astro716: o5iiawah: 12349876: /we need massive tax increases and massive spending reductions

The budget is appx:

40% social programs & interest on the debt
25% departments of such and such
20% military industrial complex
15% Highway projects, pork spending, park rangers, research grants, etc.

The democrats will only even think of cutting defense which a libertarian like myself can get behind but you can only fire so many park rangers before you start having to push grandma off a cliff and cast the proverbial autistic kids out into the streets. Massive tax rates have historically been used to pay for various war debts and I would support a tax increase that would help pay for the war efforts. Maybe people would then wake up and realize that we dont prosper as a nation with 850+ military bases around the world.

The elephant in the room is the ever expanding 40% of our budget. The fact is there wont be any medicare, medicaid or SS for anyone if the programs arent reformed to be made solvent.

Only SS is very nearly solvent, and SS excess is safely invested in US treasuries, which appears as "debt." Health care costs are the elephant in the room, and would be addressed with single-payer.

It is debt....

astro716: *sigh*

another Laffer curve post, another excuse to post this gem:

[economistsview.typepad.com image 295x359]

But then who DOESN'T want to live in the United Arab Emirates!

o5iiawah: Headso: o5iiawah: The only reason we tax the rich is because there arent enough of them to object to it and because "we can" they own over 40% of the wealth in the nation

accuratized

is it your wealth or theirs?

You said "The only reason we tax the rich is because there arent enough of them". That statement is untrue. Not sure what your question means, can you rephrase it?

Mrtraveler01: Headso: o5iiawah: The only reason we tax the rich is because there arent enough of them to object to it and because "we can" they own over 40% of the wealth in the nation

accuratized

I'm offering him a visual representation of this in case he has a hard time understanding the concept.

[media.theunderstatement.com image 461x693]

So because they have wealth, you feel you have a right to it. In other words, Because you can.

o5iiawah: is it your wealth or theirs?

No man is an island, dumbfark. I hate having to trot this out every time, but here we go again--

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

A nicely-worded summation, by some guy you might not have heard of, Ben Franklin.

Snarfangel
What rate maximizes GDP? Perhaps we should shoot for that.

Agreed. The trillion dollar question is.....do we want this country to run like a successful business or a 1st grade basketball team at the YMCA.

tenpoundsofcheese: why? 0bama took every opportunity to pay less taxes. He didn't have to give his kids that money tax free. Or is 0bama a hardship case?

since when is economic policy based on people's personal hardship or duress?

I could give a flying fark what Obama pays. He follow the Tax Code. And I support changing the Tax Code. If Obama pays more, well that's just dandy.

And, since you brought it up, when is economic policy based on what rich people think is fair? They profited, they pay.

Mrtraveler01: Headso: o5iiawah: The only reason we tax the rich is because there arent enough of them to object to it and because "we can" they own over 40% of the wealth in the nation

accuratized

I'm offering him a visual representation of this in case he has a hard time understanding the concept.

[media.theunderstatement.com image 461x693]

this is classic.

People primarily accumulate that level of wealth through stock, not salary.
The lower capital gains tax resulted in more wealth being retained...but it also resulted in the government collecting more money.
Even Clinton recognized that when he lowered the cap gain rate from %28 to 20%.

When 0bama was faced with those facts his answer repeatedly was "it isn't fair"...even though it meant the government gets more money with the lower cap gains tax rate.

MFL: .do we want this country to run like a successful business

uh oh, someone who thinks the government has the luxury of only taking on profitable endeavors.

Mrtraveler01: o5iiawah: Mrtraveler01: Headso: o5iiawah: The only reason we tax the rich is because there arent enough of them to object to it and because "we can" they own over 40% of the wealth in the nation

accuratized

I'm offering him a visual representation of this in case he has a hard time understanding the concept.

[media.theunderstatement.com image 461x693]

So because they have wealth, you feel you have a right to it. In other words, Because you can.

No.

That's just an explanation on all the times the people are biatching about why the rich pay the most in taxes.



oh look, once again you show that you don't know the difference between wealth and income.

o5iiawah: So because they have wealth, you feel you have a right to it. In other words, Because you can.

No, dumbshiat, they have wealth not because they mined the ore, purified the gold, smelted it into bullion, minted it into coins and tossed it to the poor lazy poors, they have wealth because they live in one of the most amazing societies for personal betterment in the history of the world. There are 300 million people involved with their wealth, and the least they can do is contribute to the society that gave them that benefit.

