patrick.net

Excess taxes will eventually make a country become like south Africa. France is on it's way. America is next if the freeloaders get their way.

This is all fine and good and all, but the US tax law makes "moving" to avoid taxes very difficult.

The US taxes citizen income regardless of origin, with a small (~100k) exemption for foreign income.

So in order to avoid paying tax, a billionaire would not only have to move to another country, he would need to renouce his citizenship. But the IRS has laws for that too. It assesses a value to the entirety of the estate on the day prior to renounciation and the any gains he would have is taxed as income, currently for a billionaire at 35%.

Meanwhile capital gains taxes are lower at 15%.

This is why the "rich" will never renounce their citizenship if we raise taxes. Why would you pay 35% (or 39.6% next year) when you can pay 15% (or 20% next year).

You wouldn't, which is why this issue is bullshit right-wing talk radio garbage.

By the way, if billionaires desire to do so, I encourage them to make my day and don't let the door hit them on the way out. Given the top 1% have an average weath of $16.4 million (link below) and there are about 115 million US households, that means there are 1.15 million households in the top 1%.

That means the aggregate wealth of the top 1% is 1.15M * $16.4M = $18.9T. Taxing that at 35% yields $6.6T in new tax revenue. There goes about 40% of the Federal Debt - paid.

All of that, plus any US sourced income they have going forward is still taxed. Not a bad deal for the rest of us.

All this talk is just a bunch of Atlas Shrugged jerk-off material. If the top 1% leaves we are better off.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/11/news/economy/wealth-net-worth/index.html

david1 says

By the way, if billionaires desire to do so, I encourage them to make my day and don't let the door hit them on the way out. Given the top 1% have an average weath of $16.4 million (link below) and there are about 115 million US households, that means there are 1.15 million households in the top 1%.
That means the aggregate wealth of the top 1% is 1.15M * $16.4M = $18.9T. Taxing that at 35% yields $6.6T in new tax revenue. There goes about 40% of the Federal Debt - paid.
All of that, plus any US sourced income they have going forward is still taxed. Not a bad deal for the rest of us.

Wow! Just wow. That is communism at its finest. Why does anyone want to work hard and become successful in this country anymore. The family law systems want their pound of flesh, the welfare queens want their pound of flesh, the corporate welfare queens want their pound of flesh.

Why work, when all you have to do is take away from someone who is successful. You know before long, someone in a lower strata is going to feel the same about you-why would you need a 5 bdr house- pay the mortgage and use one room and lets squeeze 4 sec 8 families into it for free.

The US is a land of immigrants, but no other first world nation is as nasty and brutal to its citizens who live abroad or want to emigrate. What a joke.

lostand confused says

Wow! Just wow. That is communism at its finest.

Basically you don't think there should be a penalty for someone who benefits from all of the social constructs in this country, from the intellectual property protections, to the infrastructure, the military, free access to the wealthiest consumers in the world, and so on, then moves and takes his wealth (that wouldn't have existed at all if he wasn't a US citizen) elsewhere?

Elizabeth Warren says it better than me so I'll just let her:

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Notice she said keep a big hunk of it. I agree with her. Do all of that, keep 2/3 (or 60%). But if you want to take what you have and go home, we are taking a part of what you gained, only because of the rest of us, back.

Your lucky we don't take more of it. Or perhaps you would prefer to have started in Chad or Nigeria where they don't have income taxes, or public infrastructure, or Police, really. I'm sure you would have done just as well.

david1 says

Elizabeth Warren says it better than me so I'll just let her:
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

Yeah right. It is the other way around. There are so many that don't pay taxes and the rich folks and us middle class folks taxes pay for everything for them. You speak as if the rich have paid zero taxes-when they pay the bulk of taxes. So this Warren nonsense is just that-populist nonsense. Look up the statistics and see who pays the bulk of taxes .

lostand confused says

Look up the statistics and see who pays the bulk of taxes .

The top .1% pay a lessor percentage of their income in total taxes than the bottom 50%. You can take that to the bank.

The only reason the rich pay most of the INCOME taxes is because they make all of the INCOME.

