patrick.net

HousingWatcher says

Income taxes today are lower than they were under Reagan, and yet Chris thinks taxes are too high.

I don't remember Reagan being a benchmark or being part of this conversation.

state says

ChrisLA says

private sector trickling down entire supply chain of businesses.

supply side/trick down economics has been disproven over and over and yet you still believe this.

Thats because I live this side of business. I don't care if someone wrote a fancy paper being a devils advocate, in reality supply side chain does trickle.

"in reality supply side chain does trickle."

And it has done a GREAT job hasn't it, with 9% unemployment, right?

What are the three branches of government?

a) executive, legislative, judicial - real answer.

c) bureaucratic, military, industry - more in line with todays reality.

ChrisLA says

What are the three branches of government?
a) executive, legislative, judicial - real answer.
c) bureaucratic, military, industry - more in line with todays reality.

Haha, yeah agreed.

I think though that I would put "corporate" rather than "industry". The word industry indicates that goods are actually being produced, and a lot of the financial/banking corporations do not actually produce anything.

thunderlips11 says

While I was thinking about this, I found a great movie about the MPAA, called “This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated”.

Check it out! It’s on Netflixx.

It is worth watching. No surprise that the MPAA has easier standards for the studios than the independents.

Thanks to such newer media players such as Netflix (patting themselves on the back) the MPAA and the studios are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

HousingWatcher says

“in reality supply side chain does trickle.”
And it has done a GREAT job hasn’t it, with 9% unemployment, right?

They take it out and we'll have a much higher unemployment. 9% although is high, could be a lot higher if government starts taxing us more and spending via unproductive endeavors.

The less money is in a private sector, and/or the less efficient the money is, the less the private sector will grow or even worth may shrink instead of grow (as of lately).

Cook County resident says

Thanks to such newer media players such as Netflix (patting themselves on the back) the MPAA and the studios are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

What's cool about the movie, in the credits it was partially financed and marketed by Netflixx.

It's a great service, and long overdue.

What's the point of a "poll test"? It's just another way to justify denying people their voting rights.

Excellent! Amazon should be taxed so California can fund our schools and much needed services. All big business need to pay their fair share.

shrekgrinch says

Economically, fascism’s main difference between socialism and capitalism via the vehicle of corporatism is thus: Ownership remains in private hands but is so heavily regulated & controlled by the State so that said ‘ownership’ could even be considered meaningless in the extreme.

That's incorrect. In a fascist state, the government does not regulate corporations. Instead, the government gives corporations the right to do whatever they please. Corporations have all the rights and the people are subservient to the corporations and function literally as a mere item on the income statement; that is, an expense that is to be minimized or eliminated altogether. In a fascist state, people have no rights and exist to obey orders from the corporation they work in. if you do not work, then you should be dead as you are not producing.

Since the corporations have all the rights, people are also subject to the whims and racism of the "management"/dictators. The "corporate culture" is extended out towards society.

It was Mussolini that coined the term "fascism". When reporters asked him what that word meant, he just said, "the corporate state".

IG Farbin, in Nazi Germany, was the largest corporation at the time. They produced the Zyklon B gas that was used in concentration camps.

shrekgrinch says

Fascists also are big on practicing autarky (or autarchy).

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

I think that North Korea is the only surviving modern example of an autarkic economy. The Japanese practiced it prior to the Meiji Restoration, I believe.

That's false. It merely reinforces the right-wing lie that fascism and socialism/communism are 2 sides of the same coin. Fascism and socialism/communism are separate and distinct and are polar opposites.

It's yet another stupid move by our legislature. If Amazon follows through with their threat (which I'd expect and hope any internet company should do to any org trying to regulate the interwebs) about 10,000 small business owners in our state will be screwed.

After that folks like myself will find another way around it.

We are like a boiling frog (although I guess maybe it's not true about the frogs).

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

For many right wingers, since 2000 or so, it's been starting to feel like a nice tranquil hot tub. Ahhhhhhh.

state says

maybe you should drive less???

It isn't joy rides. Office is 50 miles away.