Headso: You said "The only reason we tax the rich is because there arent enough of them". That statement is untrue. Not sure what your question means, can you rephrase it?

It is easy for the 99% to claim ownership of what the 1% has. The mob will always vote to tear down the house on the hill. They have the assets, they are few in number so they make easy targets.

MFL: Snarfangel
What rate maximizes GDP? Perhaps we should shoot for that.

Agreed. The trillion dollar question is.....do we want this country to run like a successful business or a 1st grade basketball team at the YMCA.

according to 0bama he wants "fair", not maximized revenue for the government.

MFL: do we want this country to run like a successful business

You try running a court of law like a business. Go on, try.

It can't be done, dumbfark. That's why government exists. Some things private industry and the profit motive can't or won't do.

o5iiawah: Headso: o5iiawah: The only reason we tax the rich is because there arent enough of them to object to it and because "we can" they own over 40% of the wealth in the nation

accuratized

is it your wealth or theirs?

Currently theirs. So they can pay the lion's share of the costs of the government that keeps it theirs.

Mrtraveler01: \
The thing that ticks me off is when those pundits are crying and asking "why does the rich pay the most in taxes" well my response is "because they have most of the wealth in the US dumbass!"


uhh, it is called an INCOME tax, not a WEALTH tax.
No wonder you are ticked off. You don't understand the basic concept.

theorellior: o5iiawah: So because they have wealth, you feel you have a right to it. In other words, Because you can.

No, dumbshiat, they have wealth not because they mined the ore, purified the gold, smelted it into bullion, minted it into coins and tossed it to the poor lazy poors, they have wealth because they live in one of the most amazing societies for personal betterment in the history of the world. There are 300 million people involved with their wealth, and the least they can do is contribute to the society that gave them that benefit.

Some of them are just lucky offspring, but yeah.

o5iiawah: They have the assets

yeah... you own more ya pay more, anyone with a home or 2 knows that.

o5iiawah: It is easy for the 99% to claim ownership of what the 1% has. The mob will always vote to tear down the house on the hill. They have the assets, they are few in number so they make easy targets.

What's your point? Should I care? Why should I care about the residents of the house on the hill if they've done nothing but shiat on the people who clean their toilets, caulk their tile and drive their cars? Maybe they should feel a little threatened by all the little people out there, if that's how they fell about them--LITTLE PEOPLE.

o5iiawah: It is easy for the 99% to claim ownership of what the 1% has. The mob will always vote to tear down the house on the hill. They have the assets, they are few in number so they make easy targets.

Also, would the rich prefer to pay for police and schools to keep the poors from rising up, or would they prefer to pay for a private army to try and shoot those poors when they try to burn the place down? there's always the chance that the poors will win and the house will go up in flames.

theorellior: o5iiawah: So because they have wealth, you feel you have a right to it. In other words, Because you can.

No, dumbshiat, they have wealth not because they mined the ore, purified the gold, smelted it into bullion, minted it into coins and tossed it to the poor lazy poors, they have wealth because they live in one of the most amazing societies for personal betterment in the history of the world. There are 300 million people involved with their wealth, and the least they can do is contribute to the society that gave them that benefit.

They do.
They pay their taxes.
And, as a group, they pay a huge amount of the overall taxes.
And they make products you like, like an iphone or a movie or a baseball game or a show on Oprah's new network instead of just sitting around counting their money.
and yes, when they do that, jobs are created.

dahmers love zombie: /and probably Muslim

BTW one of the first people to suggest what we call the Laffer curve was Ibn Khaldun a Muslim scholar in the 1300s. Oh and Laffer thinks calling it the Laffer curve is dumb, it should be called the Khaldun curve. Oh and the first modern economist to really work out the idea of what the curve express, Keynes.

theorellior: there's always the chance that the poors will win and the house will go up in flames.

There is the same chance of that occuring with police or with a private army.

tricycleracer: Geotpf: tricycleracer: whidbey: Actually in the 50s, we still had a 40 hour work week, ordinary people made less and could buy more. You know: cars, houses, stuff.

Not so much now.

Single-income, 2 kids and you had 2 cars, a house, and family vacations. But it's better now because our TVs are bigger. That's what FoxNews tells me.