Everyone who works pays a payroll tax. Mitt Romney's buddies do not. That is about 13% of income (employer and employee portions).

Everyone who buys something pays sales tax. Since all of the bottom 50% do not save, all of their income is used for consumables. Say the average sales tax rate is 5%, that is another 5% tax. A member of the top .1% MIGHT spend 25% of his income, he saves the rest. He only pays 1.25% of his income in sales tax.

Everyone who rides in a motorized transport pays gasoline or diesel tax. $.13 a gallon affects a $40k salary 25 times more than it affects a $1M salary.

I could go on and on....the ONLY progressive tax system we have in this country is on incomes. Every other tax is regressive - it burdens the poor more greatly.

david1 says

Every other tax is regressive - it burdens the poor more greatly.

Really-who uses Sec 8, Medicaid , welfare , benefits to single mothers and I could go on and on.

The funny thing about brainwashed "conservatives" is they look at a statistic where 47% don't pay federal income taxes and they think it is unfair they don't have to pay.

The problem isn't that they don't pay taxes, the problem is they don't make enough to pay taxes.

I am sure if you asked any one of the 47% who don't pay taxes they would gladly pay them if you doubled their income.

lostand confused says

Really-who uses Sec 8, Medicaid , welfare , benefits to single mothers and I could go on and on.

Sec. 8 - this is a subsidy for slum lords to charge a higher rent than they would otherwise get for their property.

Medicaid - A subsidy to health care shareholders and doctors, as this care would have to be provided otherwise, just not PAID for. There are laws that require emergency care be given.

welfare - a subsidy to producers - I don't know any welfare recipients that are SAVING. The welfare is being used to increase the demand for goods (thereby increasing the price and profitability)

The combined cost to society for all of that stuff isn't even a pimple on Uncle Sam's ass. Medicaid is the costliest at $270B. Section 8 is $60.9B. Food and nutrition assistance welfare is 108.3B.

Meanwhile we spend over $700B for the military, $500B on health care for old folks, and over $800B on pensions for old folks, a significant portion of which are not destitute and could pay for themselves. Means testing social secuirty alone would save more than the combined cost of the programs you mentioned.

david1 says

The funny thing about brainwashed "conservatives" is they look at a statistic where 47% don't pay federal income taxes and they think it is unfair they don't have to pay.

The problem isn't that they don't pay taxes, the problem is they don't make enough to pay taxes.

I am sure if you asked any one of the 47% who don't pay taxes they would gladly pay them if you doubled their income.

These people used to pay income taxes, they don't any more. That's the problem. Either that or get rid of income taxes completely and have a sales tax instead. Everybody should pay something.

The funny thing about brainwashed far lefites is that they have this idealized version of socialism/communism in their head and refuse to let daylight in to burst their bubbles. The same goes for the ones on the far right -the baggers.

Communism was already tried and was a spectacular failure. Our country's problem is not looking at reality. This free trade nonsense is killing us. If you are a business, would you continue to trade with a partner when it is causing you massive losses. Put up some barriers/import taxes and other such tactics. It is nothing new-countries have gone to war over much less.

Now the problem with the far lefties is they think the rich are some monolithic critters who descended from outer space who all sit around a campfire and grin like Dr. Evil while they cook up schemes to fry the lower class. Nobody is going to double your salary, just because you think they should. Which is why I am against mandates like the Leadbetter law and other nonsense. If you don't like your pay or career-choose somehting else. You are penalizing risk takers. A business person takes tremendous risk in capital and if he succeeds everyone wants a part of the pie.

A few decades ago-absolutely. Minorities and women were excluded by law and/or social constructs. So those were necessary. Same for when a husband could just throw his wife and family to the streets and she couldn't work. Now that same stupid law allows Charlie Sheen's drug addicted wife to draw 55k a month in tax free child support.

There has to be a balance. I am ok for some tax hikes-but there should be cut in benefits. Why do we pay people so much in welfare, when so many agriculture jobs go unfilled? I don't want to do backbreaking work, but why would that entail me to be comfortable and have others pay for me and my family's expenses??