I'm not in any position to move either. Downside of being stuck to to area.

shrekgrinch says

Again, why should they? They don’t get any government services that those who pay sales tax in California get from Sacramento/local governments.

been saying the same thing.

I think a lot of people just don't get the point of taxes. They are ok with being taxes just for the sake of being taxed. They forget why taxes are there in the first place.

Just because I do occasional business with people Washington does not mean I should pay Washington state taxes. Their police, firefighters, teachers, etc... aren't going to help me.

leoj707 says

ChrisLA says

What are the three branches of government?

a) executive, legislative, judicial - real answer.

c) bureaucratic, military, industry - more in line with todays reality.

Haha, yeah agreed.
I think though that I would put “corporate” rather than “industry”. The word industry indicates that goods are actually being produced, and a lot of the financial/banking corporations do not actually produce anything.
Cute Ganesha

Here is the other one:

Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as:

1) experts managing the nation’s commerce are appointed by elected officials - How our government works lately.

2) individual citizens create, exchange, and control goods and resources - What it should be.

shrekgrinch says

Mother Muckraker says
What’s the point of a “poll test”? It’s just another way to justify denying people their voting rights.
Given the number of uneducated morons voting, that’s a good thing.

I thought you liked to vote though Shrek?

But the latest slowdown signs, unwelcome as they are, point toward a bit of relief from the commodity scourge. Already we have seen indications that U.S. demand for gasoline has been softened by pump prices near $4 a gallon, with the MasterCard index of gasoline demand consistently showing 1% or so declines in recent months.

So far, pump prices have fallen less than half as much as the cost of the crude oil that gasoline is refined from, as producers run off existing stocks and keep an eye peeled for new supply shocks.

But if the U.S. economy keeps sputtering and the world can avoid another Middle East flare-up, it is likely that gasoline prices will weaken further – which could put a bit more cash in pocketbooks in the second half.

Thank I'll ratchet down to no more than $10 a pop at the pump.

Just two and a half measly Gallons each visit. I'm sure I can get these numbers do better.
Nobody deserves that much Profit off the Gas I put in my tank or the Oil the Arabs pull out of the ground, and only value at $30 a barrel. It's the Greedy ass fuckwads here in the states that think they are "ENTITLED" to it.

Burn baby Burn...

[TOT fanning the flames with the JOBS report just released today]
Stick around there will be marshmallows.

"9% although is high, could be a lot higher if government starts taxing us more and spending via unproductive endeavors."

You right. Thank goodness the unofficial U6 unemployment rate is not 16%. Thank goodness the govt. is not taxing the sh*t out of us or we woud certainly have 16% U6 unemployment. Oh wait, we have that now.

Peak unemployment during Eisenhower, when the top tax rate was 91%, was 7%. So yes, taxes destroy jobs. All hail supply side economics.

ChrisLA says

for me alone it costs around 500/month, my wife about half of that. ~40% of income is taxes, $750 on gas monthly. At this rate I haven’t bought anything yet or fed my family and already lost a huge chunk of my income. Lovely how this system works.

This is insane. Unless you in some very special circumstances (debris hauling business or something like that) , this can only mean you are driving too much, driving a very wrong kind of vehicle, driving extremely inefficiently, or maybe all three.

it was a different time. stagflation was running amok during Carters term. Tax code still had so many loopholes that you could make a million and pay less taxes than someone making 20,000. China and Europe wasn't kicking our butt either in manufacturing yet.

ChrisLA says

I’ve spent roughly 500 on gas last month. It is insane.

Why? How much did you pay for your car(s)? For insurance?

Or may be you think a piece of iron should cost more than the energy to operate it?

ChrisLA says

state says
It isn’t joy rides. Office is 50 miles away.
I’m not in any position to move either. Downside of being stuck to to area.

being stuck to to area. What's this? One can't allow to be stuck to an area.

ChrisLA says

we are doing the same. it is just insane how much it costs now. for me alone it costs around 500/month, my wife about half of that. ~40% of income is taxes, $750 on gas monthly. At this rate I haven’t bought anything yet or fed my family and already lost a huge chunk of my income. Lovely how this system works.

