patrick.net

tatupu70 says

And you will probably continue to complain about the deadbeats who have nothing.

Abe might even understand how many are in prison in this country, and how much that costs, but he doesn't think about that.

He doesn't think about whether removing the safety net of food stamps and other public aid will work.

He doesn't concern himself with what people will do if their possible income is sinificantly below what it costs to live. Tha't s not his problem.

Abe likes to keep it simple.

Marcus, I agree, too many in prison - lets end the "war on drugs".

I've said before, I'm in favor of a safety net, but not a lifelong government hammock.

Tatpu - you're right too. Government takes in X dollars and SPENDS 300 X dollars to the 14th power...which is collapsing under its own weight as we speak.

A tax structure that leads to a healthy economy is one which people actually get to keep and spend the money they actually earn. Redistribution can NEVER give people a middle class lifestyle.

The more the government does to "help" the more damage they create. As government grows freedom diminishes.

Honest Abe says

A tax structure that leads to a healthy economy is one which people actually get to keep and spend the money they actually earn. Redistribution can NEVER give people a middle class lifestyle.

Once again, history strongly disagrees with you. As does the experience of the rest of the 1st world.

Facts rarely get in the way of your narrative, however, so I'm sure this time won't be any different.

Tat - OK, I agree - redistribution may give some Americans a middle class lifestyle (make-do jobs)...but bankrupt the whole country in the process - oops.

BTW - did you watch the you tube clip by Tim Hawkins? Its kida' catchy, isn't it?

Abe--

You don't get it. It's not make do jobs... When middle and lower class people have money, they spend it. Which creates demand, which creates jobs. Wash, rinse, repeat... Do you see how that works?

The problem is when the 1% hoard the money. Then the economy grinds to a halt...

When middle and lower class people get to keep and spend more of their own money, because they are paying LESS tax to support government and all of their ridiculous "programs" and bailouts, it creates demand, which creates jobs.

It has nothing to do with the 1%. Stop looking into other peoples pockets, what you neighbor makes is really NONE of YOUR business, is it?

Honest Abe says

It has nothing to do with the 1%. Stop looking into other peoples pockets, what you neighbor makes is really NONE of YOUR business, is it?

It has everything to do with the 1%. I'm not looking into anyone's pockets. I'm telling you how to design a tax structure to create a healthy economy.

Honest Abe says

When middle and lower class people get to keep and spend more of their own money, because they are paying LESS tax to support government and all of their ridiculous "programs" and bailouts, it creates demand, which creates jobs.

Again--cutting revenue does NOT have any effect on spending. Not sure why you can't understand that.

To your other point, if you cut taxes on only the middle and lower classes, that will help. That's what Obama is trying to do--more or less. I'm glad you agree with him.

Actually you are. You are concerning yourself with the "evil" 1%'rs. You know, those people who own businesses and provide jobs.

A healthy economy is created by free enterprise, not by some communistic progressive tax system designed by Karl Marx.

You have to admit, over the years we've seen the suppression of human rights and freedoms, including such stunningly cruel features as torture, water boarding, unjust imprisonment, confiscation of income and property, and the erosion , corruption or outright destruction of market freedoms necessary for human well-being which has lead to poverty and hunger. We've got more people on food stamps than any other time in American history.

Government is nothing than systematic coercion against the people, and coercion is a crime. The results are know to all of us, but the truth is too horrifying for most to accept. Murder by governments, perpetrated in a thousand ways, was responsible for 262 MILLION deaths in the 20th Century according to Professor R.J. Rummel.

Thats why I'm for LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL government.

Abe.

Honest Abe says

Actually you are. You are concerning yourself with the "evil" 1%'rs. You know, those people who own businesses and provide jobs.

No, I'm really not. I'm sure they are nice people. It's just that when all the money ends up in the hands of a relatively small percentage of people, the economy stops working.

Honest Abe says

We've got more people on food stamps than any other time in American history.

Like I said earlier, when all the money is in the hands of a few people, there are LOTS of people with nothing. Therefore, it's very predictable that more people are on food stamps.

All the other stuff about the evil government is completely irrelevent to the discussion.

ALL the money doesn't end up in their hands.

(1) The 1%'rs BUY lavish stuff. Airplanes, yachts, cars, mansions, cocaine. All that stuff is expensive, they pay thur the nose to keep and maintain it. That provides JOBS. Mechanics, gardeners, pilots, servents, maids, junkies, cops, lawyers, judges, etc, etc.

