If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Applying GOP logic to Obama "taking credit away from the SEALS", how dare Eisenhower take credit for D-Day, Patton for winning the Battle of the Bulge, and that pesky MacArthur for taking back the Philippines   (edition.cnn.com) divider line 689
    More: Asinine, obama, Battle of the Bulge, human beings, MacArthur, GOP, D-Day, Eisenhower, Osama bin Laden  
•       •       •

2744 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



689 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-30 05:49:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Every state - and even a local jurisdiction or three - makes its own policy with respect to public assistance. Here is way way to look those policies up, "asshole."


Have a look at page 321, dumdum

demaL-demaL-yeH: They do pay exactly what you do


yes, in nominal terms. I understand your desire to speak in nominal terms. Understanding that nominal terms do not give an accurate picture of relative levels of wealth and standards of living requires a capacity for thought which is still beyond your grasp.

demaL-demaL-yeH: It is a means to one end: Receiving a subsidy based on your address - something you chose - you "selfish putz."


asking that all people of the same level of real purchasing power bear the burden equitably is hardly a subsidy. Keep it up though, if you continually repeat it and click your heels three times, you'll still be a barely sentient meatball.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Same drill as before: Look into a mirror and repeat it to yourself until it sinks in. I know you are but what am I


truly
 
2012-04-30 05:49:24 PM  

heap: what we really need is some good abortion, religion, and birth certificate issues up in this bizzy


A Romney/Obama/OBL/Pakistan thread could hit all those a lot easier than just blah blah rich people job creators blah.
 
2012-04-30 05:51:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin:
My over-arching point here being that annual taxable income level should not be the sole criteria for determining who "the rich" are.


IT ISN'T. IT'S GROSS INCOME LESS DEDUCTIONS. AND FURTHERMORE WAGE EARNERS AT 250K GET A HUGE TAX BREAK IN SSA PAYROLL TAX THAT THOSE UNDER 110k DO NOT.

Good lord, you are either obtuse or completely dense. People who earn over 250k don't get some "RICH GUY!" tag beside there name - it's just a break point on our progressive system of taxation. They have to occur "somewhere". I just can't get my head around your fantasy of 250k per annum workers struggling to get by with an onerous burden of a 3.8% higher tax rate that applies ONLY to investment income. If anything, it helps equalize in a small way the SSA disparity.
 
2012-04-30 05:51:57 PM  

s2s2s2: heap: that will be $12,405, please.

$24,810 if you don't have insurance.

FTFY

Weren't we supposed to be discussing why the Republicans are butthurt that the Commander in Chief got us out of a war and ordered the successful elimination of a bunch of terrorists, including Public Enemy #1 (a task "their" guy failed miserably)?
 
2012-04-30 05:52:38 PM  

Somacandra: heap: what we really need is some good abortion, religion, and birth certificate issues up in this bizzy

A Romney/Obama/OBL/Pakistan thread could hit all those a lot easier than just blah blah rich people job creators blah.


that said, this is at least hypothetically a romney/obama/obl/pakistan thread - can you take it somewhere more interesting than dickpizza?
 
2012-04-30 05:53:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Except that the correlation is loose and imperfect. Too subject to capricious and arbitrary variations based on market fluctuations and local governance issue, and various uncontrollable factors that make THIS city more expensive to live in than THAT city. You can't build a usable federal tax system on something like that. You can't predict it year to year, and businesses can;t predict it either. And Let's not get into the issue of what happens when Bob moves from San Fransisco 4 months into the year to go to Phoenix and which rate prevails or how it is blended?


it doesn't have to be perfect. We say there are 2 brackets. 25% and 50%. Everything under $50k PPP is taxed at 25%. Everything over is taxed at 50%. Whether through a sliding scale or deduction allowances, we can achieve an approximation that allows for everyone to be sharing the burden roughly in equal fashion with everyone else who enjoys the same standard of living.

4 months of the year was in SF. Earnings for the 8 months in Phoenix are taxed at the different scale. Hardly insurmountable especially considering what we already have.

BojanglesPaladin: Becasue All in all it's just a bad idea. As a responsible adult, you just need to take the costs and taxes into account when accepting a position in a certain area and balance it against salary and cost and location. It cannot be the Federal government's responsibility to protect you against "too high" cost of living caused by your local governments.