Choices should have consequences and this includes the big corporations who have their own version of social welfare. But oh no the far lefties just want to live in this kumbayah world, where all live in some great equal world, where poor have no faults and should never be encouraged to grow up and make tough choices.

zzyzzx says

Either that or get rid of income taxes completely and have a sales tax instead.

While a good idea, I doubt that would work. We might end up like some European nations that have a central VAT tax(sales tax) and then have an income tax on top of that!!!! I doubt our politicians on either side of the aisle will be willing to let it go. Republicans have proven to be massive deficit spenders too.

lostand confused says

This free trade nonsense is killing us. If you are a business, would you continue to trade with a partner when it is causing you massive losses. Put up some barriers/import taxes and other such tactics.

Instituting tariffs has hurt the economies of both countries involved 100% of the time it has been tried. Good idea.

lostand confused says

Communism was already tried and was a spectacular failure.

No one is proposing a centrally controlled and owned means of production. Turn off Hannity. Raising tax rates to Clinton-era levels for those making more than $250k is not communism.

david1 says

Instituting tariffs has hurt the economies of both countries involved 100% of the time it has been tried. Good idea.

Proof and statistics or just more foggy nonsense.david1 says

No one is proposing a centrally controlled and owned means of production. Turn off Hannity. Raising tax rates to Clinton-era levels for those making more than $250k is not communism.

Your posts do not talk about that. As I side before in other posts, I am fine with Clinton era taxes and the automatic spending cuts of the fiscal cliff-both should happen. You don't talk about that-you talk about taking away from the rich and Warren's quotes-which is communism at its finest. Now you try and divert-not working

zzyzzx says

These people used to pay income taxes, they don't any more.

They used to make a significantly higher % of the national income as well. Again, increase the share of income of the bottom 50% to 1980 levels and they will gladly pay taxes. Here is the source below, table 5...in 1980, the bottom 50% had 17.68% of the total national income. In 2007, it was down to 12.25%. Raise that share back to 17.68% (a 45% increase) and even if they pay 20% of their total income in taxes they come out significantly ahead.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table5

lostand confused says

Proof and statistics or just more foggy nonsense.

Google "tariffs hurt both countries." There is a plethora of peer-reviewed information/studies you will find from PHDs in Economics on the subject.

It is so widely accepted there is even an economics.about.com discussion.

"In almost all instances the tariff causes a net loss to the economies of both the country imposing the tariff and the country the tariff is imposed on."

http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs.htm

lostand confused says

You don't talk about that-you talk about taking away from the rich

I talked about letting the rich leave if they don't want to pay higher taxes, which is the point of this thread. And by the way, paying expatriation taxes is not "taking" from the rich - they don't pay the tax if they don't renounce. The government still doesn't own the means of production, still not communism.

Tariff helps politicians because the clueless majority thinks it is a good idea.

If you find yourself competing on price, you may as well find another niche.

Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.

david1 says

Google "tariffs hurt both countries." There is a plethora of peer-reviewed information/studies you will find from PHDs in Economics on the subject.
It is so widely accepted there is even an economics.about.com discussion.

You want to use an about.com discussion as proof??? You do realize that there is a difference between opinion and fact. Since you stated as fact-you provide the statistics and proof-not anonymous links.

Nope not everything on the intrerwbz supports your position-here is an article on Forbes supporting tarriffs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2011/02/22/an-earthquake-is-brewing-in-u-s-economic-history/david1 says

talked about letting the rich leave if they don't want to pay higher taxes, which is the point of this thread. And by the way, paying expatriation taxes is not "taking" from the rich - they don't pay the tax if they don't renounce. The government still doesn't own the means of production, still not communism.

Immigrants leave their home country for a variety of reasons. Our country is known as a land of immigrants and yet we treat people who want to do the same-emigrants so horribly. You want to take their money and their livelihood and tax their income earned in other coutnries-even if they become a resident of another country for a few years. America is the only developed nation to do so and one of the few countries in the world to do so.

Then you speak with glee of taking over their money and paying off the federal deficit. Well you can do that once, what will you do after that. You think these nutjob politians on either side of the aisle will not run up the deficit again?? Then you won't have any rich people to tax .

lostand confused says

You think these nutjob politians on either side of the aisle will not run up the deficit again??

politicians aren't running up the deficit, we are.