(2) Besides Helicopter Ben will just print more money for those who have none - like the banksters. And oBBumma will help spread it around. You know, redistribute it (steal from some and gift to others)

Yea, the other stuff about the evil government is irrelevent because: 'it could never happen here', we've had wise and trusted leaders such as Bush, oBaMMa and Big Brother to watch out and take care of us, and because the TRUTH is too horrifying for most to accept. Except I accept it, what about you?

Honest Abe says

The 1%'rs BUY lavish stuff. Airplanes, yachts, cars, mansions, cocaine. All that stuff is expensive, they pay thur the nose to keep and maintain it. That provides JOBS. Mechanics, gardeners, pilots, servents, maids, junkies, cops, lawyers, judges, etc, etc.

If gardeners, servents, maids, junkies, and cops are the kind of jobs you want, then by all means vote for the Ryan plan.

Rich people don't spend at the same rate as poor/middle class people. That much should be obvious.

Honest Abe says

ALL the money doesn't end up in their hands.

Right now it doesn't, because we still have a somewhat progressive tax system. With the Ryan plan, all the money will end up with the 1%.

The stuff about evil government is irrelevent because no matter tax system you have in place, you will have a government.

Honest Abe says

The Ryan plan proposes to eliminate all taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains, and eliminate the alternate minimum tax and the death tax? God, I hope so.

WHO'S MONEY IS IT? WHO EARNED IT? And you feel you have a RIGHT to take it from those who earned it and gift it to someone YOU deem more deserving??? That, sir, is the real immoral abomination.

So you are saying that the only people responsible for paying for government spending should be people working for a salary? Why is that? I have yet to any anyone explain why unearned income is special. The argument that if it is untaxed it increases the economy has be disproved many times. Just brainwashing by the 1% that manages (very successfully) convince 99% to vote against their own interest.

Your argument about using unearned income taxes for "gifting" isn't "honest" or even close. The vast majority of money spent on entitlements or "gifts" as you describe it is in social security and medicare. Both are paid out of fica which doesn't apply to unearned income anyway. Or earned income above 103k.

The vast majority of the spending out of income taxes and taxes on unearned income is for defense and government operations. What you call gifts is not a major part of this spending. The only big item is medicaid. So people with unearned income shouldn't have to pay for military or government services? The very same military and government services that makes their unearned income possible? That sir is a real moral abomination.

I actually agree with you on the spending side being too high. Cut the military 50% (why does "honest" abe always manage to honestly avoid talking about the biggest budget item?), get rid of all the wars on anything, seriously reform medicaid and medicare, moderately reform social security, get the government out of education funding.

Don't bother to reply. I don't expect an honest answer from honest abe. Just trite meaningless phrases supplied by the masters of am radio repeated endlessly.

clambo says

Whether or not a rich person deserves to keep his money is simply an argument either for or against the government intruding into your life and stealing from you.
It is complete bullshit that services cannot be paid for by specific taxes without taking money from our wallets.
This is of course how many other emerging countries must operate. How do you think they collect taxes in Mexico for example? Largely they must just use their form of the VAT, it's called "IVA".

Did you go the the same Mexico as I did? There is personal income taxes, non resident personal income taxes (no deductions allowed), business taxes, assets tax, capital gains tax, social security tax, rental tax, vat tax. Most emerging countries I've been to have a similar variety of taxes.

So do you think that a vat tax doesn't come out of your wallet?

clambo says

This is of course how many other emerging countries must operate. How do you think they collect taxes in Mexico for example? Largely they must just use their form of the VAT, it's called "IVA".

So you are arguing that you want the US to be more like Mexico? Well, vote for Romney and Ryan then. They will make sure the US keeps heading that way.

Bob - I AM replying (was at the beach for the last few days). I completely agree with your second from the last paragraph that says "I actually agree with you... Count me in - that's a great start!

Another great way to slow down inflation, prevent misery and save lives is to re-institute a gold standard. Paper or digital money BACKED by gold. Gold as money limits government expansion and power. It would also limit the governments ability in the areas of empire building and making war.

As such it would save more lives and prevent more misery than do the measures of public sanitation, modern medical care and other "projects" specifically aimed at human well-being.

http://news.yahoo.com/city-compton-may-declare-bankruptcy-september-officials-084555526.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

When government gets desperate for YOUR money they'll tax it from you. That way you can pay your "fair share" whether or not you're a 1%'r. Haha - government is NOT your friend.

Honest Abe says

Bob - I AM replying (was at the beach for the last few days). I completely agree with your second from the last paragraph that says "I actually agree with you... Count me in - that's a great start!