FFS, it's not about the government protecting you from cost of living differences. You still have to pay for where you live. It's about the government taking from you what they take from everyone else. Measuring this in nominal dollars achieves this only in the most superficial of ways.
 
2012-04-30 05:53:53 PM  

skullkrusher: you managed to grasp the fact that real buying power is a function of both income and the cost of living in your area. Next step is to realize our that federal income tax system removes one very important half of that equation.


Or more correctly, The variances in CoL remove one very important half of that equation.

If Federal Taxes and Col both remained 100% constant there would be no issue.

But as we can all see, while Fedeal Income tax remains static across the citizenry regardless of location, the local Cost of Living DOES fluctuate. Frequently. And while A citizen's Fderal Income tax remains constant regardless of where the citizen might move to, the Cost of Living fluctuates frequently based on where the citizen moves.

You are trying to move the wrong end of the lever. The fulcrum is at the local level where Cost of Living is in flux. Not in Federal Taxes where it is static. You are trying to make BOTH sides variable, and this would make the system even LESS reliable and predictable.

Do you understand? I think we all agree that taxes might be more "painfull" to someone trying to scrape by in Manhatten than someone living large in Idaho, but the fix is not where you think it is.
 
2012-04-30 05:55:08 PM  

Paul Baumer: The marginal top tax rate has declined during this time, The capital gains tax rate has declined during this time.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-30 05:57:29 PM  

Somacandra:

[i.imgur.com image 640x503]


whenitstrikesme.com
 
2012-04-30 05:58:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: You are trying to move the wrong end of the lever. The fulcrum is at the local level where Cost of Living is in flux. Not in Federal Taxes where it is static. You are trying to make BOTH sides variable, and this would make the system even LESS reliable and predictable.


Exactly. Can we now get back on-topic? ... or move on to gay pakistani abortions or something?
 
2012-04-30 05:59:13 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Or more correctly, The variances in CoL remove one very important half of that equation.

If Federal Taxes and Col both remained 100% constant there would be no issue.

But as we can all see, while Fedeal Income tax remains static across the citizenry regardless of location, the local Cost of Living DOES fluctuate. Frequently. And while A citizen's Fderal Income tax remains constant regardless of where the citizen might move to, the Cost of Living fluctuates frequently based on where the citizen moves.


I really don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes, CoL differs from place to place. Yes, federal income tax brackets are the same from place to place. This places an unequitable burden on people who live in higher CoL areas relative to people who have the same standard of living in lower CoL areas. I would like to see this changed and the change used for all federal benchmarks.

BojanglesPaladin: You are trying to move the wrong end of the lever. The fulcrum is at the local level where Cost of Living is in flux. Not in Federal Taxes where it is static. You are trying to make BOTH sides variable, and this would make the system even LESS reliable and predictable.


I really think you are making this sound a lot more difficult and complex than it would have to be.
 
2012-04-30 05:59:41 PM  

s2s2s2: They also get credit for all the innocents they killed. How's that tally coming along?


I have no idea. I'm sure it will be a huge issue with the GOP this election cycle.
 
2012-04-30 06:01:54 PM  

dugitman: Can we now get back on-topic?


the original topic sucked. it's proven, with science and everything. no one could even troll half that conversation, it's so deluded.

now about these gay pakistani abortions...would a birth certificate be involved in any fashion?
 
2012-04-30 06:02:09 PM  

heap: ok, i give a 'bring a friend' abortion coupon, but that's almost the same thing.


Just send em to the Bird o' Prey and have em order one of these:
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-30 06:03:07 PM  

Fart_Machine: I have no idea. I'm sure it will be a huge issue with the GOP this election cycle.


They only count the unborn soldiers!
 
2012-04-30 06:03:16 PM  

heap: now about these gay pakistani abortions...would a birth certificate be involved in any fashion?


That depends. When do you think life begins?
 
2012-04-30 06:03:18 PM  

Paul Baumer: I just can't get my head around your fantasy of 250k per annum workers struggling to get by with an onerous burden of a 3.8% higher tax rate that applies ONLY to investment income.