It makes no sense. 50mi to office is just 100 round trip. Assuming 22 business days it's 2200 miles a month. To burn $500 a month you need a dinosaur that makes 18mpg on freeway.

kc6zlv says

So how is California going to go about enforcing a California State Law on a business in another state?

This happens all the time now in inter-State commerce. Also this happens under reciprocal agreements between States who have State residents who work over state lines in another state.

Where I come from originally, Illinois, we were required by State Law to pay "the Illinois difference" when we bought something out of State. Does anyone actually do it? No. You have to keep receipts and you have to figure out how much you owe on your own. You report it on your Illinois Income Tax form and pay the difference. The only time this really got enforced, in my experience, was on big purchases like a car. In Illinois, what mattered most was that you are an Illinois Resident and as an Illinois Resident you are subject to Illinois sales taxes wherever you purchase anything. The neighboring states usually had lower sales taxes (not by much). So Illinois figured that enforcement was much too expensive on small ticket items when you are talking about a 1% difference.

The law already exists that if you are a resident of the State where the online company is located, you must pay your sales tax to your State. Many sites already charge sales taxes for all States. Amazon doesn't. Now they will be forced to do this as more States get wise to the sales tax revenues that they are missing as commerce continues to grow online and shrink in real physical brick and mortar stores.

I don't see the problem here. Once this becomes a universal practice, there won't be any cost disadvantage. As a resident of the State of California you are already legally obligated to pay your sales tax, and I believe you are, even if you buy something from out of State. If I'm not mistaken, the Franchise Tax Board already has a form to submit with your State Income Taxes for this express purpose.

If Amazon and all the other online stores collected the sales tax for us, it would be much easier to comply with the current law as it is. This would be a service to the customer. And it would recoup the sales taxes lost because online retailers are causing physical real brick and mortar stores to close at an increasing rate and commerce is happening online more and more.

Right now Amazon and the rest have an unfair price advantage over the physical brick and mortar stores that must collect sales tax. That's one reason for the huge move of commerce from physical stores to online stores. Many things are cheaper online if you eliminate sales tax. Why should Amazon or any online store continue to enjoy an unfair price advantage? They are competing with the physical brick and mortar stores. Aren't the wing nuts around here supposed to be all for "competition" as the solution to every economic problem? Oh, that's right. Competition is the solution only if you can get an unfair tax or price advantage by moving your business out of State or out of the country. I keep forgetting about that.

Stop whining. Those of us who shop online have been tax dodging for years. This was going to happen eventually once government caught up with the technology.

Taxpayer says

If you go to eat a burger, your bill doesn’t depend on your income. Asking people to pay 3% of their income towards SS is like saying your burger cost is 3 % of your daily income. Some people will be asked to pay $3 and some people will be asked to pay $300 - to eat the same burger. Makes no sense at all.

Buying burgers and paying taxes are two different transactions, last time I checked. Both transactions have different rules and laws applied to them.

Purchases of items customarily carry a flat price that everyone pays.

Taxes can be levied paid in percentage of value, price, income, etc. or a flat fee per transaction. This is the way it's always been throughout history, when a civilization had mathematics that included both fractional and interger operations.

The argument you make is null.

sarcasm

thunderlips11 says

Since the official title for the NSDAP was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, therefore the Nazis must have been Socialist in the same vein as a French or Swedish party with the word “Social” or “Socialism” was Socialist!

So are the following political parties actually "Christian" by virtue of their names?

Christian Democratic Union, Armenia
Belarusian Christian Democracy, Belarus
Federal Christian Democrats, Belgium
Bulgarian Christian Coalition, Bulgaria
Estonian Christian Democrats, Estonia
Christian-Democratic Movement, Georgia (The country, not the State)
Party of Bible-abiding Christians, Germany
Christian Democratic Union, Germany
Christian Democratic Union, Latvia
Lithuanian Christian Democrats, Lithuania
Christian-Democratic People's Party, Moldova (Oh noes! A Commie Christian political party! Say it ain't so!)
ChristianUnion, Switzerland
Christian-Democratic National Peasants' Party, Romania (Peasants can form a political party? Not in my America!)
Christian Democratic Union, Ukraine
Christian Peoples Alliance, UK

???