And the rest? Any actual analysis of why shouldn't unearned income pay taxes? Any comment on actual facts about taxes as opposed to am radio static? Any chance of actually addressing issues instead of spouting sound bites? That would be a start.

Honest Abe says

When government gets desperate for YOUR money they'll tax it from you. That way you can pay your "fair share" whether or not you're a 1%'r

Yes and deficits don't matter. Right.

I wish Abe would explain how increasing the deficit by keeping taxes low on high incomes (or worse lowering them even more) does not cost us all in the future.

I'm pretty sure the "logic" goes like this. "If we raise taxes on higher incomes it won't go to the deficit, it will just get spent. Oh, and also, no matter how low taxes are, when you lower them more, it boosts the economy so much that it more than makes up for the lost govt revenues.

By that reasoning, we should just lower taxes to zero.

For Abe's crowd, any discussion of what taxes should goes like this "they need to be low enough that our deficits are so severe that we can undue all social safety nets including social security and medicare."

(I know, I know these are actually programs that we've paid in to that the government has borrowed against)

And if you point out how much better off we were when taxes were a little higher,
Abe will put his fingers in his ears like a little child and say "lalalalalalaala, I can't hear you! oh, and I have books I've read to prove it. What books have you read ?"

Marcus, how about LOWERING spending? Its only when you SPEND more than you take in that you have a deficit. America has a SPENDING PROBLEM, not an income problem.

Why not start with a high dollar item - the military. Then we put ALL politicians on minimum wage and terminate their sweetheart pensions. Then end foreign aide. Then roll back spending to 2005 levels. That would be a good start.

Come on, I've listed the books I've read with my book recommendation of the day for a long time now. One on my desk is: "The Liberal Mind, The Psychological Causes of Political Madness", Lyle Rossiter, M.D. In my office is : (1) The Richest Man in Babylon, (2) How to be a Great Boss, (3) The Official Guide to Success, (4) The Communist Manifesto, (5) A Bull in China among others. The rest are at home...to numerous & time consuming to list.

Abe

Honest Abe says

Marcus, how about LOWERING spending?

Only by paying for we you spend will you ever motivate us to lower our spending.

Think of it this way:

Person A always pays for everything he spends and uses no credit cards (or pays the balance each month if they do).

Person B put's tens of thousands on credit cards and lives in a fantasy that only by going bankrupt will he ever get his spending under control.

Which person is going to do a better job of controlling their spending ?

(note: the guy who pays for what he spends is like the country that taxes for what it spends. )

Person A would do a better job in controlling spending. Historically, politicians do a horrible job controlling spending...which is why America has painted itself into a corner.

We have a spending problem. No matter how much is brought in, MORE is always spent.

Honest Abe says

No matter how much is brought in, MORE is always spent.

If we had a rule that this years spending determines next years taxes (progressively skewed toward high incomes), then the decision makers would control their spending.

Of course such a rational and pragmatic approach is impossible, for a number of reasons.

Marcus, do we actually agree on something? Well, other than the PROGRESSIVE part. I found the progressive tax part in the Karl Marx book - The Communist Manifesto. Just between you and me, I don't think America should embrace any communistic ideas, strategies, systems or methods of operation...do you?

Honest Abe says

Just between you and me, I don't think America should embrace any communistic ideas, strategies, systems or methods of operation...do you?

*pssst* I heard that.

Congratulations your logical fallacy is genetic.

Each idea, strategy, system or method of operation should be judged individually on its own merit.

Why would you throwout the best way to solve a problem just because of who thought of the solution?

Honest Abe says

I don't think America should embrace any communistic ideas, strategies, systems or methods of operation...do you?

*pssst* hey Abe... me again...

I just found the part in the Karl Marx book "The Communist Manifesto" that says we should not have children working in factories as it was done in 1848.

So, what's the deal? Are you some sort of pinko communist, or do you think we should re-institute child labor practices that were around in 1848?

Honest Abe says

Marcus, how about LOWERING spending? Its only when you SPEND more than you take in that you have a deficit. America has a SPENDING PROBLEM, not an income problem.
Why not start with a high dollar item - the military. Then we put ALL politicians on minimum wage and terminate their sweetheart pensions. Then end foreign aide. Then roll back spending to 2005 levels. That would be a good start.

Abe--we were talking about taxes and developing a tax system. Why do you keep trying to steer the conversation towards spending??

How about I get this out of the way--I think it's safe to say Leo, Marcus, Bob, and I all agree that we need to cut military spending. No battles to fight there.

Now, can we get back to the topic--why unearned income needs to be taxed more, developing a tax policy that leads to a healthy economy, etc.?