patrick.net

I can't imagine that any of these guys will stand there during the presidential debates and try to argue that raising taxes is a good thing.

What's our collective IQ? 50?

I'll try to defend the policies.

1. 47% of Americans don't pay taxes. If we can EXPAND THE BASE, we can collect more taxes and lower the deficit, which is the highest it has ever been under Obama. It is only fair for everyone who is benefitting from the government services pay for them.

2. We have the HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE in the world right now. This is causing us to lose jobs overseas. Companies have decided to avoid paying these high tax rates by moving high paying jobs to other countries where tax rates are lower.

3. The backbone of our economy is the small business. Obama wants to raise taxes on small business and the JOB CREATORS at a time when our economy is struggling. This will destroy jobs. Guys like Joe the Plumber who work hard everyday can't afford to hire because of the high tax rates.

4. Right now we have DEATH TAX rates that confiscate about half of a person's estate when he/she dies. This makes it nearly impossible to pass business ownership on to families. Farmers cannot pass the family farm on to thei children because of these high tax rates.

5. The GOVERNMENT IS BAD and doesn't do anything right. If we keep more money out of the hands of government, where it will just be wasted or go to some earmark, we will all be better off.

How was that?

You're whole post was sarcasm, right david1?

I'm with ryan. David's post has to be a joke.

My favorite is that 47% of the population doesn't pay taxes. Guess what--47% of the population has NO money. That whole thing about blood and a turnip...

Since about half of all Americans currently don't pay any income taxes, and system which would increase overall income tax fairness would inevitably involve those currently paying none to at least pay some.

I have a serious question because I really don't know, but when they state __% does or doesn't pay income taxes, is that for entire population (ie does that include children?)?

If it does, then determining what the real % of those in population who shouldn't pay income tax in the first place, plus those who don't make enough, some seniors, etc it starts to make since just how little revenue we taken in as a percentage of population.

And Don't forget we will get the worst possible Republican candidate Liberal T.V. can give us. It's the Liberal media that repeats the worst of the worst GOP candidates on an endless loop.

And when that shitty fucker wins, just remember you "get what you get". This is the age of the lesser of two evils. At this point, even with your average Religious Right voter, Satan him self would win over Obama.

The GOP says

I plan on sitting this one out, but I don't plan on remaining silent.

How the hell does that make any sense at all? You won't vote, but you'll tell others how they should vote??

tatupu70 says

How the hell does that make any sense at all? You won't vote, but you'll tell others how they should vote??

Of course not, but I will remind them, the naivety of their gullibility though.

Ron Paul has the best plan among them all, abolishing all income taxes.

FortWayne says

Ron Paul has the best plan among them all, abolishing all income taxes.

Quality Auto Repair Since 1979

Ron Paul has been shoved in the deepest sofa cushion, deeper than that wallet with 1200 bucks I lost 10 years ago and have never found.

Ron Paul could say if he were president he will give every poor person in America $50,000, and I would guarantee you, no one would ever know it.

The GOP says

FortWayne says

Ron Paul has the best plan among them all, abolishing all income taxes.

Quality Auto Repair Since 1979

Ron Paul has been shoved in the deepest sofa cushion, deeper than that wallet with 1200 bucks I lost 10 years ago and have never found.

Ron Paul could say if he were president he will give every poor person in America $50,000, and I would guarantee you, no one would ever know it.

William E Baughb

I think my dad would make a good president too. They both have about an equal chance of winning.

And yes, my previous post in this thread was 100% sarcasm. Except those guys that don't have to pay taxes. Pony up you lazy bastards.

j/k

david1 says

2. We have the HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE in the world right now. This is causing us to lose jobs overseas. Companies have decided to avoid paying these high tax rates by moving high paying jobs to other countries where tax rates are lower.

Statutory rate, not effective rate. Meaning we have lots of loopholes. The effective rate varies a lot by industry (who can lobby the best; for example mining industry pays like 8% or so). Overall we a fairly typical corporate tax rate for an industrialized country:

bloomberg.com

A March 31 report by the Congressional Research Service, using different methodology, found that the U.S. had an effective corporate tax rate of 27.1 percent in 2008. Other industrialized countries had an average 27.7 percent effective rate, using a weighted approach that adjusted for the size of the economy, and a 23.3 percent rate with an unweighted approach.

