invite response« First « Previous Comments 86 - 125 of 191 Next » Last » Search these comments
Bap33
2011 Oct 11, 12:49pm
marcus,
if the fair flat tax is found to be 20%, then the 10K incomer owes $200.
the Rush types that make 50mil pay 1mil.
they only get one vote each, and you find that to be fair? Shouldn't Rush's vote be weighted to match his tax burdan? (im kidding, but im right)
On weighted votes: It would be nice if a voters percentage of participation in elections was tied to the value of their vote.
marcus
2011 Oct 11, 12:55pm
if the fair flat tax is found to be 20%, then the 10K incomer owes $200.
the Rush types that make 50mil pay 1mil.
That's insanity (tying votes to money). Although we are moving in that direction (toward fascism) very rapidly.
And 20% of 10K is 2000. 20% of 50million is 10 million.
I find the idea of a flat tax to be absurd. But it is close to what we have already (not including capital gains tax being lower).
That is, not including that we have a relatively flat tax, that kicks in gradually.
10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50
And then basically the government spends payroll taxes (issuing IOUs) because these taxes don't cover our spending.
OH, and we need to cut entitlements !!!
tatupu70
2011 Oct 11, 12:58pm
Shouldn't Rush's vote be weighted to match his tax burdan? (im kidding, but im right)
Just curious--do you really feel that way? That seem un-American to me.
Bap33
2011 Oct 11, 1:11pm
no, one vote, one nation, as seen above. But, I also see it only fair to pay a flat tax. Can't possibly be seen as fair allowing weighted tax burdan and unweighted voting... can it?
marcus
2011 Oct 11, 1:24pm
Can't possibly be seen as fair allowing weighted tax burdan and unweighted voting... can it?
Your acting like you ARE Ruch Limbaugh, but I never thought you were anywhere near that stupid. And no I'm not calling you names (except maybe a troll).
Because I don't believe that you believe that.
Money already has TONS of extra influence through supporting candidates and lobbyists. This needs to be undone to a great extent.
The additional tax burden for "the rich" is fair, because money grows exponentially, and because beyond a certain point (when bills are paid), additional discretionary income is far different than the income that takes one up to where they can afford a good education for their kids, and a good retirement.
If you were to (or could) graph a function that valued the "need" for more money, or the possibility of using money productively, as a function of income level, you find that once a persons net worth gets beyond certain point, this need is decreasing.
How exactly is it easier? You look at a tax table to see how much you owe in either case.
Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.
tatupu70
2011 Oct 11, 9:25pm
Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.
That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.
Um, stores won't post their prices if they are higher that the guy across the street.
To clarify, gasoline is the only good that you can comparison shop while driving b
I still wouldn't be that sure of that. I have two convenience stores right next to each other and both advertise tobacco, milk, coffee and eggs in the windows. Granted is also a gas station (which also has higher prices on tobacco).If I drive around the corner the drug store has milk prices advertised.
Sometimes there can be local signage laws. I know of a town that does not allow for electric signs (and that includes backlight). 711's all over the region here have displays of basics of the above items in windows.
Maybe things are different in the Bay Area but in New England it has been this way for decades.
Before 1990 retailers could not open on sundays so maybe advertising was allowed to attract people.
We have a concept here called "package stores". Supermarkets generally are not allowed to sell alcohol (they allow a few). Package stores sell alcohol, tobacco (sometimes cigars due to competition) and lottery tickets. Because of this they kinda HAVE to advertise from the street. The only time advertising in papers occurs is around holidays (memorial, 4th, labor, Christmas, NYE). For the most part they are not chains.
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/08/30/tobacco_signs_still_target_citys_poorer_areas/
They have tried to zone out tobacco ads but they still occur
If you just search anywhere in new england on google maps and go to street view you can find tobacco and alcohol advertising on the street level. I just searched one area and they had seven different alcohols advertised on their store front which is across the street from a tobacco store with two prices in their windows.
Entire armies of accountants are hired and numerous volumes are written on revenue recognitions and asset depreciation schedule options/choices . . . why? Because contrary to the steady-state economic model, businesses have ups and downs due to economic cycle. "Progressive" tax makes revenue recognition and asset depreciation in different years result in different tax liabilities.
That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.
