for those weakest people in our society. Why? Because this country that allowed you to be yourself and do what you do and become rich on your wits alone did so because it values every life equaly--or at least values the premise of valuing every life equaly--including those people that are weaker than you!

The American way. If you dont like it, move to India.
America was founded on principles of self responsibility and freedom, this is not a welfare state. Surely everyone should at least pay something, a bare minimum, to fund the daily functions of the government? Is 1% too much? Really? Maybe someone would have to change their cell phone plan to afford it, boo hoo.




“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816


I could find you dozens of similar quotes from the people who actually founded our country. I don't think redistribution of wealth or a welfare state is the American way.

[crb]

I think you are confusing my post with someone else. Where did I say anything about raising taxes, on anyone? I am a small business owner who makes more than $200K a year. Trust me, I am not in any way supporting raising taxes on what is essentially my family. I get BOHICA'ed every year.

Yes, GE had special circumstances. Still, the premise holds. Big business will always find ways to get around paying their full 35%.

The U.S. Tax code longer than the Bible, and it is not printed on onion skin. It is fraught with more contradictions than the Old Testament and tons of loopholes. It needs to go and be replaced with something that makes sense.
apologies durfin, the thread was generally about (when it wasn't about me) the continued debate of raising taxes on the "rich" who make more than $200k. So when you said "Look at this cheating stuff the rich do" I assumed you were using the identifier in the spirit as the rest of the thread.

[crb]

I think abortion is the destruction of a mass of cells. I don't shed tears for the poor living tumors that are killed by chemotherapy for the same reason that I have no second thoughts about killing a fertilized egg.

Granted, that means I support killing a potential future president, and I am evil, etc., whatever.
You're fooling yourself. I'm atheist, I believe in no god, the Bible is just a book. But a fetus becomes a living human baby, with thoughts, personality, and feelings, long before it exits the mother. I've no problems with the morning after pill, or very early abortions, but anything after the first trimester is pushing it. I didn't feel this way until I had kids, but going through that, having my wife tell me what the baby was doing inside, how it had behaviors, we have a picture of one sucking her thumb in the womb from ultrasound. We also had a little time in the NICU, brief thankfully, and seeing the little babies born at like 24 weeks. A living breathing human baby, that might have been legal to kill in some places if it had still been inside the mother. Maybe if you can ever convince someone to procreate with you, you will change as well.

[Drunken Durfin]

No worries sir.

The thing is, the rich are not even cheating. They are working within the rules of the tax code, which is broken beyond repair. The only fix is to start from scratch.

[Tgo01]

But a fetus becomes a living human baby, with thoughts, personality, and feelings, long before it exits the mother.

Do fetuses really have thoughts? What do they think about exactly? "Boy it sure is cramped in here."

I guess maybe if they are twins "Man that baby be ugly!"

[Bobmuhthol]

I've no problems with the morning after pill, or very early abortions, but anything after the first trimester is pushing it.

So what you're telling me is that I said anything about abortions after the first trimester. You're fooling yourself. "Living, breathing babies" obviously don't fit into my definition of "a fertilized egg."

[crb]

They have moods, they play, they explore. Watching an ultrasound is really cool.

When my son was born he had the hiccups like on day 3 and was just sitting there with them. I told my wife I was surprised he wasn't upset about it. She told me he was used to it, he had been having hiccups for months (she knew this for obvious reasons).

[Bobmuhthol]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif 51% don't pay taxes,... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1280440#post1280440) 05-04-2011 12:53 PM Yes because human cells randomly turn into something else all the time. Or not. Dur.

Ain't never been a child born with some sort of defect. Not ever. Dur.

[4a6c1]

Do fetuses really have thoughts? What do they think about exactly? "Boy it sure is cramped in here."

I guess maybe if they are twins "Man that baby be ugly!"

I'm fairly certain they do. My daughter loved to hear caribbean music and she still does. She's always done the same thing when she hears it....dance around in circles. Which is all kinds of terrible inside a uterus JUST SO YOU KNOW.

[crb]

So what you're telling me is that I said anything about abortions after the first trimester. You're fooling yourself. "Living, breathing babies" obviously don't fit into my definition of "a fertilized egg."
You said "abortion is just killing cells, not a human" you did not say, early abortion. Babies have been aborted that would be viable outside the womb without any support, let alone with support from modern medicine. Nor should that be the yardstick either, because fully developed lungs do not a thinking human make. Nor does a memory bob, you probably have no memory of sucking on your mom's tits, but we shouldn't go around offing newborns.

If I had to define it, I guess I would say purposeful movement. If the baby is making purposeful movement in the womb, you've missed your abortion window.

[crb]

I'm fairly certain they do. My daughter loved to hear caribbean music and she still does. She's always done the same thing when she hears it....dance around in circles. Which is all kinds of terrible inside a uterus JUST SO YOU KNOW.
I don't know if you're joking or not, but you might be surprised to know that playing music into the vagina to get a baby to move if they're in a bad position is actually something a doctor may tell you to do.

[4a6c1]

I think we should look into Intrepid class starship technology. We can just TRANSPORT them out of the womb like magic.

(Yes.)

[Warriorbird]

I'll be the asshole. Societal cost.

[AnticorRifling]

If I had to define it, I guess I would say purposeful movement. If the baby is making purposeful movement in the womb, you've missed your abortion window.


Sperm makes purposeful movement.

[4a6c1]

I don't know if you're joking or not, but you might be surprised to know that playing music into the vagina to get a baby to move if they're in a bad position is actually something a doctor may tell you to do.

lol I'm not joking! I'm convinced she had a personality at 4 months in the womb.

[Warriorbird]

Sperm makes purposeful movement.

Prions too.

[Parkbandit]

No worries sir.

The thing is, the rich are not even cheating. They are working within the rules of the tax code, which is broken beyond repair. The only fix is to start from scratch.

^^

[crb]

Sperm makes purposeful movement.

So to lambs but I'm going to grill me up kabobs this week.

We're talking about babies, not sperm, not bacteria, not ants.

If a baby is making purposeful movements in the womb, not random flailing, but purposeful movements, sucking on fingers, grasping feet, if they react to pressure on the womb by kicking and whatnot. I would say that is a sign of intelligence and to abort it at that point would be murder.

As for societal cost, that is an argument for good birth control, and for the morning after pill, but you have to put the line somewhere, we don't kill homeless people, or people on medicaid, or the disabled, they all cost society. And if people show they cannot be responsible about their sex lives, maybe a sterilization program.

That is the cold opinion I had before I became a father though, societal cost, public health issue, abortion is okay. Once you realize how alive babies are though before they come out, it is impossible for me to not label abortions after a certain point as murder.

[AnticorRifling]

So random flailing is ok to abort but purposeful movements are good to go. Well thank heavens your child wasn't an epileptic (fun fact it's possible for an epileptic seizure to occur in das womb) you might not be a father today...

[crb]

The presence of random flailings would not be a reason to abort. The presence of purposeful movements would be a reason NOT to abort. Do you understand the difference?

I'm trying to objectively come up with a measure that could be used to decide a limit on abortions. Perhaps you have a better idea? I have heard some people mention heartbeat, I think that may be a little early though.

[Bobmuhthol]

If a baby is making purposeful movements in the womb, not random flailing, but purposeful movements, sucking on fingers, grasping feet, if they react to pressure on the womb by kicking and whatnot. I would say that is a sign of intelligence and to abort it at that point would be murder.

All of these movements are reactions to the environment, which is a necessary condition of being considered living. Flowers make purposeful movement, too.

[CrystalTears]

Blah blah blah... Abortion....Oh so this is your fault, I see. Jerkface.

[AnticorRifling]

The presence of random flailings would not be a reason to abort. The presence of purposeful movements would be a reason NOT to abort. Do you understand the difference?

I'm trying to objectively come up with a measure that could be used to decide a limit on abortions. Perhaps you have a better idea? I have heard some people mention heartbeat, I think that may be a little early though.

I understand the difference but you are saying that even with the presence of random movements it is still ok to abort it's only the presence of purpose driven movements that is your cut off.

Do I have a better idea? Probably not. Mostly because we've beaten this dead (or is it alive) horse over and over in every thread that gets derailed by abortion.

I'm pretty sure we were talking about taxing people fairly/unfairly/whatever.

[crb]

All of these movements are reactions to the environment, which is a necessary condition of being considered living. Flowers make purposeful movement, too.

Phototropism isn't the same thing as thumb sucking. Ummkay.

[Tgo01]

I'm pretty sure we were talking about taxing people fairly/unfairly/whatever.

It's not derailing the thread at all, clearly we are arguing that if we start taxing abortions we can pay off the national debt in a few years.

[crb]

I understand the difference but you are saying that even with the presence of random movements it is still ok to abort it's only the presence of purpose driven movements that is your cut off.

Do I have a better idea? Probably not. Mostly because we've beaten this dead (or is it alive) horse over and over in every thread that gets derailed by abortion.

I'm pretty sure we were talking about taxing people fairly/unfairly/whatever.

I'm just anticipating resistance. If I say "movement" someone will say "random movement is no sign of intelligence." so I say purposeful movement.

In an ideal world there would be a fetal brain scan or something, definitely and objective, but I'm not a neonatal neurologist.