A much bigger factor is that companies who move overseas (at least to countries with comparable economies to the US) don't have to pay for health care because the other countries have socialized medicine. So I think its really dishonest (or just woefully ignorant) to say, without qualification, that the US has a uniquely high corporate tax rate.

bdrasin says

So I think its really dishonest (or just woefully ignorant) to say, without qualification, that the US has a uniquely high corporate tax rate.

If the US has such a high corporate tax rate, why are collections so low?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=30N

zzyzzx says

Sales taxes and import duties should be the way to collect taxes.

LOL. Tax ONLY the workers! Let capital run FREE!

My gut instinct on this is that most people are not really looking at the math of these plans. From the surface they sound straightforward and fair. Scratching the surface reveals how ridiculous these proposals are. Then again most people don't get that far.

Obligatory (to lighten the mood):

Bellingham Bill says

The true fix to the problem is to tax rents first and foremost

I think one thing that needs to be done is to get shareholders to vote down pay increases for CEO's and board of directors. Pretty much every prospectus I get has one and I always vote against it.

zzyzzx says

We already have extremely progressive income taxes. The bottom 50% pays no income taxes.

The bottom 50% have NO money!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How do you not understand this??

david1 says

1. 47% of Americans don't pay taxes. If we can EXPAND THE BASE, we can collect more taxes and lower the deficit, which is the highest it has ever been under Obama. It is only fair for everyone who is benefitting from the government services pay for them.

As long as Teabaggers realize that almost half of Teabaggers don't pay federal income tax:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/47-of-tea-partiers-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/38924/

They can raise taxes on themselves I guess.

david1 says

2. We have the HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE in the world right now. This is causing us to lose jobs overseas. Companies have decided to avoid paying these high tax rates by moving high paying jobs to other countries where tax rates are lower.

Yes, and corporate taxes are also the lowest as a percentage of GDP in the world here. Bruce Bartlett from the Reagan administration says so:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/tax-base-as-of-gdp/

david1 says

3. The backbone of our economy is the small business. Obama wants to raise taxes on small business and the JOB CREATORS at a time when our economy is struggling. This will destroy jobs. Guys like Joe the Plumber who work hard everyday can't afford to hire because of the high tax rates.

Nice talking point, but it's generally nonsense. Joe the Plumber (who is neither named Joe nor a plumber) doesn't make $250K in profits a year, so fuck that guy. Most small businesses won't be affected by this, so stop repeating this crap.

david1 says

4. Right now we have DEATH TAX rates that confiscate about half of a person's estate when he/she dies. This makes it nearly impossible to pass business ownership on to families. Farmers cannot pass the family farm on to thei children because of these high tax rates.

Nice talking point, but again, mostly false. There are extremely few family farms that are affected by the estate tax. This is nonsense repeated in the echo chamber in the hopes that it might be thought true, but it's absolutely false. Besides, farmers get massive federal subsidies -- do you really want to defend that?

zzyzzx says

I think one thing that needs to be done is to get shareholders to vote down pay increases for CEO's and board of directors. Pretty much every prospectus I get has one and I always vote against it.

Yes, and that does absolutely nothing under Delaware corporate law.

The main goal of these tax proposals is two-fold:
1) (the BIGGEST reason) - to get rid of estate taxes and capital gains taxes, which are anathema to teabaggers, even though Reagan believed that capital gains taxes should be the same as income taxes for fairness -- I spoke to Reagan's tax guy about this once
2) to raise taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans to balance out tax cuts for the rich . I benefit from this by being in the top 2% or so, but it seems problematic. Anyway, all proof that lots of people, including teabaggers are sheep, since 47% of all Teabaggers don't pay federal income tax.

Both Cain's plan and Perry's plan would help me. The last few years I've paid 20-22% in effective federal income tax, so Cain's at 18% and Perry's at 20% probably help me out. Meanwhile, Cain's plan would raise taxes on 84% of taxpayers: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/84-would-pay-more-under-Cains-cnnm-2349442001.html

I hope David was being sarcastic with his post earlier full of Republican talking points, because my head literally exploded when I read it.