"Progressive" taxation is the only reason why deciding the year of revenue recognition and asset depreciation (choosing different schedules) matter. It is quite apparent that you have no tax filing / income experience beyond basic steady wage income. For many small busienss owners / job creators, revenue/income can fluctuate dramatically from year to year. Say if you have a business that has $300k revenue in one year but only $100k the next year (or vice versa), in which year to expense a $50k capital investment would make a huge difference in tax liablity; in fact, any accountant worth his salt would recommend looking closely into if there's any justifiable reason to shift revenue recognition of part of the fat year to the lean year. Different sets of numbers have to be run over and over again for comparison. A flat tax would obviate much of the economically non-productive effort for tax collection and compliance.
In any case, the even more important reason for flat taxation is this:
Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is. It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly). Two or more competing "rich" business owners can be far more beneficial to the poor (as they have to bid up the wage price of the poor in the competition and/or deliver better goods/service) than a "government" taking the money from all the same "rich" business owners and give it to one of the assembled rich men. That's all government tax/transfer really is; it's not a transfer to the poor but a transfer to the contractor chosen by the government instead of letting the poor decide which of the numerous rich men they'd like to do business with.
tatupu70
2011 Oct 12, 1:24am
Can you predict ahead of time which year will be $300K and which will be $100K? Otherwise, how can you plan as you suggest??
Votes matter, even votes from low income people. It is important for voters of moderate means to understand what tax is.
That is a highly offensive statement.
It is not some selfless God redistributing wealth for the benefit of the poor but a bite out of the economy due to the inefficiency of monopoly (government by definition is monopoly).
Wrong. It is a method of ensuring a healthy economy. The larger the wealth disparity, the sicker the economy.
Bap33
2011 Oct 12, 1:38am
Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on". Where does that kind of mind set come from? Is it from the liberal biased media? Or, is it from the higher education arenas, where progressive leftists thought is forced into minds of mush?? Or, does it require a few pounds of smoked dope to really let this kind of anti-fair, anti-freedom, anti-productive, anti-American thought process take hold?? Maybe it's the effects of all three that result in this mindset?? There should be some study done to find out where this anti-right infection started and who (Soros et al) is funding such thought.
If you think Rush is stupid ... and then you call me stupid .... then I must say, "Thank you, you are too kind."
On an unrelated note: Did Moonbeam just removed all 2nd ammendment rights from Californians with the stroke of a pen? Did anyone get a memo or a chance to vote on gun right removal? I know, it's all good when it's progressive/leftist/liberals doing all things away from the eyes of the people, and away from the ballot box.
Can you predict ahead of time which year will be $300K and which will be $100K? Otherwise, how can you plan as you suggest??
Yes, in many businesses that can be predicted with good educated guess. Many businesses have book-to-bill ratio, and many others can get a clue from their past experience. If a business can not make educated guesses about future, how can they make capital investment at all? Of course, people can make mistakes in predicting the future.
That is a highly offensive statement.
Why? Are you saying votes from low income people don't matter? or are you saying ignorance is conducive to the political process? As founding fathers predicted, well informed voters are crucial for keeping the Republic.
Wrong. It is a method of ensuring a healthy economy. The larger the wealth disparity, the sicker the economy.
On the contrary, government taxation and redistribution increase wealth disparity not decreasing it. Currently, workers in the public sector make twice as much as workers in the private sector; in order words, the government takes from the lower income private sector workers and give it to the wealthier workers in the public sector, whose entire income comes from taxation and taxation-through-inflation. Even increasing taxation on the top 1-3% ($200k/yr and up, 3mil to 9mil people), that is still taking money from the relatively worse off to give to the hands controlling even more concentrated wealth: the top 0.001% (3000 people or so) actually controlling the government spending and derive benefit from it as recipients of lucrative government contracts.
tatupu70
2011 Oct 12, 2:20am
Why? Are you saying votes from low income people don't matter? or are you saying ignorance is conducive to the political process? As founding fathers predicted, well informed voters are crucial for keeping the Republic.
Come on. Now you're trolling. Your implication is that "people of moderate means" don't understand taxation. Give me a break.
On the contrary, government taxation and redistribution increase wealth disparity not decreasing it.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.
Currently, workers in the public sector make twice as much as workers in the private sector
I'm laughing out loud. You think the wealth disparity is from the government workers making $80K instead of $40K in the private sector??? You really need to get out more.
tatupu70
2011 Oct 12, 2:21am
Yes, in many businesses that can be predicted with good educated guess. Many businesses have book-to-bill ratio, and many others can get a clue from their past experience. If a business can not make educated guesses about future, how can they make capital investment at all?