Few middle income families in the 1950's had two cars (and said cars were worse in every way than modern ones (safety, features, fuel economy, top speed, acceleration, handling, reliability, pollution emitted) except possibly styling). In fact, a lot of people had zero cars. That's not to say that nobody owned two cars, but that the average middle income family did not.

Their houses were (again, on average) much smaller as well, and were less likely to have things like air condintioning, or even electricity or indoor plumbing (most had both, but a fair number lacked one or the other).

Life is much better for every income group since the 1950's, it's just more better for rich people.

You can make this argument about any two time periods. Exploited Gilded Age workers should thank their lucky stars that they aren't being thrown to lions in the Coliseum and thus should STFU and GBTW.

The only point worth discussing is your last point.

My point here is that saying "life is worse for the poor (or middle class) now than it was in the (1970's, 1950's, whenever)" is a false statement. Don't make that statement, or even infer it, since it's simply wrong.

I am certainly in favor of using tax (and government spending) policies to reduce the Gini coefficient (difference between the rich and poor) in the United States, which has been increasing.

tenpoundsofcheese: And they make products you like, like an iphone or a movie or a baseball game or a show on Oprah's new network instead of just sitting around counting their money.

And to allow the customer class to buy their shiat they have to pay for things like social services. The 1% of wealth holders are not going to buy 20,000 iphones each.

tenpoundsofcheese: And they make products you like, like an iphone or a movie or a baseball game or a show on Oprah's new network instead of just sitting around counting their money.

Actually rich people don't do that, last I checked the engineers that design cell phones aren't particularly rich, nor are cameramen or key grips.

o5iiawah: It is easy for the 99% to claim ownership of what the 1% has.

Actually more wealth is held by institutional investments eg pension funds, than by private individuals. Also, no matter how much you suck up, they won't acknowledge your existence.

See the chart on the left side? If the chart on the right side were the same, we wouldn't be having the debt and deficit issues we're having now. Also the economy would be a fark ton bigger. And spending on many social programs would be a lot less. And really the only way to fix things, is to make the present proceed like the left chart.

Mrtraveler01: theorellior: o5iiawah: is it your wealth or theirs?

No man is an island, dumbfark. I hate having to trot this out every time, but here we go again--

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

A nicely-worded summation, by some guy you might not have heard of, Ben Franklin.

The thing that ticks me off is when those pundits are crying and asking "why does the rich pay the most in taxes" well my response is "because they have most of the wealth in the US dumbass!"

I'm so sick of hearing people complain that the rich are unfairly treated in this country.

Again, your arguments are that the rich are compelled to pay because they have the means to do so.

As far as Random quotes go which somehow contribute to your pathetic argument, I'll circle back around with another Ben:

But what madness must it be to run in debt for these superfluities! We are offered, by the terms of this vendue, six months' credit; and that perhaps has induced some of us to attend it, because we cannot spare the ready money, and hope now to be fine without it. But, ah, think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.

If you have a hard on for the property of others, does it not also sicken you that we run massive debts?

tenpoundsofcheese: And they make products you like, like an iphone or a movie or a baseball game or a show on Oprah's new network instead of just sitting around counting their money.

No they don't. They may provide some funding, but not a single one of them actually codes for iOS, throws a curveball, mows the field, rigs the lighting, runs the cameras, writes the script or plans the marketing on their own. There's a place for all of these people, and all of these people should be paid accordingly, but not a single one of them can point to the final product and say "This happened because of me and me alone." And where else are these rich farks gonna get a talent pool as deep and wide for these things than in the United states of Farking America? Have some farking patriotism, man, and have these people pay into the system that made them so rich.

And once a person makes enough money to provide a decent income and retirement for himself, his family and his heirs for three generations or more, I think it's somewhat logical to call that wealth a surplus generated by society and tax it accordingly.

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: MFL: Snarfangel
What rate maximizes GDP? Perhaps we should shoot for that.

Agreed. The trillion dollar question is.....do we want this country to run like a successful business or a 1st grade basketball team at the YMCA.

according to 0bama he wants "fair", not maximized revenue for the government.

Clearly cutting taxes is the sure fire way to raise revenue!!!