[4a6c1]

babies > taxes. GOOD THREAD.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm just anticipating resistance. If I say "movement" someone will say "random movement is no sign of intelligence." so I say purposeful movement.

In an ideal world there would be a fetal brain scan or something, definitely and objective, but I'm not a neonatal neurologist.

Sure, but if your kid is doing the in-belly funky chicken he/she is probably very much alive but not meeting your conditions for 'safe from abort launch countdown'.

As for looking for brain activity in a fetus I'm pretty sure that is doable. It's a slippery slope to the whole "We did a scan and your baby has downs/is crippled/might not be white so do you want to abort" discussion. Which is just as heated and full or retardedly extreme scenarios from both sides.

[4a6c1]

Hmmm, neat discussion...if it turns out 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester infants experience normal infant brain patterns would people still be talking about aborting them? When does it become a discussion about adult failure, not fetus failure?

[AnticorRifling]

When mom is a crack whoooooooore. Right FK?!

[4a6c1]

Are summoning FK like in a harry potter movie? Crack whore is the magic word??!

crack whooooooooooore

[Cephalopod]

The baby is potentially a candidate for abortion until it can fight back.

[TheEschaton]

America was founded on principles of self responsibility and freedom, this is not a welfare state. Surely everyone should at least pay something, a bare minimum, to fund the daily functions of the government? Is 1% too much? Really? Maybe someone would have to change their cell phone plan to afford it, boo hoo.



Where is this myth from, that this country is founded on some principle of "self-responsibility". I suppose I could cherry pick quotes from Thomas Jefferson, but if you looked at his works as a whole, I don't think for a moment that he would advocate that we are a nation of individuals who nevertheless form a country so we don't all kill each other. The Founders regularly espoused that the idea of the Republic was an experiment in "Of the people, by the people, for the people" (emphasis mine), not some Ayn Randian dystopia where the sole function of government was to protect the rights of individuals to do whatever the hell they pleased.

[AnticorRifling]

The baby is potentially a candidate for abortion until it can fight back.

That's why I played Chuck Norris movies and put the speakers up to the wife's belly while she was my personal baby factory.

[Warriorbird]

The baby is potentially a candidate for abortion until it can fight back.

http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/300/wolscnbg.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Phototropism isn't the same thing as thumb sucking. Ummkay.

Also, animals make purposeful movements, but I assume you're not against the killing of animals. The main distinction in the abortion debate is not when something is living or not, but when it becomes a "human being", distinct from animals. To some, that comes with cognitive function, but then that would allow abortions til people are 18 or so, if ever. To some, it's a theological question of when the soul is encapsulated in the person.

The point is, when someone becomes "human" as opposed to just "living," is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical/theological one. The same operates at the other end, a la Terry Schiavo - when do people stop being human, if ever, and become merely living?

[Warriorbird]

Also, animals make purposeful movements, but I assume you're not against the killing of animals. The main distinction in the abortion debate is not when something is living or not, but when it becomes a "human being", distinct from animals. To some, that comes with cognitive function, but then that would allow abortions til people are 18 or so, if ever. To some, it's a theological question of when the soul is encapsulated in the person.

The point is, when someone becomes "human" as opposed to just "living," is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical/theological one. The same operates at the other end, a la Terry Schiavo - when do people stop being human, if ever, and become merely living?

Never... unless he has to help pay for them.

[AnticorRifling]

Terry Schiavo -

Go rent the biography!

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000E1JP10.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1140029271_.jpg

[4a6c1]

The point is, when someone becomes "human" as opposed to just "living," is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical/theological one. The same operates at the other end, a la Terry Schiavo - when do people stop being human, if ever, and become merely living?

This is why it's such a yucky debate. I think arguing it is mostly pointless because everything we have to back our points cannot be quantified. My opinions? Same as crb. Built by personal experience with babies. Essentially my feelings and own personal conclusions. Not much to argue on...

I dont think this pro-life debate will ever be won until science progresses very much past where it is now. Until we can see inside the developing fetus and understand EVERYTHING about it. But until then, who would want to err on the side of murder? Not I!

[AnticorRifling]

That's because you're a woman and weak by design.

[4a6c1]

Your wife doesnt think so. ON EITHER COUNT.





(two wife jokes. one day. I win.)

[Danical]

Go rent the biography!

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000E1JP10.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1140029271_.jpg

Was this before or after her diet book was published!?

[TheEschaton]

This is why it's such a yucky debate. I think arguing it is mostly pointless because everything we have to back our points cannot be quantified. My opinions? Same as crb. Built by personal experience with babies. Essentially my feelings and own personal conclusions. Not much to argue on...

I dont think this pro-life debate will ever be won until science progresses very much past where it is now. Until we can see inside the developing fetus and understand EVERYTHING about it. But until then, who would want to err on the side of murder? Not I!

As a follow up, I don't think it's good to legislate based on philosophical or theological beliefs. In fact, I believe legislating based on the latter is strictly verboten, and the former would tie human life to the thing that makes us different from animals, namely reason and free will, something certainly after the womb. So, while I may have a theological belief of when human life begins, that is wholly irrelevant to how we should legislate abortion, if at all.

ETA: What you and CRB are talking about are emotional beliefs, but these are natural reactions formed by mammals to be protective of their offspring. And thus equally irrelevant to the debate of when "human life" begins.

[AnticorRifling]

Was this before or after her diet book was published!?

Tell me you didn't get ripped off on that too! I bought it and it was just blank pages.

[Cephalopod]

The worst thing about eating vegetables is always the wheelchair.

[Warriorbird]

The worst thing about eating vegetables is always the wheelchair.

http://www.tarantino.info/wiki/images/PussyWagon1.jpg

[Keller]

I merely refuse to do your research for you. If you want to debate a point, find your information yourself. I am not going to do a scavenger hunt for you.

It is not my research you imbecile. You said cap gains did not account for much of the increase.

I said you needed to do more than state your opinion. Why is this so hard?

Like I said, you are the Tsa'ah of Taxes.

[Keller]

In your mind, who would pay for the weakest people in our society when all the evil rich people move to India?

Who is going to move to India?

You're not.

crb's not.

Drew's not.

There are numerous reasons why that is a bad argument, but the most compelling (off the top of my head) are that (i) it will cost you a lot of money to move, (ii) a lot of rich people make their money from their U.S. trades and businesses, which will still be subject to U.S. income tax, (iii) your family is here, your spouses have bridge clubs, your kids are in school, etc.

The argument that you should be making is, "Why wouldn't I just stop making more money if the tax rate was high enough?" That is the real concern.

My bullshit-o-meter goes off the charts whenever people say that they'll just move to Ireland, or India, or Islamabad to escape the high marginal income tax in the U.S.

[AnticorRifling]

LOL bridge club, perfect old person joke.

[crb]

It is not my research you imbecile. You said cap gains did not account for much of the increase.

I said you needed to do more than state your opinion. Why is this so hard?

Like I said, you are the Tsa'ah of Taxes.
WTf Keller, you skim over the entire abortion thing? How dare you!

Seriously though, I said capital gains were a minority of federal tax revenues when compared to regular income tax.

And when I said "your research" I did not mean, "research done by you" I meant, shit you wanted posted. Savvy?

[4a6c1]

ETA: What you and CRB are talking about are emotional beliefs, but these are natural reactions formed by mammals to be protective of their offspring. And thus equally irrelevant to the debate of when "human life" begins.

I know. That's why I'm not arguing the point just discussing!!!!!!!11111

I'll wait for the science to catch up with me.

;)

[CrystalTears]

And when I said "your research" I did not mean, "research done by you" I meant, shit you wanted posted. Savvy?
If YOU make the claim, YOU have to support it.

[crb]

Do we have laws against murder also for only emotional reasons?

[crb]

If YOU make the claim, YOU have to support it.

Exactly, he asked me to come up with his data for him.

[CrystalTears]

Exactly, he asked me to come up with his data for him.
No, he was asking you to back up your statement.

[Drunken Durfin]

The argument that you should be making is, "Why wouldn't I just stop making more money if the tax rate was high enough?" That is the real concern.


I have actually considered doing fewer cases during the year, and lowering my income, so that I was in a lower tax bracket. How effed up is that?

[Keller]

WTf Keller, you skim over the entire abortion thing? How dare you!

Seriously though, I said capital gains were a minority of federal tax revenues when compared to regular income tax.

And when I said "your research" I did not mean, "research done by you" I meant, shit you wanted posted. Savvy?

I just got out of a 4 hour meeting. (thankfully) I missed all the abortion talk.

You're right, you did say they were a minority of federal tax revenues. I mistook that for you saying they accounted for a minority of the increased tax revenues post Bush tax cuts.

The fact is that they accounted for a large portion of the increased revenues. There is one line of reasoning that attributes that to (i) a desire to recognize appreciation at lower rates and (ii) increased exchanges of 1231 assets because they instantly became more valuable due to their tax-advantaged status. Both of those reasons are non-economic and not based on "pie" in the sky theories of FISC growth as a result of tax cuts.

To be sure, lower taxes do increase business activity. I don't take issue with that point, it is really undeniable - for the same reason as (ii) in the preceding paragraph, lower tax rates produce more robust markets because the costs of business are lower and profits higher.