I don't know how this can be true because so many of those political party names have the name "Democratic" or "Democrats" in them. We all know that the Democratic Party and the Democrats are Satanic and definitely not Christian, don't we?

/sarcasm

thunderlips11 says

Yep, my sarcasm button was on. Previous post amended.

Me too. And, me too. :-)

Taxpayer says

That is also why 2 of the biggest govt expenditures (medicare , SS) are for the benefit of the poor (votebank).

Um, no... They benefit not just the poor but also the middle class. Or at least they benefit what was the middle class that is sliding into a class called "the working poor."

Taxpayer says

Everyone should pay the proportionate cost according to their benefits.

That's how it works now for at least two kinds of government run insurance programs. We pay a percentage in unemployment insurance and social security insurance based on our incomes. When we go to collect unemployment benefits and social security benefits, our benefit payments are based on a percentage of our incomes directly proportional to what we paid as a percentage of our incomes.

Medicare Insurance is an exception.

Taxpayer says

Your health insurance doesn’t depend on your income.

Not necessarily true if you try to buy individual private health insurance. And it isn't necessarily true for employer sponsored health insurance.

Individual private health insurance premiums fluctuate by geographic region and even by credit score besides the health and age of the individual. Credit score is somewhat connected to income. And premiums are charged per individual case on various factors that don't necessarily include the condition of one's body.

Employer sponsored health insurance benefits and premiums can be based on income. Many employers have tiered health insurance plans. If you are a worker bee, you have the tier selected for the worker bees. If you are a middle level manager, you have the tier selected for middle level managers. If you are in upper management, you have the tier selected for upper level managers. If you are CEO, then you may be in a class all by yourself. We all know that the higher up you are on the flow chart of a workplace, the more income you have. Therefore, those who earn the most pay be paying less for better benefits because they get the platinum packages that the plebs who are worker bees can't access.

Similarly, employers often have tiered retirement plans. They are based on your position. Pay and therefore income is also based on your position. Usually the higher on the flow chart, the higher the pay/income, the better the retirement plan, the larger the payments into the retirement plan, etc.

Taxpayer says

The closest analogy to SS is health insurance.

Social Security Insurance is vastly different to health insurance. These are apples and oranges. To compare the two is meaningless.

Taxpayer says

Anyway, discussing about taxes is a distraction.

No, it's not. Instead of insurance premiums, we pay taxes for government run insurance plans. In the governmental sector taxes are our premiums. Premiums and taxes are not directly comparable either. To compare the two are almost meaningless.

"That is also why 2 of the biggest govt expenditures (medicare , SS) are for the benefit of the poor (votebank)."

Um, no. Medicare and SS go to everyone regardless of income. Warren Buffett gets a SS check and Medicare. The only entitlement that is only for the poor is Medicaid.

What kind of car do you drive Chris? Is this your car?

Good thing there is no poll test or else Republicans like John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, and Hermain Cain would not be allowed to vote!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/Boehner_mixes_up_Constitution_and_Declaration.html

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/05/31/232419/herman-cain-bakruptcy/

"I am also never going to needs SS or medicare"

You don't plan on seeking health care when your older? Your going to take out the check book and pay for a hip replacement or even a $10,000 a month nursing home?

Taxpayer says

I am also never going to needs SS or medicare; even though I am being forced to pay into it.

OK, so either you are a trust fund baby or you are from a family that can provide you with millions in inheritance.

Or, you plan on being in the top 1% through some sort of combination of luck and "hard work." (Lottery, being in the right place/business at the right time, bumping into someone in the top 1% who takes an interest in you, becoming the next Britney Spears, becoming the next Oprah, becoming the next Michael Jordan, etc.) Good luck with that.

The biggest problem that conservatives who aren't rich have is that they believe that, "I will never need Social Security Insurance, Medicare Insurance, or Unemployment Insurance, and we shouldn't tax the rich because I'm gonna be rich some day too." Again, good luck with that. We all can't be in the top 1%. That's why its called, "the top 1%," or "filthy stinkin' rich." In order for there to be a top 1% there has to be a bottom 99%.