OK--find me one business that predicts a drop in sales from $300K to $100K from one year to the next.
Just one.
tatupu70
2011 Oct 12, 2:23am
Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on".
I've never once seen that argument. It's a strawman.
OK--find me one business that predicts a drop in sales from $300K to $100K from one year to the next.
Just one.
That's more or less what one of my businesses did from 2007-08 to 2008-09. I predicted a 50-60% drop in revenue, and the real drop came in at close to 67%. One does not have to be all that precise in those predictions; a mere significant drop (or increase) expected is enough to necessitate tax planning ahead of time under the "progressive" tax scheme. BTW, that same business was experiencing 50+% expansion each year in the years leading into 2006-07; I recognized that as a bubble in progress. Many of my competitors who failed to make that recognition simply went out of business after 2008.
That's the nature of business in the real world outside government sinecure jobs. People's preference change over time; unless you stoop down to robbing them (like a government job or a union job does), you have to prepare for their freedom to change their preferences, including away from what you have to offer to something else.
Flat tax? No problem. Just make the flat tax rate 90%, and include all estate and capital gains tax rates as the same.
Retirement age could be 50 then. Government provides a basic level of shelter, food, health care, post secondary education, personal transportation, and entertainment.
Based on the GNI - $14.6T (2010), we should have roughly $13.1T in receipts. Add to the current budget of $3.6T the increase needed for these basic neccesities: 310 million people times $20k per year ($6.2T) we get a total budget of $9.8T, leaving us a surplus of $3.3T per year. We could pay off the debt in five years!
Its fair - we all pay the same percentage of our income in taxes...
I am being sarcastic by the way.
Let me throw one out there and see what response I get...
The EIC is a tax credit for the small businessman...or at least a tax credit for the corporation that largely employs low-skilled labor.
Discuss.
That's more or less what one of my businesses did from 2007-08 to 2008-09. I predicted a 50-60% drop in revenue, and the real drop came in at close to 67%.
Construction??
Patrick
2011 Oct 12, 3:23am
Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY
Wait, you're actually for fairness? I thought you were a Republican.
So if you think fairness is a good thing, do you also think it's fair that bankers who completely failed in the free market should get massive taxpayer bailouts to pay their gigantic bonuses?
And do you think it's fair that their tax rate on those gigantic bonuses is lower than the middle class tax rate?
Construction??
No. But many of my most free spending clients during the peak must have been getting money from construction and real-estate/financing. Some of them probably saw 90% decline, if not 100% (ie. going out of business). My business was only secondarily related to that money flow. The vendors that I buy from saw my spending at their counters decline by anywhere between 30% to 90%. Heck, even the USPS/UPS/FedEX saw a 60% decline in their business from me.
Flat tax? No problem. Just make the flat tax rate 90%, and include all estate and capital gains tax rates as the same.
Economy is not about throwing "macro" numbers around, but the very detailed decisions and choices that each of us make everyday in deciding what we prefer. That's how limited resources in society (including time and space) get channeled to producing what can improve our lives. Concentrating all the decision making powers into the hands of government bureaucrats would only foster corruption, violence and inhumanity.
Retirement age could be 50 then. Government provides a basic level of shelter, food, health care, post secondary education, personal transportation, and entertainment.
Here's the problem: when we go to a grocery store or a restaurant, we do not buy a blob called "food" (much less "basic level of food"). Instead, we buy apple (specific breed of apple, not crab apple), chicken (specific cut of specific quality), beef (specific cut and freshness), eggs, etc. etc. based on our economic means and personal preference/priorities. Taking 90% of what the producers and distributors can make from bringing forth the apples, chicken, beef and eggs would quickly disincentivize them from continuing the effort.
We already have examples of what it's like to have a 90% tax rate and have the government provide a basic level of food to everyone . . . as in a really really basic level that is far below what we enjoy today in the US. Look to North Korea for your answer. There is literally no lower bounds to how low a basic level of food, shelter, medicine, education and transportation can go. All of that is provided for more or less free in North Korea . . . all extremely basic, to a level that we'd consider barbarous existence, for all except for the select few leaders of course.
Reality,
I am not advocating a 90% flat tax rate and government takeover of the food industry - as I said, I was being sarcastic.
What I was doing was making the argument that if a constant tax rate is "fair," then a 90% flat tax rate is also fair.
Taking 90% of what the producers and distributors can make from bringing forth the apples, chicken, beef and eggs would quickly disincentivize them from continuing the effort.