But it's not at all clear (contrary to Heritage's assertion) that that business activity alone makes up for the lost revenue from lower rates. That is what I take issue with, and now this argument is the exact same argument we had in 2008.

Correlation is not causation. Heritage (and you) take increased revenues post-Bush tax cuts and attribute causation to increased business activity. It's just not a fact and I don't like when people portray it as a fact.

You can state (I don't say "argue" because I think it is a fact) that lower tax rates increase business activity, but you cannot state (although you can argue) that that the increase in business activity makes up for the decreased marginal rates.

And, finally, my point is that if you want to state something as a fact, be prepared to back it up. It is not my job, as a reader, to fact-check your statements. As it turns out, I don't care because I misread your statement and don't really care what percentage of the total tax revenues are cap gains. What is more important is what percentage of the increased tax revenue was from capgains and what percent was from ordinary income. The answer to that question is a lot were from capgains.

[crb]

No, he was asking you to back up your statement.

He had a weird way of doing it, but since he is not the arbiter of truth, and didn't even both to say I was wrong, he can go ahead and provide evidence showing I am wrong if he doesn't trust me. I'm not going to compile graphs for him on request.

The point I was making was that tax cuts spur economic growth, increasing GDP and thus federal tax receipts (smaller slice, bigger pie). So Keller, (and whomever else) either accept that, say it is wrong, or provide contrary evidence. But let us be clear, I am not here I make visual aids at your request. I'm here for Jaeden photoshops and the You Topless thread.

[Keller]

I have actually considered doing fewer cases during the year, and lowering my income, so that I was in a lower tax bracket. How effed up is that?

That makes negative sense.

The only reason you should consider taking less cases is that the marginal utility of your free time is greater than the marginal utility you'd receive from the amount you'd make from that case.

Being in a lower tax bracket won't save you money (unless you're receiving an EITC, etc).

[Keller]

The point I was making was that tax cuts spur economic growth, increasing GDP and thus federal tax receipts (smaller slice, bigger pie).

The bolded part is not at all clear, and, in my opinion, is not true.

[Drunken Durfin]

That makes negative sense.

The only reason you should consider taking less cases is that the marginal utility of your free time is greater than the marginal utility you'd receive from the amount you'd make from that case.

Being in a lower tax bracket won't save you money (unless you're receiving an EITC, etc).

Writing a six figure check to the IRS makes me a bit irrational at times. Like I said, I considered it, I didn't do it.

[crb]

Correlation is not causation. Heritage (and you) take increased revenues post-Bush tax cuts and attribute causation to increased business activity. It's just not a fact and I don't like when people portray it as a fact.

You can state (I don't say "argue" because I think it is a fact) that lower tax rates increase business activity, but you cannot state (although you can argue) that that the increase in business activity makes up for the decreased marginal rates.

It isn't just the Bush cuts, you see the same pattern throughout history.

Also, once you accept that lower rates spur economic growth, I can prove that lower rates will make up for any shortfall. And in the case of Bush, they did, year over year. The government took in more than the year previous. Hypothetically would the government had made even more had they not cut taxes? Is that the "cost" of the cuts? If you asked the CBO they would say yes, but they're forced to operate under such poor rules that, when asked to calculate what a 100% tax rate on every income would do to the economy, they did not detect calamity. They use static accounting, for everything.

So its a woulda, coulda, shoulda issue. No one will ever know. All we can do is observe history and make an inference, and history says tax cuts work. Common sense and intuition tell us this too. Who really believes the government spends money more efficiently than private individuals and businesses? The government overpays for everything.

But as I said I can prove it, because it is just math at that point.

Higher GDP begets higher GDP. It is a problem of compounding returns. So if you accept that lower taxes spur GDP growth, and if you're familiar with what a compounding return curve looks like on a graph. The lines have to eventually intersect. That is academic, but it is as close as you'll get, since we lack time machines and multiple dimensions for split A/B testing in the real world. The curve with the higher GDP will be steeper, so even if it starts at a lower baseline, it has to eventually intersect the shallower curve.

On the concept of low tax rates spurring economic growth, there is probably diminishing returns, so it doesn't follow that the best rate is then 1%.

[crb]

That makes negative sense.

The only reason you should consider taking less cases is that the marginal utility of your free time is greater than the marginal utility you'd receive from the amount you'd make from that case.

Being in a lower tax bracket won't save you money (unless you're receiving an EITC, etc).

Its like with the notches Keller, which you agree are aproblem.

For some incomes, some spreads, the marginal tax rate can be over 100%, 100%, 80%. If for X additional product of your work effort you know you'll only keep 80 cents on the dollar, maybe you'd rather spend your time fishing, maybe it isn't worth it to you. You've been disincentivized to work.

You aren't richer if you do not work, but hey, maybe happier. Who else isn't richer? The government.

[Warriorbird]

Its like with the notches Keller, which you agree are aproblem.

For some incomes, some spreads, the marginal tax rate can be over 100%, 100%, 80%. If for X additional product of your work effort you know you'll only keep 80 cents on the dollar, maybe you'd rather spend your time fishing, maybe it isn't worth it to you. You've been disincentivized to work.

You aren't richer if you do not work, but hey, maybe happier. Who else isn't richer? The government.

Double wow.

[Keller]

It isn't just the Bush cuts, you see the same pattern throughout history.

Also, once you accept that lower rates spur economic growth, I can prove that lower rates will make up for any shortfall. And in the case of Bush, they did, year over year. The government took in more than the year previous. Hypothetically would the government had made even more had they not cut taxes? Is that the "cost" of the cuts? If you asked the CBO they would say yes, but they're forced to operate under such poor rules that, when asked to calculate what a 100% tax rate on every income would do to the economy, they did not detect calamity. They use static accounting, for everything.

So its a woulda, coulda, shoulda issue. No one will ever know. All we can do is observe history and make an inference, and history says tax cuts work. Common sense and intuition tell us this too. Who really believes the government spends money more efficiently than private individuals and businesses? The government overpays for everything.

But as I said I can prove it, because it is just math at that point.

Higher GDP begets higher GDP. It is a problem of compounding returns. So if you accept that lower taxes spur GDP growth, and if you're familiar with what a compounding return curve looks like on a graph. The lines have to eventually intersect. That is academic, but it is as close as you'll get, since we lack time machines and multiple dimensions for split A/B testing in the real world. The curve with the higher GDP will be steeper, so even if it starts at a lower baseline, it has to eventually intersect the shallower curve.

On the concept of low tax rates spurring economic growth, there is probably diminishing returns, so it doesn't follow that the best rate is then 1%.

So what is the best top marginal tax rate?

2%? 3%? 4? 5? 35? 45? 25?

My bullshit-o-meter is off the charts right now.

"probably" diminishing returns?

What about a 0% top marginal rate? What is the FISC going to be then?

How about .0001%? Our economy would be HUGE if we could just cut tax rates to .00000001%!!!!!

You admit that there is a point where lowering taxes no longer produces a bigger FISC, tell me that no one can tell what that number is, but then tell me you can prove that lowering our top marginal rate will increase the FISC. What a load of shit. Seriously.

[Keller]

Its like with the notches Keller, which you agree are aproblem.

For some incomes, some spreads, the marginal tax rate can be over 100%, 100%, 80%. If for X additional product of your work effort you know you'll only keep 80 cents on the dollar, maybe you'd rather spend your time fishing, maybe it isn't worth it to you. You've been disincentivized to work.

You aren't richer if you do not work, but hey, maybe happier. Who else isn't richer? The government.

Am I the only person who doesn't know what crb is even saying?

I think what you're trying to say is that, with certain phase-outs, the economic intake from each additional dollar of wages can be so low that it's not worth working.

Isn't that what has been said multiple times so far? It's a point you made and I agreed with. It's similar to a point I made to PB, which DD responded to and I corrected him on.

It is absolutely clear that at some point, the marginal utility of wages from working is less valuable than the marginal utility of free time. If that were not true, we could have 99.99% tax rates, and everyone would still work 3 jobs.

Similarly, even if we had a 0% tax rate, most people wouldn't work more than 1 job. In fact, you might argue that people would work LESS because now they that keep more of their money, they have more money, and because they have more money, additional dollars are worth less.

So while I might have worked 40 hours to make $1000 and take home $650, now I only need to work 26 hours to make the same $650.

[crb]

So what is the best top marginal tax rate?

2%? 3%? 4? 5? 35? 45? 25?

My bullshit-o-meter is off the charts right now.

"probably" diminishing returns?

What about a 0% top marginal rate? What is the FISC going to be then?

How about .0001%? Our economy would be HUGE if we could just cut tax rates to .00000001%!!!!!

You admit that there is a point where lowering taxes no longer produces a bigger FISC, tell me that no one can tell what that number is, but then tell me you can prove that lowering our top marginal rate will increase the FISC. What a load of shit. Seriously.

I wasn't aware simple math was beyond you. You know what an exponential curve is right? You know what compounding is right? Please google these terms if you do not know.

Also, taking it to extremes, which I already said is not possible, must be a very convenient way for you to ignore the point.

If you plot on a graph a smaller number growing at a faster rate, against a larger number growing at a slower rate, the lines will intersect.