This is a democratic republic, not an autocratic one.

The fiscal deficit is simply money that should have been taxed in the first place.

But it's hard to launch $3T wars if you have to raise taxes to pay for them.

LBJ tried to raise tax rates 10% (!) and that was basically the last thing he did before abandoning his presidency to run his war the last year.

Peter P says

Why are corporations more efficient than governments?

They aren't. This is a widely believed misconception. Again, google is your friend but there were many studies undertaken of privatization in the UK under Thatcher that showed no significant difference in efficiencies between the private and public sectors.

Here is a nice summary.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=public%20sector%20vs%20private%20sector%20efficiency&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGsQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psiru.org%2Freports%2F2005-10-W-effic.doc&ei=1sHIUP_wF_C10AHouYHIAQ&usg=AFQjCNEV3xaStte7p2cRcTS6dpKjwQbySw&bvm=bv.1354675689,d.dmQ

This has also been shown in administrative costs of Medicare vs. private insurance in the US.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf
http://www.kff.org/medicare/7731.cfm

Basically, the US pays significantly more per capita for health care than countries with government health care for all. How is this possible if a private corporation is more efficient?

Peter P says

Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.

nope, just survivor's bias.

Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

When you tried to run governments on the minarchic principal of one dollar one vote, the tumbrels come out and the rich's pretty heads get lopped off eventually.

Plus of course currently we live in a corporatocratic system structured to benefit corporations more than individuals. This is easily viewable here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=dJC

lostand confused says

Since you stated as fact-you provide the statistics and proof-not anonymous links.

Oh you can't use google? Ok, simply here are the links:

GDP per capita, Hong Kong (no tariffs): 49,328
GDP per capita, China (large tariffs): 8,387

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx

Oh, and by the way, maybe I can't read, but that article you posted from Forbes essentially agreed with my point - the tariffs of early America did not nurture US businesses. That article was more a commentary on tariffs vs. income taxes...

david1 says

Basically you don't think there should be a penalty for someone who benefits from all of the social constructs in this country, from the intellectual property protections, to the infrastructure, the military, free access to the wealthiest consumers in the world, and so on, then moves and takes his wealth (that wouldn't have existed at all if he wasn't a US citizen) elsewhere?

Nonsense. You dont have to be a US citizen to invest in the US.

david1 says

That means the aggregate wealth of the top 1% is 1.15M * $16.4M = $18.9T. Taxing that at 35% yields $6.6T in new tax revenue. There goes about 40% of the Federal Debt - paid.

You are desperately confused. The government taxes gains, not wealth.

david1 says

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Again, this is nonsense. You neither have to be a US citizen, or a US resident to invest in the US. Furthemore, besides the mostly wasteful US military, the benefits she says the government provides come from local sales and property taxes. The government does pay for interstate freeways systems, which I am more than happy to pay for. Roads aren't what is bankrupting our government.

david1 says

Oh you can't use google? Ok, simply here are the links:
GDP per capita, Hong Kong (no tariffs): 49,328
GDP per capita, China (large tariffs): 8,387

You are honestly comparing a country with 1/6th of the world population with a tiny colony that now belongs to China?? Look at the increase in GDP in China-they play the game very well, they artificially lower prices by capping the yuan at the rate they want-which is a form of reverse tarriff.

I can goggle-but when I state a fact, it is my job to back that up by stats-not throw some inane things outt here and hope they fit the narrative. Which is what extreme right winger do and it appears extreme left wingers too.

CBOEtrader says

Again, this is nonsense. You neither have to be a US citizen, or a US resident to invest in the US. Furthemore, besides the mostly wasteful US military, the benefits she says the government provides come from local sales and property taxes. The government does pay for interstate freeways systems, which I am more than happy to pay for. Roads aren't what is bankrupting our government

Exactly.

Peter P says

Tariff helps politicians because the clueless majority thinks it is a good idea.

If you find yourself competing on price, you may as well find another niche.