I see this Republican talking point all the time. I would like to see any validation to the statement however. This is essentially the "you can't tax the job creators" argument. What the data shows is that GDP growth is over 2% higher in real terms when the highest marginal tax rate is over 50% in this country. Now correlation is not causation, and higher taxes do not neccesarily equate to greater economic growth. That is the correlation, though there are many other factors that contribute to economic growth. So I don't see how the argument can be made that higher tax rates causes laziness (and lower economic output). Show me the data, don't just speak anecdotally.
All of that is provided for more or less free in North Korea . . . all extremely basic, to a level that we'd consider barbarous existence, for all except for the select few leaders of course.
Barbarous is in the eye of the beholder. Have you ever been to North Korea? Maybe I think it is barbarous that 1/6 of out country goes without healthcare.
The most interesting thing you say here is "all except for a few leaders." I guess it depends on how many, on what percent, is a few, but to me 1% is a few. We have leaders here (that 1%) that would look at how the rest of live as pretty barbarous. Well at least if they had to live that way. They are fine with us living that way obviously.
My point is you mention how barbarous it is in North Korea for a few leaders to live well while the rest have a much more basic sort of life. How is that different from the US? We have leaders..they live much better than we do...
I find the idea of a flat tax to be absurd. But it is close to what we have already (not including capital gains tax being lower).
It's pretty close to what we have if you look at effective tax rates.
Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on".
Nice strawman, but completely unfounded in reality. I've never seen anyone express this view. Hell, I'm one of the people taxes would go up on. Man, Bap's comments keep getting more unintelligent and more unintelligible over time.
That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.
Agreed. This is what Congress does. You take a simple code, then you add all kinds of loopholes to it over time. Eventually, you blow the whole code away and then start over as lobbyists hack away at it.
What I was doing was making the argument that if a constant tax rate is "fair," then a 90% flat tax rate is also fair.
Tax is not fair because it is forcible taking. Some forms are somewhat less unfair than others.
So I don't see how the argument can be made that higher tax rates causes laziness (and lower economic output). Show me the data, don't just speak anecdotally.
Take away 90% of the salary of all government employees, and see how many of them will show up for work. hmm, I seem to recall many of them were striking due to a 10% reduction or less.
Barbarous is in the eye of the beholder. Have you ever been to North Korea? Maybe I think it is barbarous that 1/6 of out country goes without healthcare.
Are you really that clueless? Hundreds if not thousands of starving North Koreans flee to China each year, a place where some of us believe slave labor is prevailing working condition, in order to make a living. Healthcare and medical insurance (getting ripped off by insurance companies before getting medical service) are two entirely different issues. Even the poorest in the US are living far better lives than the average people in North Korea.
The most interesting thing you say here is "all except for a few leaders." I guess it depends on how many, on what percent, is a few, but to me 1% is a few.
Another sign of basic math failure. 1% of 300mil is 3 million people! That's an enormous number of people. The only people enjoy good standards of living in North Korea are in the immediate entourage of their "Dear Leader."
We have leaders here (that 1%) that would look at how the rest of live as pretty barbarous. Well at least if they had to live that way. They are fine with us living that way obviously.
That's utter bullshit. The top 1%, or 3 million people, are not leaders. Most of them are hapless victims of over-taxation and over-regulation just like the rest of us.
My point is you mention how barbarous it is in North Korea for a few leaders to live well while the rest have a much more basic sort of life. How is that different from the US? We have leaders..they live much better than we do...
The "barbarous existence" that I mentioned in regard to North Korea was referring to the low absolute standards of living for most people living there. They are literally starving! despite government promise to deliver a basic level of food, shelter, medicine, education, etc. etc. all for free. How many starving Americans do you know have been dodging internal security and border patrols to flee to China to have a chance at making a living in what some of us consider "slave labor"?
Take away 90% of the salary of all government employees, and see how many of them will show up for work. hmm, I seem to recall many of them were striking due to a 10% reduction or less.
Anecdoctal. Not proof...no data.
Even the poorest in the US are living far better lives than the average people in North Korea.
Ahh..poor, but at least not dirt poor.
Ok...you are fighting over ~60% of our wealth while the top 1% takes the other 40%. I'd rather fight to take part of that 40%.
How many starving Americans do you know have been dodging internal security and border patrols to flee to China to have a chance at making a living in what some of us consider "slave labor"?