So if you admit that a lower rate results in higher growth, then even if you took CBO static scoring at face value and assumed a tax cut would cost $x dollars and have no immediate stimulative effects. Over time, that higher growth would result in more money for the government.

The point to where you would stop this is where lowering the tax rate no longer increased the rate of GDP growth. I don't know what that number is. If I did I'd probably win a nobel prize or something, plus, it surely changes depending on many factors, so I'd need to discover some complex ass formula or computer model to figure it out, and I'm not an IBMer.

[AnticorRifling]

I am. iSeries all up in this bitch.

[Keller]

I don't know what that number is.

Now I can be done with this thread.

You've admitted what I set out for you to admit.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w1YBr2L9-O4/TGrrv0fNiKI/AAAAAAAAAVE/utJRX4XgzwA/s1600/johnny_drama_victory.jpg

[crb]

Similarly, even if we had a 0% tax rate, most people wouldn't work more than 1 job. In fact, you might argue that people would work LESS because now they that keep more of their money, they have more money, and because they have more money, additional dollars are worth less.

So while I might have worked 40 hours to make $1000 and take home $650, now I only need to work 26 hours to make the same $650.

I don't think so. Humans by nature are greedy, and historically you see the opposite happen. The less you tax something, the more you get of it. This is why politicians use taxes to encourage certain social behaviors. Tax something less, get more of it, tax something more, get less of it.

When "it" is work effort, as it is in this case, it still holds true.

You might only need to work 26 hours for that $650, but you want a new flat screen so you work a little more. And even if you don't because you're a weird Thoreau-like individual, others will, to move the average up.

Also, inflation. We'd all have more money, but unless production also increased (which it very well might, see above), that money would be chasing fewer goods. So inflation rates may be higher, so you wouldn't be able to maintain your current lifestyle with so direct a reduction in your hours.

[crb]

Now I can be done with this thread.

You've admitted what I set out for you to admit.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w1YBr2L9-O4/TGrrv0fNiKI/AAAAAAAAAVE/utJRX4XgzwA/s1600/johnny_drama_victory.jpg

Yes, I'll freely admit I don't know the number of the most efficient tax rate to maximize GDP growth for this country right now.

I tell you how you find it though, you cut taxes, and if GDP growth doesn't increase you know you were at the number before. If GDP growth does increase, cut again, keep cutting until you no longer notice any affect. A pretty standard experiment. You'd lack a control group though so it wouldn't be perfect.

[Keller]

Yes, I'll freely admit I don't know the number of the most efficient tax rate to maximize GDP growth for this country right now.

I tell you how you find it though, you cut taxes, and if GDP growth doesn't increase you know you were at the number before. If GDP growth does increase, cut again, keep cutting until you no longer notice any affect. A pretty standard experiment. You'd lack a control group though so it wouldn't be perfect.

So if I raise taxes, and the FISC grows, then is it safe to say that the optimal tax rate is higher than the previous rate?

If not, why?

[TheEschaton]

Do we have laws against murder also for only emotional reasons?

No, we have a law against murder because it is clearly the intentional, malicious ending of a HUMAN LIFE.

You can't skirt the issue that the aborton issue is centered around WHEN human life begins. And since such an issue is metaphysical in nature, that it cannot be legislated around.

-TheE-

[crb]

So if I raise taxes, and the FISC grows, then is it safe to say that the optimal tax rate is higher than the previous rate?

If not, why?

I'm talking GDP, and you've already admitted tax cuts increase GDP.

If you're talking federal revenue, I've pointed out how compounded returns work, which should seal the deal there, if you believe in, you know, mathematics.

You are apparently defining "optimal" as a situation where the government has the most money. I define "optimal" as a situation where the economic is growing the fastest.

Next to protecting us from foreign invaders, I think helping GDP grow as fast as possible should be the prime focus of any government. It is, in the end, what will help raise the standard of living of citizens the most.

[pabstblueribbon]

The percentage of people who don't pay taxes will only continue to grow as the income gains gap widens further between the percentiles, as its been doing quite drastically.

Correct me if I'm wrong.. But if I'm not, it't seems to me that it is common sense, and mildly ironic that the abundance of wealth you've attained is contributing to the very system (as it is now) that you are bemoaning.

Anyways, carry on.

EDIT: AKA Income Inequality. And uh.. clarity.

[Nieninque]

What happened to you?

I turned into a raging alcoholic and lost the capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue.

LOL j/k, Im not Backlash.

[Nieninque]

Pot, This is kettle. kettle, pot.

I'm sorry, ever since you sent that picture of your little winkie via PM, I have really struggled to take anything you say seriously.

[pabstblueribbon]

Here's a graph, or something.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg/500px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png

You can see that not much has changed for the 20th percentile in over 60 years. I'm not saying that it is right, or wrong, or that you don't deserve to make what you do, or what they do. Just stating numbers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

[Drunken Durfin]

I'm sorry, ever since you sent that picture of your little winkie via PM, I have really struggled to take anything you say seriously.

So, if someone were to send you a PM with a picture of their "not little" winkie would their statements carry more weight?

[4a6c1]

Yes.

[Tgo01]

So size does matter?

[4a6c1]

Hahahaha!

[crb]

The percentage of people who don't pay taxes will only continue to grow as the income gains gap widens further between the percentiles, as its been doing quite drastically.

Correct me if I'm wrong.. But if I'm not, it't seems to me that it is common sense, and mildly ironic that the abundance of wealth you've attained is contributing to the very system (as it is now) that you are bemoaning.

Anyways, carry on.

EDIT: AKA Income Inequality. And uh.. clarity.

I don't care about income equality, or inequality, or gaps. I care about standard of living and GDP growth.

Rich people being more rich does not mean poor people are more poor. The need to make everything equal is something out of marxism and not something I subscribe to.

The important thing is standard of living. Has it increased? Yes. Have opportunities increased? Yes. You can't go from highschool to the line anymore and get the equivalent of $60 an hour in pay and benefits, but educational and other opportunities brought along by technology improvements abound compared to the 1950s.

Also, a 10% increase on $100,000 is $10,000. A 10% increase on $10,000 is $1000. A graph of absolute values will show these as moves of much different size, and it would be misleading. A graph of relative values would be more appropriate. Also, the graph in the first post in this thread shows tax burden over roughly that same time, and you'll notice it has gone up for the rich and down for the poor.

And yes, even in relative terms, rich income has gone up, I kinda think that is skewed by the billionaires though. The disruption caused by computers starting in the late 70s and early 80s produced some tremendous fortunes. Rarely in the history of the world has so much money been made by so few people so quickly. They probably skew things. I don't think your average modestly wealthy upper middle class (depending on where you live) dual income household of small business owners or educated professionals (ie, the people who Obama calls millionaires and billionaires) are making, in relative terms, so much more than they did in the 1950s. Has the small business owner's, doctor's, lawyer's, dentist's, accountant's, etc position changed in society so much the last 50 years, are they all now kings on a hill over looking the proles? I don't think so, they're still the wealthy of small town America, but that isn't rich.

But like I said, I don't care about an income gap, I don't think the purpose of our government should be to keep the top down so the bottom can catch up, or to redistribute wealth, or adopt equality-of-outcome policies. Keep standard of living going up, keep GDP growing. Class warfare is crass.

If Obama really wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, let him make a new tax bracket of 70% on income over $10 million. He won't, because people that rich, the true millionaires and billionaires, have influence, make donations, and he enjoys watching their movies and sporting events. He won't dare lose the Tom Hanks vote. So instead, he says he wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, but he really means he wants to raise taxes on the guy who owns the gas station down the street, the doctor with the office by your kid's school, the lawyer who handled your divorce when your wife caught you with the asian exchange student, etc.

Meanwhile, 51% of people don't even pay 1% income tax.

[crb]

Oh, another thing that can skew results is the fact that more women work nowadays. Your lowest earners will always be your single job household, even today, but with more dual earning households nowadays that does raise the income level of the aforementioned small business owners and educated professionals. The family in 1950 with 1 doctor or lawyer, might be a family of two today.

[Stanley Burrell]

ˇ

Gandalf was the smart one, he changed his hat.
^

[Warriorbird]

I don't care about income equality, or inequality, or gaps. I care about standard of living and GDP growth.

Rich people being more rich does not mean poor people are more poor. The need to make everything equal is something out of marxism and not something I subscribe to.

The important thing is standard of living. Has it increased? Yes. Have opportunities increased? Yes. You can't go from highschool to the line anymore and get the equivalent of $60 an hour in pay and benefits, but educational and other opportunities brought along by technology improvements abound compared to the 1950s.

Also, a 10% increase on $100,000 is $10,000. A 10% increase on $10,000 is $1000. A graph of absolute values will show these as moves of much different size, and it would be misleading. A graph of relative values would be more appropriate. Also, the graph in the first post in this thread shows tax burden over roughly that same time, and you'll notice it has gone up for the rich and down for the poor.