I have my own tax plan: 5-5. THat would be a 5% flat tax and a 5% corporate tax rate. If you ask me how we will cut taxes to 5% and balance the budget, your engaging in class warfare!

I'm not sure Cain's 9-9-9 plan would benefit all rich peopel. DOn't forget that the 9% sales tax applies to the purchase of new houses and new cars. So if you go out tomorrow and buy a $1.5 million house and a $75,000 car, that is almost a $150,000 tax bill your loking at. For that one year you buy the house and car in (since you don't buy houses and cars every year), your taxes under Cain's plan would be substantially higher than they currently are.

HousingWatcher says

So if you go out tomorrow and buy a $1.5 million house and a $75,000 car, that is almost a $150,000 tax bill your loking at. For that one year you buy the house and car in (since you don't buy houses and cars every year), your taxes under Cain's plan would be substantially higher than they currently are.

It's pretty well known that rich people spend a much smaller fraction of the wealth on PURCHASING than the "little people". Also there are all kinds of tricks Richie Rich knows that you don't. How about if that car isn't bought by them, but rather on lease to their LLC? In any case most of their real wealth is not used for consumption and is instead used to play circle-jerk rent-seeking games and is unmolested.

Vicente says

It's pretty well known that rich people spend a much smaller fraction of the wealth on PURCHASING than the "little people".

I think you mean income not wealth, as Tat said above the little people have no wealth ! All their income goes to basic survival expenditures. In many cases their net worth is negative.

Hey, at least they are paying social security and medicare taxes, so they won't be too much of a burden on society in their golden years. OF course, the dimbulbs on the right want to call it an entitlement and then take that away too.

MarsAttacks! says

People should pay SOMETHING for all that. I don't care if it is a minimum of $5 per annum or something like that.

You make no sense.

Poor people pay less into entitlement programs than they'll get paid out in their lifetime. What would be the point of making them pay some nominal amount?

The entire point of taxation IS wealth redistribution. We band together for the common good in order to improve overall society.

We do this not because it's "right" or any other such nonsense. We do it because it has a proven track record of making for a stronger economy, more peaceful society, and faster scientific advancement.

Wealth inequality leads to social unrest, period. Hungry people never have and never will just sit down and accept their lot in life.

When my neighbor's children are starving, my own children are in danger.

zzyzzx says

Blind assertion.

No it wasn't, you just cut out the supporting statement you dishonest clown-like person.

Spending is the problem because spending is at all time highs

Spending will always be at "all-time highs" since population is always growing:

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+population

Your argument is non-sensical.

This is not to say spending is not out of control, it is.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=328

However, it is going down relative to GDP.

Adding in spending per capita (red line):

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=32b

one sees the recent rise in spending, it is really quite something, jumping up over $2000 just during the recession.

But to understand the counter-cyclical spending, one must understand how we got into the mess in the first place.

This is my favorite chart for that:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=32e

blue line is private debt over GDP

red line is just federal debt over GDP.

The private economy started digging a deep debt hole in the late 1990s. and public spending was ramped up in the teeth of the private economic collapse to produce something of a soft landing.

Trillon-dollar deficits are still inconceivable to me, but here we are.

If you truly think spending is the problem, propose your significant cuts, I need the laugh.

zzyzzx says

Spending is the problem because spending is at all time highs.

Other than WWI and WWII, you mean.

And, of course, it's an anomaly caused by being in the middle of a recession. From 2001-2007 government spending was lower than it was during the previous decade, and yet in the previous decade we were on track to have surpluses.

Hey, what changed in 2001?

Kevin says

From 2001-2007 government spending was lower than it was during the previous decade

No it wasn't.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=32J

shows Bush took a $1.8T/yr spending rate and increased it to $3T/yr+.

That's where the surplus went, sorta.

And, really, the surplus was an artifact of increasing private sector debt leverage:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=32M

red line is private debt/gdp, blue line is federal debt/gdp.

ca 1997 the system went nuts.

Bellingham Bill says

No it wasn't.

Not in absolute dollars, no -- I was talking about relative to GDP (obviously government spending is much more than it was in 1939 if you look at absolute dollars)

It wasn't until late FY2007 / early 2008 that spending really jumped up.