None. How many North Koreans to do you that have done the same to China? None. Apparently facts are not your strong suit. According to wikipedia (a suspect source I know, but better than any other I have seen posted by YOU) there are 20-30,000 North Korean refugees in China. 60-70% of those are women, 70-80% of those due to human trafficking. So about half of at most 30,000 are leaving N. Korea? Wow. The flight from peril in North Korea is shocking.
Look up the demographics of that 1% and then come back and try to argue they are not, for the most part, our leaders.
What is a leader? Look up your Senator. He is in there. Your Rep. probably is too. State Senators, probably. Your doctor, he probably is. Your boss, he is. Or his boss. Let me check. Nope - no fry cooks. Let's see, who else is in that 1%...oh yeah, that guy you listen to on the radio and get your talking points...he is in there. All of the guys you watch on TV are in that group too...
Do you know what a leader is?
Anecdoctal. Not proof...no data.
Do actually believe taking away 90% of all public employees' wages and salaries, and they will continue to show up for work? If that's the case, government deficit can be solved instantly: cut all public employees' salaries by 90%!
Ahh..poor, but at least not dirt poor.
Ok...you are fighting over ~60% of our wealth while the top 1% takes the other 40%. I'd rather fight to take part of that 40%.
What do you mean by "take"? Taxation and government spending does not take wealth and distribute out to the population evenly. Do you actually believe that if we break down a multi-million dollar MRI machine into screws and bolts and give it out to everyone, the pieces can still do MRI? If you believe 40% of capital assets are owned and controlled by 3,000,000 people, how does transfer that decision making power to the top 3000 or so top government officials and their assistants help you? At least with the 3,000,000, you have the option of choosing another vendor to deal with if you find one not to your liking. With government bureaucrats, you have no alternative choice. Does it matter if you have a nominal/ficticious share in that ownership that you can not possibly sell? Ask the starving North Koreans: each one of them is allegedly an owner in all their country's wealth.
None. How many North Koreans to do you that have done the same to China? None. Apparently facts are not your strong suit. According to wikipedia (a suspect source I know, but better than any other I have seen posted by YOU) there are 20-30,000 North Korean refugees in China. 60-70% of those are women, 70-80% of those due to human trafficking. So about half of at most 30,000 are leaving N. Korea? Wow. The flight from peril in North Korea is shocking.
Say what? Do you even read the numbers you cite? Tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled North Korea to be in China in search of better living. The same China that some of us believe having slave labor working conditions. Do you have any idea the risk a North Korean has to undertake to flee his/her homeland? Does the shooting deaths of East Germans fleeing to West Germany ring a bell? North Korean government has similar shoot to kill orders against all citizens trying to flee their de facto serfdom.
Look up the demographics of that 1% and then come back and try to argue they are not, for the most part, our leaders.
1% is 3,000,000 people in this country! Math is obviously not your forte.
What is a leader? Look up your Senator. He is in there. Your Rep. probably is too. State Senators, probably. Your doctor, he probably is. Your boss, he is. Or his boss. Let me check. Nope - no fry cooks. Let's see, who else is in that 1%...oh yeah, that guy you listen to on the radio and get your talking points...he is in there. All of the guys you watch on TV are in that group too...
Do you know what a leader is?
Is that some kind joke? You are equating lawmakers that constitute 0.0001% of the population with people with any sorts of expertise therefore often listened to, like 10-20% of the population? You can fire your doctor any time. You can quit your job any time. With government officials imposed on you at the point of the gun, it's an entirely different story.
Any and all taxation is nothing more than concentrating power from the 3,000,000-100,000,000 people to a much tighter group of 1/1000 that size.
Do actually believe taking away 90% of all public employee's income, and they will continue to show up for work? If that's the case, government deficit can be solved instantly: cut all public employees' salaries by 90%!
Isn't this what I already joked about? Yes, if you take away 90% of everyone income (not sure why you are only restricting it to public employees) then yes, they would still show up for work. 10% of something is better than 00% of nothing. As I said, other than your anecdoctal arguments about this being true, do you have any proof as such? There are many times in the history of this country where marginal tax rates were higher than they are now...how was the economy then compared to now? How about this: show me where one person was ever hired strictly because of lower taxes.
Do you actually believe that if we break down a multi-million dollar MRI machine into screws and bolts and give it out to everyone, the machine can still do MRI?