And yes, even in relative terms, rich income has gone up, I kinda think that is skewed by the billionaires though. The disruption caused by computers starting in the late 70s and early 80s produced some tremendous fortunes. Rarely in the history of the world has so much money been made by so few people so quickly. They probably skew things. I don't think your average modestly wealthy upper middle class (depending on where you live) dual income household of small business owners or educated professionals (ie, the people who Obama calls millionaires and billionaires) are making, in relative terms, so much more than they did in the 1950s. Has the small business owner's, doctor's, lawyer's, dentist's, accountant's, etc position changed in society so much the last 50 years, are they all now kings on a hill over looking the proles? I don't think so, they're still the wealthy of small town America, but that isn't rich.

But like I said, I don't care about an income gap, I don't think the purpose of our government should be to keep the top down so the bottom can catch up, or to redistribute wealth, or adopt equality-of-outcome policies. Keep standard of living going up, keep GDP growing. Class warfare is crass.

If Obama really wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, let him make a new tax bracket of 70% on income over $10 million. He won't, because people that rich, the true millionaires and billionaires, have influence, make donations, and he enjoys watching their movies and sporting events. He won't dare lose the Tom Hanks vote. So instead, he says he wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, but he really means he wants to raise taxes on the guy who owns the gas station down the street, the doctor with the office by your kid's school, the lawyer who handled your divorce when your wife caught you with the asian exchange student, etc.

Meanwhile, 51% of people don't even pay 1% income tax.

I love the firm grounding in the concrete here.

[pabstblueribbon]

I don't care about income equality, or inequality, or gaps. I care about standard of living and GDP growth.

Rich people being more rich does not mean poor people are more poor. The need to make everything equal is something out of marxism and not something I subscribe to.

The important thing is standard of living. Has it increased? Yes. Have opportunities increased? Yes. You can't go from highschool to the line anymore and get the equivalent of $60 an hour in pay and benefits, but educational and other opportunities brought along by technology improvements abound compared to the 1950s.

Also, a 10% increase on $100,000 is $10,000. A 10% increase on $10,000 is $1000. A graph of absolute values will show these as moves of much different size, and it would be misleading. A graph of relative values would be more appropriate. Also, the graph in the first post in this thread shows tax burden over roughly that same time, and you'll notice it has gone up for the rich and down for the poor.

And yes, even in relative terms, rich income has gone up, I kinda think that is skewed by the billionaires though. The disruption caused by computers starting in the late 70s and early 80s produced some tremendous fortunes. Rarely in the history of the world has so much money been made by so few people so quickly. They probably skew things. I don't think your average modestly wealthy upper middle class (depending on where you live) dual income household of small business owners or educated professionals (ie, the people who Obama calls millionaires and billionaires) are making, in relative terms, so much more than they did in the 1950s. Has the small business owner's, doctor's, lawyer's, dentist's, accountant's, etc position changed in society so much the last 50 years, are they all now kings on a hill over looking the proles? I don't think so, they're still the wealthy of small town America, but that isn't rich.

But like I said, I don't care about an income gap, I don't think the purpose of our government should be to keep the top down so the bottom can catch up, or to redistribute wealth, or adopt equality-of-outcome policies. Keep standard of living going up, keep GDP growing. Class warfare is crass.

If Obama really wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, let him make a new tax bracket of 70% on income over $10 million. He won't, because people that rich, the true millionaires and billionaires, have influence, make donations, and he enjoys watching their movies and sporting events. He won't dare lose the Tom Hanks vote. So instead, he says he wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, but he really means he wants to raise taxes on the guy who owns the gas station down the street, the doctor with the office by your kid's school, the lawyer who handled your divorce when your wife caught you with the asian exchange student, etc.

Meanwhile, 51% of people don't even pay 1% income tax.

Wow. Lets see. The graph in the first post goes back to 87. Perhaps you should re-examine the graph I posted.

I'm sure you don't 'care' about the income gap, but I don't think you could deny that the inequalities directly affect THE PERCENTAGES OF TAXES THAT THE PERCENTILES WILL PAY. I wasn't trying to argue anything, just merely connect the dots and explain why that percentage was growing and how things were trending due to the consolidation of the wealth.

So, if the 95th percentile grows exponentially compared to the others, then it would be fairly easy to assume that that percentile will take up more of the tax burden.

Combine that with the stagnating and I dare say shrinking middle class you have a huge gap. You have the extremely rich, and, the extremely poor. And the extremely poor in our current system.. dum dum dum.. don't pay taxes. So, as the gap widens, your 51% figure.. is going to increase and with the current system, the tax burden is going to be laid at the feet of the people who can pay it and survive. I will be one of them.

In summation, you missed the entire point. But I'm honestly just shooting from the hip here... I'm an engineer, not an economics professor.

[HJFudge]

I don't care about income equality, or inequality, or gaps. I care about standard of living and GDP growth.


Funny thing.

None of us care about your whining about "waaa waaa waaa I have to pay more taxes then the pooooor people"

CRB, thats really all I ever hear from any of your posts.

Waaa. Waaa. Waaa.

[pabstblueribbon]

I don't think the purpose of our government should be to keep the top down so the bottom can catch up, or to redistribute wealth, or adopt equality-of-outcome policies. Keep standard of living going up, keep GDP growing. Class warfare is crass.
How do you feel about the industrial revolution and the robber barons of that era?

The federal government not only must defend our sovreignty as a nation, they also must consider the defense of our domestic livelyhood in the form of laws and regulations.

Do they always use the laws and regulations correctly? No. But it's a hell of a lot better than anarchy and the whims of the powerful and the greedy.

That is its ideal function in an ideal world. Unfortunately there are elements within our government that will abuse it for their own power and greed.

[Stanley Burrell]

So, if someone were to send you a PM with a picture of their "not little" winkie would their statements carry more weight?

Their winkie would.

[pabstblueribbon]

Here's the kicker.

I'm not trying to bag on your CRB but..


If you pay no income tax, you have no incentive to elect fiscally responsible politicians, and you only need 51% to win an election. Thank god many people who don't pay taxes don't realize they don't pay taxes, or have the principles to not vote for profligate spenders.
It cracks me up that you focus on this but make no mention to the fact that the so called 'elite' top percentile are the minority in a democratic republic, yet they have historically been a bigger influence our governments policies.

:thinking:


If Obama really wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, let him make a new tax bracket of 70% on income over $10 million. He won't, because people that rich, the true millionaires and billionaires, have influence, make donations, and he enjoys watching their movies and sporting events. He won't dare lose the Tom Hanks vote. So instead, he says he wants a millionaires and billionaires tax, but he really means he wants to raise taxes on the guy who owns the gas station down the street, the doctor with the office by your kid's school, the lawyer who handled your divorce when your wife caught you with the asian exchange student, etc.

This is precisely why I nearly have a kanipchen fit when someone mentions to me some stupid issue that is clearly a political distraction... something thats meant to polarize us and keep us arguing about some mundane issue in the hopes that we don't recognize the real issue that impedes any progress with these lesser issues in the first place.

ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN DONATION REFORM. This is the ROOT of the problem.

[Drunken Durfin]

Do they always use the laws and regulations correctly? No. But it's a hell of a lot better than anarchy and the whims of the powerful and the greedy.


Damn straight! Our democracy that is subject to the whims of the powerful and greedy is much better than that.

[msconstrew]

This entire thread makes me wonder if crb has any concern for the top percentile of wealthy people who pay no taxes at all due to tax loopholes and creative estate planning. Or does it work like this: if you're poor and pay no taxes, then you're a leech on society; if you're rich and you pay no taxes, it's your due because you bootstrapped (TM!) yourself up into the financial stratosphere.

Frankly, I'm much less concerned about the lower-income people who pay no or very low taxes than I am about the extremely wealthy people who pay no or very low taxes. And I say that as someone who is ALSO in a tax bracket that Obama would consider "wealthy." Fuck, I don't mind paying taxes. I just mind paying taxes towards stuff with which I ideologically disagree, which is a different discussion entirely.

A.

[pabstblueribbon]

Damn straight! Our democracy that is subject to the whims of the powerful and greedy is much better than that.

Heh, thats what I meant by "Unfortunately there are elements within our government that will abuse it for their own power and greed."







Election reform.

[Warriorbird]

51% don't pay taxes,... 05-04-2011 07:52 PM Your posts contain deep thought. For a retard.

Wow for a third time. Way to attempt to go after me stopping CRB from deleting everything when mocked about it later. I'm deeply hurt, yeah.

I can't wait to see you provide more evidence for his claims. There's just so much.

[crb]

51% don't pay taxes,... 05-04-2011 07:52 PM Your posts contain deep thought. For a retard.

Wow for a third time. Way to attempt to go after me stopping CRB from deleting everything when mocked about it later. I'm deeply hurt, yeah.

I can't wait to see you provide more evidence for his claims. There's just so much.


Seriously dude? I'm neg repping you for this post right here, you already got me, but I hadn't got you yet in this thread. I've said nothing incorrect, and I've never gone back and deleted posts before either. If some day liberal policies are "proved" superior in this country and all the Keynesians rejoice in victory, and Paul Krugman finally feels free to do cartwheels down 5th avenue in a sunday dress. I won't be deleting posts on this forum. I'll move to switzerald.

[crb]

WOW PBR posts like 6 posts of fail buckets...


Wow. Lets see. The graph in the first post goes back to 87. Perhaps you should re-examine the graph I posted.


Your post said 50 or 60 years I recall, that is what I was responding to.