So you are the only one with a clue? Yes we are competing on price. The average factory worker in China lives in a dorm , works 7 days a week and go visits his family a few times a year. Any regulations for workers safety or pollution is practically non existant.

We have one of the highest standard of living in the whole world. To compete agains that is not easy. tarriffs will tip the balance, espcially since they already do a reverse tarriff- by keeping the yuan at exactly the price they want it to be. Now in the past, nations have gone to war over much less, but hey the modern far rightist thinks all this is new and only free trade is the answer, blah, blah, blah. We don't have to do anything, no thinking, just let free market take over and sing Kumbayah and everything will magically fix itself. Rinse, repeat and then call anyone who disagrees with them clueless-as usual without any stats and facts to back them up. The far rightists and the far leftists would make a great team.

John Bailo says

The wealthy are fleeing everywhere it seems...is that why Space X is booked up for a decade?

For the lower tax rates on the moon.

Peter P says

Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.

Corporations do not operate more efficiently, as david1 explained. For example, the US Government is by far the most efficient health insurance company in the country.

Irony alert:

But as you say corporations are more efficient at BUYING VOTES, because they buy CONGRESSIONAL votes (which is the product of the election vote, that is, congressmen, rather than ELECTION votes). In other words, corporate money buys influence at the wholesale level. Public votes only affect retail politics, a.k.a. elections. Corporate money is used to buy both retail votes and wholesale votes.

CBOEtrader says

Again, this is nonsense. You neither have to be a US citizen, or a US resident to invest in the US.

No one ever asserted this. The argument is from using the benefit of the social contruct of the US and leaving when the tax rates are unfavorable without penalty. The US taxes all US sourced income, regardless of owner, and foreign income of US citizens with a small exemption.

The discussion is about the "rich" leaving due to high taxes, and my point was simply, they can but will pay a penalty for doing so. Your counterpoint is a strawman against an argument neither I, nor Warren, is making.

CBOEtrader says

You are desperately confused. The government taxes gains, not wealth.

The government does tax the gains for the expatriation tax - which I said - admittedly there is a disconnect between gains and wealth for the top, but my assertion is the disconnect is little. That is, the basis is very low for the ultra wealthy.

CBOEtrader says

Nonsense. You dont have to be a US citizen to invest in the US.

That was never my assertion, again.

lostand confused says

You are honestly comparing a country with 1/6th of the world population with a tiny colony that now belongs to China??

It wouldn't have mattered which countries I used to compare here - you would have had a criticism - though in culture, geographic location, infrastructure, etc. these two are nearly identical. For a quick and easy argument, there are few better. The largest two differences are tariffs and size of population. I could have chosen Hong Kong and Serbia, which have similar populations, but you would have had an argument against that too.

Bottom line is I am not going to do research on why the sky is blue - we are haggling over a widely accepted economic theory. Hell, even the article in Forbes you cited backs up the claim!

david1 says

It wouldn't have mattered which countries I used to compare here - you would have had a criticism - though in culture, geographic location, infrastructure, etc. these two are nearly identical. For a quick and easy argument, there are few better. The largest two differences are tariffs and size of population. I could have chosen Hong Kong and Serbia, which have similar populations, but you would have had an argument against that too.

You can't make an argument for your case, so you claim your argument is the only way and so you don't need proof. It would if you make a valid comparision. Chinese GDP has improved by leaps and bound despite their tarriffs and currency ploys-or rather inspite of it.

Now you claim Hong Kong as an example of low tarriffs, but they also have very low income taxes. It starts at 2% and the highest is 17% . Dividends, capital gains, inheritance etc is not taxed at all. Also Hong Kong does not tax income earned outside Hong KOng. Our country does all of this and is still in a massive dark hole.

Peter P says

Why are corporations more efficient than governments? Perhaps it has something to do with one dollar one vote versus one person one vote.

Your a foolish, foolish person to believe such horseshit. Gullible comes to mind.

reggie says

Excess taxes will eventually make a country become like south Africa. France is on it's way. America is next if the freeloaders get their way.

Just like under Clinton and even under Reagan when they were even higher.
How foolish are you?

121212 says

reggie says

Excess taxes will eventually make a country become like south Africa. France is on it's way. America is next if the freeloaders get their way.