Ah. You think I am objecting to some specific piece of tax code proposal? Not

I'm not I am objecting to the arbitrary use of "anyone earning over $250K is rich" mindset that has been the de facto standard for "The Rich" since Obama began his run for office in 2008 and has now inexplicably become the threshold for any new taxes on "the rich" across the board. That's all.
 
2012-04-30 06:03:54 PM  

s2s2s2: Just send em to the Bird o' Prey and have em order one of these:


i offer a similar 'woops, fell down the stairs' budget option. 'kicked in the stomach by skinhead' is a premium, however.
 
2012-04-30 06:04:33 PM  

dugitman: heap: now about these gay pakistani abortions...would a birth certificate be involved in any fashion?

That depends. When do you think life begins?


when i close the browser.
 
2012-04-30 06:04:40 PM  

heap: 'kicked in the stomach by skinhead' is a premium, however.


Steel toe boots aren't cheap.
 
2012-04-30 06:04:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm not I am objecting to the arbitrary use of "anyone earning over $250K is rich" mindset that has been the de facto standard for "The Rich" since Obama began his run for office in 2008 and has now inexplicably become the threshold for any new taxes on "the rich" across the board. That's all.


Huh I remember phil herup trying this bs back in the day.
 
2012-04-30 06:07:34 PM  

heap: dugitman: heap: now about these gay pakistani abortions...would a birth certificate be involved in any fashion?

That depends. When do you think life begins?

when i close the browser.


Heh. Speaking of that. I gg home and it is dark/scary looking in downtown Indy. Good luck with all this y'all.
 
2012-04-30 06:08:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer: I just can't get my head around your fantasy of 250k per annum workers struggling to get by with an onerous burden of a 3.8% higher tax rate that applies ONLY to investment income.

Ah. You think I am objecting to some specific piece of tax code proposal? Not

I'm not I am objecting to the arbitrary use of "anyone earning over $250K is rich" mindset that has been the de facto standard for "The Rich" since Obama began his run for office in 2008 and has now inexplicably become the threshold for any new taxes on "the rich" across the board. That's all.


This appears to be a figment of your imagination largely. Outside of a coincidental one time tax rate change occurring at 250k, what evidence do you have that a "250k is rich!" campaign is being carried out at all, let alone specifically by the president since 2008?
 
2012-04-30 06:09:43 PM  
skullkrusher:
/------------ derpaderpa - gimme a subsidy--called on it-- derpadera - shiny_object.jpg-think of the poor! - derp ---------/

Ya. That'll work.
You claim to make the bucks associated with a proposed new tax bracket.
You claim that you shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as everybody else in the country because of where you chose to live.
Instead, you propose that you pay less based on some pulled-from-your-fourth-point-of-contact measure of "real cost of living" while asserting that a US dollar in Phoenix is worth more than a US dollar in New York. (snark: Let's see how paying my monthly credit card bill in "Phoenix" US dollars will fly for my New York City-headquartered bank.)

Somehow that's supposed to make me selfish and stupid when I point out that you're asking for other people to subsidize your choice of domicile. Got it.
 
2012-04-30 06:14:51 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: You claim that you shouldn't have to pay the same tax rate as everybody else in the country because of where you chose to live.


actually no it would vary all over the place. Ya know, based on the CoL so it certainly wouldn't only impact me.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Instead, you propose that you pay less based on some pulled-from-your-fourth-point-of-contact measure of "real cost of living" while asserting that a US dollar in Phoenix is worth more than a US dollar in New York. (snark: Let's see how paying my monthly credit card bill in "Phoenix" US dollars will fly for my New York City-headquartered bank.)


you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics, do you? Or English?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Somehow that's supposed to make me selfish and stupid when I point out that you're asking for other people to subsidize your choice of domicile. Got it.


No, I think you're stupid because your mom abused drugs while you were cooking. I suppose you're selfish because you were never taught any better.
It's not what I say that makes these things so, it's what you say.
 
2012-04-30 06:20:33 PM  

skullkrusher: This places an unequitable burden on people who live in higher CoL areas relative to people who have the same standard of living in lower CoL areas. I would like to see this changed and the change used for all federal benchmarks.