I'm sure you don't 'care' about the income gap, but I don't think you could deny that the inequalities directly affect THE PERCENTAGES OF TAXES THAT THE PERCENTILES WILL PAY. I wasn't trying to argue anything, just merely connect the dots and explain why that percentage was growing and how things were trending due to the consolidation of the wealth.

So, if the 95th percentile grows exponentially compared to the others, then it would be fairly easy to assume that that percentile will take up more of the tax burden.



Do you know what a percentage is? 35% of X grows as X grows dumbass. The modestly upper middle class educated professionals already PAY more when they make more. You don't need wealth redistribution to achieve that, tax rates that are percentages do it for you.




Combine that with the stagnating and I dare say shrinking middle class you have a huge gap. You have the extremely rich, and, the extremely poor. And the extremely poor in our current system.. dum dum dum.. don't pay taxes. So, as the gap widens, your 51% figure.. is going to increase and with the current system, the tax burden is going to be laid at the feet of the people who can pay it and survive. I will be one of them.


The left wants everyone to be equally poor, the right wants everyone to have the chance to be rich. Just look at all the work disincentives in the legislation passed when the left had their supermajorities. Everyone could afford a 1% income tax, which we should have at a minimum.

Here in Michigan a scandal broke this week where people were using their bridge (aka welfare) cards in Hawaii, Florida, Las Vegas, all these vacation spots. So these so called poor people were going on trips to Hawaii. Also college students were getting them and using them to buy alcohol. People don't need these things, they also don't need cell phones and cable TV. Maybe they'll have to spend less on such if we had a 1% minimum tax, I won't shed a tear.



It cracks me up that you focus on this but make no mention to the fact that the so called 'elite' top percentile are the minority in a democratic republic, yet they have historically been a bigger influence our governments policies.


O rly? Union spending in elections far exceeds corporate spending, and in fact most years a union holds the #1 spot on spending.

Individual donations are of course, limited, by law. And even if they weren't, your modestly upper middle class educated professional dual income household can't afford to spend profligately on politicians, and among the truly super rich, the parties are split, possibly even Democrats winning. They won in 2008, Obama got more from Wall Street than McCain. For every Koch brothers there is a Soros. For every Clint Eastwood there are 10 Martin Sheens.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php

Liberals outspent conservatives in 527 groups in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010. Do you see a pattern there?

The top 5 organizations donating money, 4 were unions, 1 was a democrat association.

This is really another issue where Democrats like to play victim, when really, they're the victor of the money wars, and have been for years.



How do you feel about the industrial revolution and the robber barons of that era?

The federal government not only must defend our sovreignty as a nation, they also must consider the defense of our domestic livelyhood in the form of laws and regulations.

Do they always use the laws and regulations correctly? No. But it's a hell of a lot better than anarchy and the whims of the powerful and the greedy.

That is its ideal function in an ideal world. Unfortunately there are elements within our government that will abuse it for their own power and greed.

As a libertarian I strongly favor a free market. This is not an anarchist stance, nor a corporatist stance. Obama, if you want to be truthful, is big on crony capitalism anyways and would have been fine dealing with the Union Oils of the day, I'm sure. But libertarians do favor regulations, just few, smart, and effective. The ones we favor most strongly are those that keep the marketplace competitive, because you can't have a free market without competition. So we're no friends to monopolies. We also of course don't like fraud, approve the government's power to enforce contracts, etc. Everything to keep competitive business moving. A libertarian stance, true right side economics, is not pro business, it is pro free market, there is a difference (not all politicians realize this at all times). But you will see it sometimes, like with TARP, Bush brought it to us, but in the house and senate the no votes were mostly from the right, the few who really did believe in free markets (plenty of republicans did vote for it though, for shame).

[crb]

This entire thread makes me wonder if crb has any concern for the top percentile of wealthy people who pay no taxes at all due to tax loopholes and creative estate planning. Or does it work like this: if you're poor and pay no taxes, then you're a leech on society; if you're rich and you pay no taxes, it's your due because you bootstrapped (TM!) yourself up into the financial stratosphere.

Frankly, I'm much less concerned about the lower-income people who pay no or very low taxes than I am about the extremely wealthy people who pay no or very low taxes. And I say that as someone who is ALSO in a tax bracket that Obama would consider "wealthy." Fuck, I don't mind paying taxes. I just mind paying taxes towards stuff with which I ideologically disagree, which is a different discussion entirely.

A.

Show me a rich person who has never paid any taxes.

Sure, there are things you can do to minimize taxes, or say the death tax, limit that with trusts and estate planning. Estate planning won't get rid of your income tax, or your capital gains tax.

And I never said I wasn't for tax reform. By all means, we shouldn't have loopholes. Lets have a flat tax with 3 rates. 1%, 15% and 25%. 1 standard deduction for each member of your household. 1 refundable credit for the purchase of health insurance not to exceed $5000. Nothing else. Mail it in on a post card.

[Parkbandit]

I'll move to switzerald.

Would this be the founder of that place?

http://www.6magazineonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/barry-switzer.jpg

[CrystalTears]

Lets have a flat tax with 3 rates. 1%, 15% and 25%.
Why three rates? Who gets what rate?

[Parkbandit]

Poor, Middle class, evil rich?

[CrystalTears]

Heh, yeah well you'd still have to distinguish who falls into what category by their income bracket. I'd rather it be one rate across the board.

[Parkbandit]

Heh, yeah well you'd still have to distinguish who falls into what category by their income bracket. I'd rather it be one rate across the board.

How can you tax a poor family 25% of their income?

I agree with crb in that everyone should be paying SOMETHING into federal income tax.. but I actually believe (spoiler alert) in a fair "progressive" taxing system where people who have more should pay more.

Now, before you start with your "ZOMGZOMGOMZOMZGOMZOGMZOGMG!!!" posts... I also believe that our government could spend a FRACTION of what they are currently spending and that the evil rich people shouldn't be shouldering the vast majority of the burden.. that it should be shared more equally among the citizens.

[Warriorbird]

Seriously dude? I'm neg repping you for this post right here, you already got me, but I hadn't got you yet in this thread. I've said nothing incorrect, and I've never gone back and deleted posts before either. If some day liberal policies are "proved" superior in this country and all the Keynesians rejoice in victory, and Paul Krugman finally feels free to do cartwheels down 5th avenue in a sunday dress. I won't be deleting posts on this forum. I'll move to switzerald.

The sheer amount of evidence cited is completely unsurprising. As is how your "flat" plan won't cause catastrophic revenue shortfalls.

[crb]

How can you tax a poor family 25% of their income?

I agree with crb in that everyone should be paying SOMETHING into federal income tax.. but I actually believe (spoiler alert) in a fair "progressive" taxing system where people who have more should pay more.

Now, before you start with your "ZOMGZOMGOMZOMZGOMZOGMZOGMG!!!" posts... I also believe that our government could spend a FRACTION of what they are currently spending and that the evil rich people shouldn't be shouldering the vast majority of the burden.. that it should be shared more equally among the citizens.


See, we're not so different you and me.

[Parkbandit]

See, we're not so different you and me.

Economically, perhaps. I'm just less douche about it.

[crb]

The sheer amount of evidence cited is completely unsurprising. As is how your "flat" plan won't cause catastrophic revenue shortfalls.

Only if you spend too much.

Yes, a bunch of rent seeking patronage government jobs would need to be cut.

[CrystalTears]

How can you tax a poor family 25% of their income?I don't think it should be set that high, but I see your point.


I agree with crb in that everyone should be paying SOMETHING into federal income tax.. but I actually believe (spoiler alert) in a fair "progressive" taxing system where people who have more should pay more.

Now, before you start with your "ZOMGZOMGOMZOMZGOMZOGMZOGMG!!!" posts... I also believe that our government could spend a FRACTION of what they are currently spending and that the evil rich people shouldn't be shouldering the vast majority of the burden.. that it should be shared more equally among the citizens.
I'm still a fan of fair tax. I'd rather do away with federal income tax entirely.

[Parkbandit]

I don't think it should be set that high, but I see your point.

I'm still a fan of fair tax. I'd rather do away with federal income tax entirely.

If the Fair Tax (consumption tax) was rolled out without too much political bullshit and government red tape.. then I would agree. It would end up just like our current system... like "Let's tax items costing over $100,000 extra because that is what the evil rich people buy".

Our current system of taxation is purposely complicated to give tax lawyers and accountants never ending employment.

[Keller]

Our current system of taxation is purposely complicated to give tax lawyers and accountants never ending employment.

Wrong.

Our current system of taxation is needlessly complicated because (i) Congress is fucking retarded, (ii) Congress writes the Code, and (iii) Congress panders to their constituants.

If we delegated the Code to Treasury instead of just making Treasury write regs to interpret the Code, there would be a lot less complexity.

[Parkbandit]

Wrong.

Our current system of taxation is needlessly complicated because (i) Congress is fucking retarded, (ii) Congress writes the Code, and (iii) Congress panders to their constituants.

If we delegated the Code to Treasury instead of just making Treasury write regs to interpret the Code, there would be a lot less complexity.

I would guess that the #1 profession of the "fucking retards" in Congress are lawyers or having to do with the law. I would also guess that lawyers have a very strong lobbying effort in place... to persuade the "fucking retards" in Congress to create legislation that is purposely complicated... thus creating permanent employment for the law profession.