Just like under Clinton and even under Reagan when they were even higher.

How foolish are you?

It is not the present state but the trend that is worrisome.

And the 250k = rich nonsense.

Poverty is not caused by failures. It is caused by successes. Meeting a low bar is much worse than missing a high one.

lostand confused says

You can't make an argument for your case, so you claim your argument is the only way and so you don't need proof.

This is funny. What do you want, a mathematical illustration on deadweight loss? I provided a link to an about.com page with a quote, you counterargued with a genetic fallacy.

Here is a nice paper summing the correlation analysis.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=high%20tariffs%20hurt%20both%20countries&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.203.4703%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=R-XIUM-rOZGB0AHZ54G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFjYnnKfu5w3YP6RPYt9gwzRhKl0Q

if you want the theory behind the correlation, here it is. I know you will revert to another genetic fallacy with this link, but it may help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

Basically, this shows that imposing a tariff increases the market price of a good above the "free" world price. This causes an shift to the left in the supply curve. That means the market will now demand less - meaning the export nation will sell less. This also hurts the economy of the importer, as some of its consumers will no longer purchase the product at the new price. This loss of economic activity in the import nation hurts its economy because resources are not being used efficiently. Some production in this country will shift to this new "Tariff Protected" inefficient industry and away from some other unprotected efficient industry. Here is a more thorough anlysis of deadweight loss if you require.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6852.pdf

You call me a Commie but this is essentially what Communist states have done to great detriment of their economies. So much production is focused on inefficient industries that the entire economy has become inefficient. Look at North Korea or Cuba.

So there you have it. Correlation analysis. Mathematical theory. Layperson explanantion. Historical example.

What else do you need?

david1 says

This loss of economic activity in the import nation hurts its economy because resources are not being used efficiently.

The most "efficient" solution is fire most of your people, reinstitute slavery. Or use robots or create Morlochs to fill this role. I'm not much for "make work" jobs either, but frankly there's an endpoint to the worship of perfect efficency I don't like either.

david1 says

This is funny. What do you want, a mathematical illustration on deadweight loss? I provided a link to an about.com page with a quote, you counterargued with a genetic fallacy.
Here is a nice paper summing the correlation analysis.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=high%20tariffs%20hurt%20both%20countries&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.203.4703%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=R-XIUM-rOZGB0AHZ54G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFjYnnKfu5w3YP6RPYt9gwzRhKl0Q
if you want the theory behind the correlation, here it is. I know you will revert to another genetic fallacy with this link, but it may help you:

This is funny. The title of your paper is ,"WHY DID THE TARIFF-GROWTH CORRELATION CHANGE AFTER 1950?" Yet you claim tarriffs never work . Throwing out some big words and theories and claiming what you say is absolute fact just because you say it is-does not make it so.

david1 says

The problem isn't that they don't pay taxes, the problem is they don't make enough to pay taxes.
I am sure if you asked any one of the 47% who don't pay taxes they would gladly pay them if you doubled their income.

Really?? Like your favorite pinhead lib, Elizabeth Warren said, "...on the roads the rest of us paid for." Yup, she said it, the roads that the REST of us paid for.

Look, if a person is really disabled or elderly, fine I'm all for supporting them. But ONLY they should not be paying taxes, everyone else should pay a portion of what they earn to help the country continue to survive. No, we don't need to punish you if you succeed, afterall, if you fail (with the exception of union industries that Obama props up like GM) we don't bail you out. If I drop $250K or $1Million dollars into a company and for whatever reason it fails, I fail. Point of fact, a company that my wife just started work for about a month ago looks like it's about to go under, and there appears to be about $250K of one man's savings that will be going down with it. The government and people like you don't care, but if he had made it, THEN you want to tax him extra. Amazing, and by the way, you might want to find a better source that Warren to get quotes from, she's far from brilliant.

david1 says

Raising tax rates to Clinton-era levels

No, if you want to raise the rates, raise them for EVERYONE to what they were during that era. ALSO lower the spending (in terms of amount spent as a % of GNP) to what it was during the Clinton era. Deal???