And, if you aren't already in that top 1% or won't have made it there when your parents are old and infirm, and your parents aren't in that top 1% or won't have made it there when they are old and infirm, and there wasn't Medicare or Social Security Insurance, who would be supporting your parents? If you care about your parents, it would be you. That's how it was "back in the good old days." And if you and your siblings die before your parents become old, sick, and disabled or if you and your siblings don't care about your parents, they will be living in the streets under tarps eating out of dumpsters just like "in the good old days." If Social Security and Medicare were gone and you all aren't in that top 1% and you chose to take in your parents to care for them, do you think that you'd actually have enough money, time, and resources to provide for all of their needs?

If you are already in the top 1% or it's a slam dunk that you will inherit to be in the top 1% then you can ignore everything I've talked about.

If the last sentence doesn't apply to you and you ignore what I've talked about then you're delusional.

michaelsch says

It makes no sense. 50mi to office is just 100 round trip. Assuming 22 business days it’s 2200 miles a month. To burn $500 a month you need a dinosaur that makes 18mpg on freeway.

Seems reasonable when you factor in all the costs, not just gas. IRS allows deducting a bit over $0.50/mile for business travel(*) in a personal vehicle => $1100/month. Last time I looked (about 15 years ago) TCO for the typical American car was around $4000-5000/year and it's gone up since then (see e.g. TCO for a 2010 Honda Accord).

(*) "business travel" does not include commuting, alas.

Taxpayer says

In the above paragraph, you have basically admitted that non-wealthy people get more from the govt than what they put into it.

Show me word for word where I've written such an admission in those exact words anywhere on the Internet let alone on patrick.net. That's right, you can't, because I never said any such nonsense. The rich, by far, use more government services than anyone else. They tie up the courts with endless lawsuits, they use more infrastructure than anyone else, corporate welfare, etc, etc, etc...

Taxpayer says

That is a different debate than whether the wealthy pay their fair share or not.

And yet you can't resist bringing it up in just about every post you have ever made. All of which happen to be in this thread, interesting.

Taxpayer says

I am not in the top 1%, but in my early 30s with a household income of 500k.

Clearly you are delusional. You are in the top 1%. See here: Household income in the U.S. The chart with that title shows that in 2003 98.3% of American households, not individuals, earned less than $250K that year.

Since then we have had a major recession. Surely your position in the top 1% is even more secure in 2011.

Now I know exactly why you have just started to post, have only posted in this thread, and have posted almost nothing but whiney comments about how over-taxed rich people are and how the poor and unwashed mistreat the unfortunate rich like this:

Taxpayer says

So you are saying that that just because you may not have enough money for fulfilling all your needs; it is fair to get that extra money from the wealthy.

Cry me a river, you poor over-taxed pathetic thing.

Again, show me word for word where I've written this.

You have no credibility here.

Just curious, how many of these jobs did you create?

ChrisLA says

I think a lot of people just don’t get the point of taxes. They are ok with being taxes just for the sake of being taxed.

No, what they are okay with is taxes for the common good. For things like health care for all (really just for distributing it in an efficient and equitable way ). What they are okay with is paying for public services for all and for economic opportunities for poor and middle class citizens to better themselves and their situation. What they aren't for is the selfish "I've got mine" (or is it we've got ours - if you know what I mean)) attitude or the fearful "ahhhhhhh, the non whites are taking over!!" We believe that government can work for things other than the subsidizing the military industrial complex, and corporate welfare, and paying for tax breaks for the super rich.

Really I can only speak for myself, but I think most of the people in the category you interpret as "They are ok with being taxes just for the sake of being taxed." probably think along a similar lines. Many also are aware that taxes have never been so low, on high incomes, while the govt has never run such deficits, while the income inequality has never been so great.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Chris if you are feeling open minded (I know, I know) you might want to read this.
http://robertreich.org/post/5993482080?source=patrick.net

Although I know, there's way too much truth there for you to even get through it.

(it was a link of Patricks from a couple days ago)