[Keller]

I would guess that the #1 profession of the "fucking retards" in Congress are lawyers or having to do with the law. I would also guess that lawyers have a very strong lobbying effort in place... to persuade the "fucking retards" in Congress to create legislation that is purposely complicated... thus creating permanent employment for the law profession.

I've never heard a tax lawyer say they appreciate complexity. It is the fact that Congress writes ambiguous laws that do not always anticipate the intereactions with each other that causes complexity.

Industry lobbies for "complexity" because they want tax advantaged status. So, for example, energy firms want wind credits. And once they have those credits, they want investors to be able to sell those credits. And once those credits are able to be sold, Congress needs to write rules that prevent the abuse of credit sales.

We lobby for (i) less ambiguous rules, and (ii) more "fair" rules (fair for clients). Congress couldn't write a Code that was simple enough to make tax lawyers unnecessary because they've always got industry's balls in their mouths.

Even if they put together a flat tax - Congress would create exceptions. And then exceptions to the exceptions. And then exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions. Industry is behind those lobbying efforts, not tax lawyers.

[Warriorbird]

Only if you spend too much.

Yes, a bunch of rent seeking patronage government jobs would need to be cut.

You show something that indicates that things are pretty much as they should be, given everything. The piece of the pie that increased v the wealthiest are certainly still paying taxes. The table also (conveniently for its idealogical bias) ignores the degree that the richest American are seeking wealth outside the country.

Then you come up with a bunch of nebulous and indirect assertions and propose a system that would likely fail to fund essential government operations, much less "rent seeking government jobs." Destroying the government's ability to collect revenue will result in California nationwide.

I think it's fantastic news if the middle class is doing well.

[pabstblueribbon]

Do you know what a percentage is? 35% of X grows as X grows dumbass. The modestly upper middle class educated professionals already PAY more when they make more. You don't need wealth redistribution to achieve that, tax rates that are percentages do it for you.
Again, you're missing the point.

It doesn't matter if you 'don't need wealth redistribution to do it for you'. It's still a factor as to why the percentage of people that do not pay taxes is growing, and the rich keep paying more.

I am fully aware that people pay more when they make more.

What I am saying is that as more and more people fall into the lower tax brackets via income inequalities or whatever the cause may be, that more and more people will not pay taxes and your 51% figure will grow over time as its been shown to do.


O rly? Union spending in elections far exceeds corporate spending, and in fact most years a union holds the #1 spot on spending.

Individual donations are of course, limited, by law. And even if they weren't, your modestly upper middle class educated professional dual income household can't afford to spend profligately on politicians, and among the truly super rich, the parties are split, possibly even Democrats winning. They won in 2008, Obama got more from Wall Street than McCain. For every Koch brothers there is a Soros. For every Clint Eastwood there are 10 Martin Sheens.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php

Liberals outspent conservatives in 527 groups in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010. Do you see a pattern there?

The top 5 organizations donating money, 4 were unions, 1 was a democrat association.

This is really another issue where Democrats like to play victim, when really, they're the victor of the money wars, and have been for years.

I not sure why you are trying to make it a right wing vs. left wing thing. I never states such, I simply stated that those with money can and have influenced the government much more even with their lower percentage of possible votes versus the larger population of the poor sector.

Again, you've completely missed the point. Stop trying to draw party lines, you're only feeding into the machine.

[g++]

Did you actually finish an engineering degree in under 2 years?

[pabstblueribbon]

Did you actually finish an engineering degree in under 2 years?

Nope.

[g++]

So in what sense are you an engineer? Is it like the word engineer appears in your job title? Im just curious because you like to argue about reactors and energy solutions and claim to be an engineer but you also claim to have never attended college and then boom now in this thread you are an engineer. I think most people would assume that meant you received a degree in engineering not that your a "railroad track engineer II" for amtrak.

[pabstblueribbon]

So in what sense are you an engineer? Is it like the word engineer appears in your job title? Im just curious because you like to argue about reactors and energy solutions and claim to be an engineer but you also claim to have never attended college and then boom now in this thread you are an engineer. I think most people would assume that meant you received a degree in engineering not that your a "railroad track engineer II" for amtrak.

Title and job function. I engineer various mechanical and electrical solutions for applying different technologies to existing fleet assets in the rail industry. Most recently positive train control.

[AnticorRifling]

So in what sense are you an engineer? Is it like the word engineer appears in your job title? Im just curious because you like to argue about reactors and energy solutions and claim to be an engineer but you also claim to have never attended college and then boom now in this thread you are an engineer. I think most people would assume that meant you received a degree in engineering not that your a "railroad track engineer II" for amtrak.

I just engineered your post by adding bold tags to one word. That will be three fifty.

[g++]

Im allowed to forget grammar. I just found out that I am a senior. I am applying to the AARP tomorrow.

[Parkbandit]

Im allowed to forget grammar. I just found out that I am a senior. I am applying to the AARP tomorrow.

Welcome to the Club!

We should so do a 4pm dinner sometime.

[g++]

You disgust me. 3:30.

[Parkbandit]

It's funny.. because our kids have a very early lunch at school around 11:00AM, so when they get home at 4pm, they are ready to EAT... so we sometimes go out to dinner and all the blue hairs are out eating at that time.

[AnticorRifling]

It's funny.. because our kids have a very early lunch at school around 11:00AM, so when they get home at 4pm, they are ready to EAT... so we sometimes go out to dinner and all the blue hairs are out eating at that time.

Be honest the blue hairs tell you how lovely your grandchildren are, don't they?

[Parkbandit]

Be honest the blue hairs tell you how lovely your grandchildren are, don't they?

No.

[Keller]

Be honest the blue hairs tell you how lovely your grandchildren are, don't they?

Assuming his kids bear a resembalence to him, why would they say that?

[Keller]

No.

See, told you, Wayne.

[Parkbandit]

Another reason to change our tax system to a "Fair Tax" system:

TAMPA— Authorities in Tampa say they have busted a federal income tax fraud ring responsible for more than $100 million in losses.

Police Chief Jane Castor said Friday that the accused were using the Social Security numbers of dead people to file fraudulent federal tax returns and get refunds. One investigator called it an "epidemic" and said authorities believe the Tampa ring is the tip of a nationwide trend.

The Tampa Tribune reported that some of the accused even taught classes for others to learn how to perpetrate the scam. Castor said the criminals also threw filing parties where people got together to file fraudulent tax returns.

The investigation, which began a year ago, has resulted in 49 arrests so far.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-tampa-tax-scam-20110902,0,2939941.story

http://o3.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/c4a1791a806fc6fb3cc68be7959e4bc6

[Seran]

A Fair Tax system still calls for rebates to poverty level individuals who are 'legal', which puts us right back into the place of people committing fraud such as these to receive refunds or rebates.

Let us not forget that a Fair Tax also favors those who are self-sufficient and those who make over $100K a year. Just because someone makes a million a year doesn't mean they still require 30% of their income to sustain themselves. So someone making $50K a year will be paying a much higher percentage of their income to help the millionaire live even more comfortably, and provide flat-backers the same subsidized living they've been promised.

[Parkbandit]

A Fair Tax system still calls for rebates to poverty level individuals who are 'legal', which puts us right back into the place of people committing fraud such as these to receive refunds or rebates.

Let us not forget that a Fair Tax also favors those who are self-sufficient and those who make over $100K a year. Just because someone makes a million a year doesn't mean they still require 30% of their income to sustain themselves. So someone making $50K a year will be paying a much higher percentage of their income to help the millionaire live even more comfortably, and provide flat-backers the same subsidized living they've been promised.

The current taxing system in this country is broken and everyone knows it. There is no reform to it at this point, it needs to be completely tossed out and a new system needs to be put in it's place.

And for all of your unsubstantiated claims that a Fair Tax system would hurt poor people and only help the evil rich people... they are unfounded and assumptive... since it's a theoretical taxing system that hasn't been implemented and has many different variations.

[Seran]

And like any theory, it's ramifications have been studied by dozens of organizations highlighting the positives and negatives. But using your same cop-out regarding the theoretical taxing system, your claim that we should implement and un-proven taxing system is asinine.

[Bobmuhthol]

Let us not forget that a Fair Tax also favors those who are self-sufficient and those who make over $100K a year.

How does it favor self-sufficient people? How does it favor anyone making a particular income, especially $100,000? In other words, how is someone making $80,000 any different from someone making $110,000?


So someone making $50K a year will be paying a much higher percentage of their income to help the millionaire live even more comfortably

How is this at all true in any way ever?

[Parkbandit]

And like any theory, it's ramifications have been studied by dozens of organizations highlighting the positives and negatives. But using your same cop-out regarding the theoretical taxing system, your claim that we should implement and un-proven taxing system is asinine.

It took you only 2 sentences in this post to contradict yourself.

I tell you what.. why don't you show us all how a Fair Tax system is bad for anyone making 50,000 a year.. great for people who make 100K... and fantastic for people making a million because they can force people making 50K a year to make them more comfortable.

[Back]

This thread has been going on since May of this year...

any coincidence that in other countries Labor Day is in May?