This doesn't even make sense. Why would you have to break it down to pieces to distribute it? The value of the MRI is in the task it performs, not the sum of the parts of which it is contructed. Yes, if the government owned the MRI machine it would still perform MRIs. Ohio State Medical Center I am sure owns a few MRI machines and they probably work.
Is that some kind joke? You are equating lawmakers that constitute 0.0001% of the population with people with any sorts of expertise therefore often listened to, like 10-20% of the population?
Are you arguing that those types of professions I listed are not leaders? What is a leader to you? Only those Elected? Sorry to tell you, but those guys who are elected are not really leading anything. We live in a plutocracy and the wealth IS the leader. Do you think it is a coincidence that ALL of the central bankers and leaders of the largest corporations, and most of the politicians are wealthy?
All I ask is you look up the demographics of the top 1%, what they do, and then come back and tell me what percent are or are not leaders. Again, there will be strong correlation between the two....
Say what? Do you even read the numbers you cite?
Apparently you don't. There are currently about 500,000 US expats. There are 24 million North Koreans, 300 million Americans. So .0625% or North Koreans have left for China. .16% of Americans have left for greener pastures. Point is I wouldn't point to the "hundreds if not thousands of North Koreans each year" fleeing to China as an indicator that conditions are horrible in North Korea. I don't know if the conditions are horrible in North Korea. I have never been there. Neither do you...but you can't make the argument that since SOME (a very small part, actually) of the North Korean population goes to China as an indication that people are starving in North Korea.
Any and all taxation is nothing more than concentrating power from the 3,000,000-100,000,000 people to a much tighter group of 1/1000 that size.
Utter nonsense. Expenditures EXCEED tax receipts. The current population is getting more for their taxes than they are paying in.
Bap33
2011 Oct 12, 6:38am
Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on".
I've never once seen that argument. It's a strawman.
The additional tax burden for "the rich" is fair, because money grows exponentially, and because beyond a certain point (when bills are paid), additional discretionary income is far different than the income that takes one up to where they can afford a good education for their kids, and a good retirement.
If you were to (or could) graph a function that valued the "need" for more money, or the possibility of using money productively, as a function of income level, you find that once a persons net worth gets beyond certain point, this need is decreasing.
tatupu,
Should I assume that you have marcus blocked so you can't see his posts?
tatupu70
2011 Oct 12, 6:41am
tatupu,
Should I assume that you have marcus blocked so you can't see his posts?
I don't see anywhere in Marcus' post statements saying rich people are rich for no reason, or that they got to be rich unfairly.
Bap33
2011 Oct 12, 8:54am
oh, nice save tatupu!
So, we'll just assume the rest of my "stawman" is correct, and my personal take on the reason for the anti-fair-tax people to attack rich folk is just inferred from their actions and statements .... fair enough?
You do realize this takes us all the way back to my very first point where I wanted to know how rich was rich enough to be unfairly taxed, and who says so, and why them .. don't you?
one nation
one vote
one tax
one God
one language
one culture
Lord Barry and the Obamites demand that there be at least two each of these in America. I humbly suggest we have one.
leo707
2011 Oct 12, 9:07am
one nation
one vote
one tax
one God
one language
one culture
You got the first two right, but the nation that you describe has never existed and much of what you seem to want the founding fathers fought to free themselves from.
So, we'll just assume the rest of my "stawman" is correct
Bap you are very good a representing your own viewpoint and I think most here understand where you stand on the issues, sorry to say but you are terrible at trying to describe the views of others. I am not sure if this is intentional, you just don't care what others actually think, or you have been somehow convinced in incorrect assumptions of others. So, yes whenever you frame the views of others they are "straw men".
It is OK to disagree with people, but it helps to understand what their viewpoint is in the first place. Are you over 30? I am assuming that you are. Recent study has shown that you may benefit from taking a course of mushrooms. This may help you to better understand where others are coming from.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/40469
tatupu70
2011 Oct 12, 9:10am
So, we'll just assume the rest of my "stawman" is correct, and my personal take on the reason for the anti-fair-tax people to attack rich folk is just inferred from their actions and statements .... fair enough?
I don't know--I think a lot(most?) of the anti-fair tax people understand that it's not a fair tax at all. It is highly regressive and will do great harm to the overall economy. One of the biggest problems facing our country is the wealth disparity and a "fair" tax would only make things worse.
You do realize this takes us all the way back to my very first point where I wanted to know how rich was rich enough to be unfairly taxed, and who says so, and why them .. don't you?