/sarcasm

There clearly is a point when cutting taxes raises revenue. If taxes were 100%, or even close to that, nobody would work (on the books at least). The idea of the Laffer Curve is clearly perfectly valid.

The argument is it's shape and the exact numbers.

I agree with the headline that a maximum tax rate of 50-70% on rich people is probably as high as you should go, and I'm factoring in all taxes (state and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc.) in that figure. Also, for simple fairness, rates above 50% seem punitive, even for the extreme rich.

Thing is, many extreme rich pay 15% or less of their income in (total) taxes (including sales and income taxes, etc.). That's way too low.

Saiga410: theorellior: there's always the chance that the poors will win and the house will go up in flames.

There is the same chance of that occuring with police or with a private army.

False. People are far less likely to fight against what they see as a legitimate authority that some guy that rich guy paid. It's why unions only became effective when the government stopped siding with the factory owners.

Headso: And to allow the customer class to buy their shiat they have to pay for things like social services.

Why? This assumes a finite money supply and also that one person holding a piece of paper that is valued at a certain rate (stocks bond titles) makes for less moeny in the economy as a whole.

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: And they make products you like, like an iphone or a movie or a baseball game or a show on Oprah's new network instead of just sitting around counting their money.

Actually rich people don't do that, last I checked the engineers that design cell phones aren't particularly rich, nor are cameramen or key grips.

oh, and who finances all that? who makes it possible? who gives them jobs while the phones are being built and the movies are being made? Poor people?

o5iiawah: Again, your arguments are that the rich are compelled to pay because they have the means to do so.

How is it good for the economy to have poor and middle class people without discretionary income so the wealthy can have a tax break?

Saiga410: theorellior: there's always the chance that the poors will win and the house will go up in flames.

There is the same chance of that occuring with police or with a private army.

Seriously? A population with a civilian police force and an educated population paid for out of the taxes of the rich is much less likely to dissolve into chaos than a quasi-feudal society consisting of the rich, their private retainers, and an army of resentful peons.

o5iiawah: If you have a hard on for the property of others, does it not also sicken you that we run massive debts?

No one is taking anyone's property.

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: \
The thing that ticks me off is when those pundits are crying and asking "why does the rich pay the most in taxes" well my response is "because they have most of the wealth in the US dumbass!"


uhh, it is called an INCOME tax, not a WEALTH tax.
No wonder you are ticked off. You don't understand the basic concept.

Let's have a wealth tax then! Institute the Tenpoundsofcheese Rule!

theorellior: tenpoundsofcheese: And they make products you like, like an iphone or a movie or a baseball game or a show on Oprah's new network instead of just sitting around counting their money.

No they don't. They may provide some funding, but not a single one of them actually codes for iOS, throws a curveball, mows the field, rigs the lighting, runs the cameras, writes the script or plans the marketing on their own. There's a place for all of these people, and all of these people should be paid accordingly, but not a single one of them can point to the final product and say "This happened because of me and me alone." And where else are these rich farks gonna get a talent pool as deep and wide for these things than in the United states of Farking America? Have some farking patriotism, man, and have these people pay into the system that made them so rich.

And once a person makes enough money to provide a decent income and retirement for himself, his family and his heirs for three generations or more, I think it's somewhat logical to call that wealth a surplus generated by society and tax it accordingly.

I dunno. The founders of places like Google or Facebook, or places like HP in earlier years, did invent stuff, and they did get rich for it. True, this doesn't apply much beyond very successful start ups.

WhyteRaven74: Actually rich people don't do that, last I checked the engineers that design cell phones aren't particularly rich, nor are cameramen or key grips.

The lay engineer has not the means to produce hundreds of thousands of iphones in his garage so he requires the means of industry which have been purchased by the capitalist.

Saiga410: Headso: And to allow the customer class to buy their shiat they have to pay for things like social services.

Why? This assumes a finite money supply and also that one person holding a piece of paper that is valued at a certain rate (stocks bond titles) makes for less moeny in the economy as a whole.

It does because the very wealthy don't move their money through the economy at the same rate as the poor and middle class.

tenpoundsofcheese: oh, and who finances all that? who makes it possible? who gives them jobs while the phones are being built and the movies are being made? Poor people?

Nobody "gives" them jobs. And you don't need to be wealthy to create those jobs, either. More jobs are directly created by middle-class entrepreneurs than all of the farking 1% put together.