[Seran]

Consumption is not a static percentage of ones income, if you don't realize that, then you are retarded. Yet the amount one needs to expend in order to survive doesn't change grossly as ones income increases. For that reason, a Fair Tax system is anything but, as the more you make, the less your overall taxable rate as a percentage of overall income.

http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2006.older.and.misc/Fair%20Tax%20Distribution%20Slide%20by%20Income.JP G

Before you start honking about the source, you ought to know those numbers were vetted by the US Treasury Department. Standing behind that, is G.W. Bush's tax panel stating those in the middle income would be paying the largest share.

Wrapping it up, purchases of antiques, some jewelry and investment properties wouldn't be taxed. All of which are purchased by those with incredible means, not those of us barely able to pay a mortgage as it is.

[~Rocktar~]

Consumption is not a static percentage of ones income, if you don't realize that, then you are retarded. Yet the amount one needs to expend in order to survive doesn't change grossly as ones income increases. For that reason, a Fair Tax system is anything but, as the more you make, the less your overall taxable rate as a percentage of overall income.

So you are saying that despite much greater income rich people don't spend any more than poor people? That's retarded beyond belief. While the percentage of income spent for subsistence a.k.a. "survival" is smaller than poor people, the total percent spent is likely not nearly as different than you think. While I may buy Sara Lee bread for 2.25 a loaf, a lot of affluent people aren't going to be eating anything but organic, high end bread that costs a lot more simply as a status thing. I also doubt that those you envision as rich are going to be driving a 10 yr old base model F-150 pickup with some light body damage either.

The real truth is that a lot of those people that you and others envision as "rich" are not rich, they are affluent and have a high income. They also spend their income and more just like most other Americans and should they lose their income, they are 6-12 months from homeless. They don't plan their finances any better than, or maybe not as well as, you do.



Wrapping it up, purchases of antiques, some jewelry and investment properties wouldn't be taxed. All of which are purchased by those with incredible means, not those of us barely able to pay a mortgage as it is.

Again, stupid because how much of your money can you sink into antiques? If you buy them retail, then you would pay tax on them since it would be levied on the difference in purchase price and sales price to be a VAT. If you buy them at auction, then no, like anything else, you don't pay sales tax in most cases due to the nature of the auction. The auction house percentage/fee would be taxed. Investment real estate already has taxes involved, where do you think property tax, capitol gains tax and so come from? Since they are taxed on one side, they should not be taxed on the other. You honestly don't think that all the materials, labor, and things bought with the income from investment real estate would avoid tax do you? Seriously, very bad argument here.

[Rinualdo]

So you are saying that despite much greater income rich people don't spend any more than poor people? That's retarded beyond belief.

That's not what he said at all. You do know what percentages are, no?



While the percentage of income spent for subsistence a.k.a. "survival" is smaller than poor people, the total percent spent is likely not nearly as different than you think. While I may buy Sara Lee bread for 2.25 a loaf, a lot of affluent people aren't going to be eating anything but organic, high end bread that costs a lot more simply as a status thing. I also doubt that those you envision as rich are going to be driving a 10 yr old base model F-150 pickup with some light body damage either.

So you are suggesting that someone who has 10 times the income spends 10 times the amount as the poor for all their basic goods and services?
Surely you also understand things like static prices, right? Even for billionaires, gas still costs the same?



The real truth is that a lot of those people that you and others envision as "rich" are not rich, they are affluent and have a high income.


lol, wut? "They're not rich, they just have a lot of money!"



They also spend their income and more just like most other Americans and should they lose their income, they are 6-12 months from homeless. They don't plan their finances any better than, or maybe not as well as, you do.


If you are making minimum wage, or even the median income in the US, odds are you spend greater then 90% of your income at a minimum to survive. Are you seriously suggesting a family with a household income of 2m/yr also spends 90% of their income?

You've used that 6-12 months away from homeless fantasy before. Exactly what are you basing that on?

Do you actually know any "rich" people?




Seriously, very bad argument here.
QFT.

[Parkbandit]

Consumption is not a static percentage of ones income, if you don't realize that, then you are retarded. Yet the amount one needs to expend in order to survive doesn't change grossly as ones income increases. For that reason, a Fair Tax system is anything but, as the more you make, the less your overall taxable rate as a percentage of overall income.

Rich people do not spend money "in order to survive", they spend money on things they can afford.




http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2006.older.and.misc/Fair%20Tax%20Distribution%20Slide%20by%20Income.JP G

Before you start honking about the source, you ought to know those numbers were vetted by the US Treasury Department. Standing behind that, is G.W. Bush's tax panel stating those in the middle income would be paying the largest share.

I've never, ever considered G.W. Bush a conservative by any metric... so that it was vetted by his tax panel means very little to me.



Wrapping it up, purchases of antiques, some jewelry and investment properties wouldn't be taxed. All of which are purchased by those with incredible means, not those of us barely able to pay a mortgage as it is.

Those are examples in one plan that they wouldn't be taxed... though I don't understand why they wouldn't be taxed like everything else. Do you have a source on those being tax exempt? Unless it's a reason that completely escapes me at this time.. they should be taxed and would be taxed under a broader Fair Tax system.

[Parkbandit]

That's not what he said at all. You do know what percentages are, no?

Seran made the claim that rich people would spend money "on survival", which makes no sense. A poor person would spend money on hamburger helper and hamburger.. while a rich person would "survive" on T-bone steaks, lobster and Mountain Dew (well, unless the poor person is on food stamps... then who knows).



So you are suggesting that someone who has 10 times the income spends 10 times the amount as the poor for all their basic goods and services?
Surely you also understand things like static prices, right? Even for billionaires, gas still costs the same?

Billionaires have yachts, jets, etc.... pretty sure they would spend many times more than a poor person would on transportation.



lol, wut? "They're not rich, they just have a lot of money!"


High income goes hand in hand with high expenses.



If you are making minimum wage, or even the median income in the US, odds are you spend greater then 90% of your income at a minimum to survive. Are you seriously suggesting a family with a household income of 2m/yr also spends 90% of their income?

Anyone who is making minimum wage wouldn't be paying taxes in a Fair Tax system anyway.. since they would be given rebates every month/quarter/year.. whatever Fair Tax system you are talking about at the time.

[Rinualdo]

Seran made the claim that rich people would spend money "on survival", which makes no sense. A poor person would spend money on hamburger helper and hamburger.. while a rich person would "survive" on T-bone steaks, lobster and Mountain Dew (well, unless the poor person is on food stamps... then who knows).

He said it is not a static percentage of income. That is a factual statement.




Billionaires have yachts, jets, etc.... pretty sure they would spend many times more than a poor person would on transportation.


They would spend more in total, but not as a percentage of income. Also, yachts, jets, etc... are all personal choices. Things easily scaled back in order to adjust personal finances and increases in base costs of consumer goods. Food, rent, gas- the basics that the average poor person spends x % of their income on, are not regulated by choice, so any increase in cost or change of situation would have a much greater impact.



High income goes hand in hand with high expenses.


Not by definition. Those we call rich generally have higher expenses then those we call poor, but are you defending Rocktar's ""rich" are not rich, they are affluent and have a high income" statement?



Anyone who is making minimum wage wouldn't be paying taxes in a Fair Tax system anyway.. since they would be given rebates every month/quarter/year.. whatever Fair Tax system you are talking about at the time.

Perhaps. If this was the case, wouldn't it lead back to CRB's original and completely erroneous point?

[Warriorbird]

The rich (barring rappers) are not the consumer class. To say otherwise is something you know as false, PB.

[Parkbandit]

He said it is not a static percentage of income. That is a factual statement.

Why does it have to be a static percentage of income? That is supposed to be the system we have in place currently, yet it really isn't a static percentage of income either.



They would spend more in total, but not as a percentage of income. Also, yachts, jets, etc... are all personal choices. Things easily scaled back in order to adjust personal finances and increases in base costs of consumer goods. Food, rent, gas- the basics that the average poor person spends x % of their income on, are not regulated by choice, so any increase in cost or change of situation would have a much greater impact.

It's a completely different type of system.. to compare it what we currently have is a lesson in futility. Are you upset because the evil rich people aren't going to pay as much as you think they owe?



Not by definition. Those we call rich generally have higher expenses then those we call poor, but are you defending Rocktar's ""rich" are not rich, they are affluent and have a high income" statement?


I'm not defending Rocktar.. that is impossible in most cases.. but the theory behind a Fair Tax System is that the rich pay more in expenses than the poor.. and in most Fair Tax Systems I have looked at, the US Government provides rebates to the poor.. so they still won't be paying into the system.



Perhaps. If this was the case, wouldn't it lead back to CRB's original and completely erroneous point?

That the poor people won't pay into the system? I actually agree with crb in thinking that people should all have skin in this game. Once you start paying people's way in life, there is very little incentive to get out of that system.

[Parkbandit]

The rich (barring rappers) are not the consumer class. To say otherwise is something you know as false, PB.

Elaborate please?

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not defending Rocktar.. that is impossible in most cases.. but the theory behind a Fair Tax System is that the rich pay more in expenses than the poor.. and in most Fair Tax Systems I have looked at, the US Government provides rebates to the poor.. so they still won't be paying into the system.If the government would continue to provide rebates, why do you think your fair tax system would be less susceptible to fraud?