And I'll again remind you that "fairness" is a very poor way to set up a tax structure. Fair is highly subjective. What I consider "fair" is obviously very different than what you consider "fair". A tax structure needs to be designed to maximize overall economic efficiency. And a regressive flat tax is very inefficient.
leo707
2011 Oct 12, 9:27am
And I'll again remind you that "fairness" is a very poor way to set up a tax structure. Fair is highly subjective. What I consider "fair" is obviously very different than what you consider "fair". A tax structure needs to be designed to maximize overall economic efficiency. And a regressive flat tax is very inefficient.
Yep, I remember the first time a flat tax was described to me I thought that it sounded unfair. It has always been so strange to me that others call it the "fair tax". What is fair about a system that assures a majority of people will slowly be driven to poverty, while a few become kings?
I guess I think that fairness is a good way to set up taxes. I just think that it is fair for those that receive the most benefits from our society to pay more to support it.
Stealing all the wealth from the wealthy still won't be enough to stop the hemorrhaging. What part of "stop the spending" don't YOU PEOPLE understand?
ps - the spending is going to stop...when the leviathan collapses under its own weight. Dummkopfs.
leo707
2011 Oct 12, 9:32am
Stealing all the wealth from the wealthy
I have not seen anyone here advocate this. Is there a post I missed?
What part of "stop the spending" don't YOU PEOPLE understand?
Are you saying zero spending? I think most here agree that we need to cut back on spending. I am not sure why you would think otherwise.
one tax
one God
one language
one culture
Yeah, these are just your personal beliefs, not particularly enlightened, and not in the constitution and don't even fit with reality (the US was NEVER meant to be "one culture" -- in fact the whole point was that earlier settlers were not within one culture). You are this guy:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Bap33
2011 Oct 12, 9:46am
leo, great point. I was wrong to put God in that list, and culture is pretty iffy to, so it could be removed. The rest are pretty much what would work best.
Our FF did not want the Gov mandated and carried out welfare/wealth transfers between voting citizens either. Expressly. Agreed?
I agree, my writting skills are not on par with most regualr posters on here. I am over 40.
As for the wealth not being spread under a flat tax, and the current unfair tax system being the answer ..... ummmm .... if the current way has all of the differences in wealth and concentrations that you wish to avoid, why would you want to just to more of the same thing?? That is a common mistake for most liberal minded programs that fail ,,,, when the mistake is made evident, the liberal mind suggests that the answer would be more of the same. Double-down, for lack of a better term. Welfare systems of every shape prove that we get more and more of the bad thing that we are trying to address by the gov sponsoring of that lifestyle. Giving SSI to dopeheads who claim they are disabled results in more dope heads claiming SSI - for example. Allowing farmers and companies to hire invaders results in more invaders working in America - another example.
I just think that it is fair for those that receive the most benefits from our society to pay more to support it.
ummmm ... leo, care to explain "most benefit"?
Our FF did not want the Gov mandated and carried out welfare/wealth transfers between voting citizens either. Expressly.
You are wrong. There's nothing that indicates the founding fathers believed that. In fact, very few things people say "the founding fathers" believed are true. People constantly forget that the Constitution was a COMPROMISE and that there were people who disagreed vehemently but were able to agree on a minimal set of common principles. Trying to ascribe one particular view to all the founding fathers is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
What part of "stop the spending" don't YOU PEOPLE understand?
You only want to "stop the spending" you disagree with but want to keep the stuff you agree with. That's not really a useful principle nor does it give us a key to good government.
Yes, if you take away 90% of everyone income (not sure why you are only restricting it to public employees) then yes, they would still show up for work. 10% of something is better than 00% of nothing.
0% of nothing would only apply if the person has absolutely zero marketable skills and depend on government pay checks as the only source of possible income. Even a person dumb as a door nail would be able to find alternative employment, even if paid under the table, if a 90% tax is applied to his government job. A 100-200% sales tax, i.e. tax amounting to 50-67% of money changing hand, is enough to cause bootleg cigarette trafficking. Try to give some credit to people's creativity; not all of them are as dumb as door nails.
As I said, other than your anecdoctal arguments about this being true, do you have any proof as such?
What do you think the soviet systems were? "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work" was not mere anecdote, but statistical norm for billions of people in the world only three decades ago!
There are many times in the history of this country where marginal tax rates were higher than they are now...how was the economy then compared to now? How about this: show me where one person was ever hired strictly because of lower taxes.
Top marginal tax rate is not the same as average tax rate. . . when the top marginal tax rate was extremely high, companies simply gave their executives perks instead of honest pay . . . just like in soviet systems. If you really want to play the correlation game about how the economy was, there were no personal computer back then either. So should we ban personal computers in order to get the 50's back?
You want one person who was hired strictly because tax was reduced? Millions of people were hired when the formerly soviet countries removed confiscatory tax rates.
This doesn't even make sense. Why would you have to break it down to pieces to distribute it? The value of the MRI is in the task it performs, not the sum of the parts of which it is contructed. Yes, if the government owned the MRI machine it would still perform MRIs. Ohio State Medical Center I am sure owns a few MRI machines and they probably work.
The soviet factories turned out cars. Except they were turning out 1940's cars in the 1980's! The fact that an MRI machine or a car factory can not be broken up into pieces and still preserve their functional value shows that someone has to be deciding how the capital asset is to be used and up-kept as well upgraded! Human history has shown over and over again that such capital assets' allocation, up-keep and eventual replacement is better handled through competitive private ownership instead of un-ownership / public-ownership.
Are you arguing that those types of professions I listed are not leaders? What is a leader to you? Only those Elected? Sorry to tell you, but those guys who are elected are not really leading anything.
When you define a leader as anyone having any expertise therefore other people may voluntarily choose to listen to them, the concept becomes utterly meaningless in this discussion. The fry cook and indeed the server in the cafeteria becomes your leader when he/she tells you to bring your tray closer! That's how assinine your definition of leader has become.
The real issue is power and especially coercive power. Whether someone is elected is only secondary to whether that person is endowed with coercive power in our legal system. A police officer has far more power over you at a traffic stop than a doctor that you are choosing to visit.
We live in a plutocracy and the wealth IS the leader. Do you think it is a coincidence that ALL of the central bankers and leaders of the largest corporations, and most of the politicians are wealthy?
Wealth in and of itself has no power over you in a free market place unless you voluntarily choose to follow. For example, Apple has the world's largest capitalization and Steve Jobs was among the richest, yet you did not have to buy a single Apple product . . . and I regrettable did not (Verizon did not have iPhone yet the last time I updated my phone). OTOH, in our kleptocracy, political coercive power is used by some to get rich, including your example of central bankers and their friends.
All I ask is you look up the demographics of the top 1%, what they do, and then come back and tell me what percent are or are not leaders. Again, there will be strong correlation between the two....
What's your point? By your definition anyone with an ounce of intelligence become leaders just because other people voluntarily choose to take their advice (like your doctor). What's your point? Rage against all expertise? Rage against division of labor? What kind of brain dead idea is that?
There are people who use their coercive political powers to get rich and gain more power . . . and that is the real problem
Apparently you don't. There are currently about 500,000 US expats. There are 24 million North Koreans, 300 million Americans. So .0625% or North Koreans have left for China. .16% of Americans have left for greener pastures.
Are you serious? You are comparing American expats to Norh Korean refugees living in camps? How many Americans have expatriated to China as refugees? While I can certainly agree that thanks to wannabe fascists like yourself America is not what it used to be, and more and more Americans are starting to consider expatriation to greener pastures that have lower taxation and less restrictive governments . . . but China as greener pasture? Get real. What China has is a fascist government, only somewhat less fascist than that of North Korea.
Point is I wouldn't point to the "hundreds if not thousands of North Koreans each year" fleeing to China as an indicator that conditions are horrible in North Korea. I don't know if the conditions are horrible in North Korea. I have never been there. Neither do you...but you can't make the argument that since SOME (a very small part, actually) of the North Korean population goes to China as an indication that people are starving in North Korea.
The willful blindness among the wannabe fascists is truly astounding. How about North Korean government itself, prideful as it is, asking for food aid from South Korea and Japan and the US? How about millions of tons of food aid shipped from China to North Korea to put a lid on refugee traffic? How about the zillions of pictures showing emaciated North Koreans? How about repeated reports of starvation in North Korea? Are you really that ignorant?
« First « Previous Comments 86 - 125 of 191 Next » Last » Search these comments
I was just reading DailyKos and saw this banner ad on the website. It's a good reason why the rich should pay higher taxes:
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CKX61rre5fuVmwEQrAIY7wEyCMfe-Yn05dvX
That's right.. $12,000 for a 2 hour plane ride from NY to Florida. $6,000 an hour!