Fine. But the practical fix is NOT to pin the federal income tax rate to a variable and unpredictably (arguably even unreliably measurable) local Cost of Living index. That would make the entire tax system far more fluid and unpredictable. It would result in a whole slew of problems far worse than the "problem" you are attempting to fix. Again, it is not the Federal Tax that is the disproportinate burden. It is the Cost of Living that is the disproportionate burden. Therefore, the fix should be focused on where the problem IS.

skullkrusher: I really think you are making this sound a lot more difficult and complex than it would have to be.


Actually, the system you propose is a great deal more complex and difficult than the current system.
 
2012-04-30 06:23:23 PM  

skullkrusher: Thrag: No, everyone can see that you are insisting on this idiotic notion of "real buying power" that you've pulled from your ass. I've been pretty clear that I find your "real buying power" notion to be totally bogus. I'm not sure how you could have missed that.

you don't read much of anything ever, do you? Here's a hint: I didn't invent the notion of "real buying power". You might find it to be "bogus" but that's mainly due to the fact that you are very poorly informed.

Definition of 'Purchasing Power'
1. The value of a currency expressed in terms of the amount of goods or services that one unit of money can buy. Purchasing power is important because, all else being equal, inflation decreases the amount of goods or services you'd be able to purchase.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/purchasingpower.asp#ixzz1tYuOUhJk


Jesus.

Yes, I've heard of the concept of buying power. What you have not provided is a specific definition of it for the purposes of your notion of adjusting taxation to it. You called it a "true metric", but you haven't provided a definition much less a calculation.

I'll also have to not that the linked definition you gave for purchasing power deals with inflation and in no way defines it as what you have left over after paying for necessities as you are using it.

Thrag: Your "real buying power" is not the "true metric". It's not even a metric since unless I missed some math above while skimming the thread you haven't even defined it in a way that can be calculated. After a quick scan I don't even see any specific definition of what you mean by "buying power". If I move to a bigger house and thus the money I have left over after paying my new bigger mortgage is less than before would you say my "buying power" has decreased?

yes, when you buy something, you have less buying power than you had previously. Really straight forward.


LOL! Did that even sound right in your head? So everything you buy reduces your buying power? So your buying power is what you have left after you buy everything, but if you buy something else, it reduces your buying power. Isn't this a tad circular? Where then do you draw the line for your tax plan? I notice you still have failed to specify how your "real buying power" would be calculated for the purposes of your tax plan.

So, if taxes should be related to "buying power" as you are putting forth (which is defined at least in part as money left over after rent/mortgage), should I pay less in taxes because I moved to a bigger house?

If houses are the only thing to buy in the economy and the cost of a house in location X is $250,000, if you move to location Y where a house costs $500,000, your real buying power has been cut in half.

So taxes should be based on not your income, but how much you have left after voluntary choices like how much you pay for your house? Are you still not seeing the flaw in your plan?

I'd say in your scenario that the person has decided to expend their "buying power" to move to a better location. Their buying power hasn't decreased, they've decided to allocate it a different way. It's a choice. I don't see why they should get a tax cut because they made the decision to move to an area that for whatever reason is more expensive.
 
2012-04-30 06:36:15 PM  

Thrag: Jesus.

Yes, I've heard of the concept of buying power. What you have not provided is a specific definition of it for the purposes of your notion of adjusting taxation to it. You called it a "true metric", but you haven't provided a definition much less a calculation.

I'll also have to not that the linked definition you gave for purchasing power deals with inflation and in no way defines it as what you have left over after paying for necessities as you are using it.


Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand the whole way. We can determine costs of living based on geographic areas. Happens all the time. Take a representative basket of goods in area 1 compare it to the same basket of goods in area 2. The ratio is the relative cost of living. Make area X the benchmark at 1 and work out the brackets with that in mind. Base the costs of livings around the country as a ratio relative to that and adjust brackets/calculate deductions accordingly. It's not difficult.

The fact that it only references inflation really has nothing to do with it. All we're talking about is price differences across geographies instead of across time frames.

Thrag: LOL! Did that even sound right in your head? So everything you buy reduces your buying power? So your buying power is what you have left after you buy everything, but if you buy something else, it reduces your buying power. Isn't this a tad circular? Where then do you draw the line for your tax plan? I notice you still have failed to specify how your "real buying power" would be calculated for the purposes of your tax plan.


yes, everything you buy reduces your buying power. You have less of an ability to buy stuff after you spend money on things. Wow, I really did assume you were operating with quite a bit more than you apparently are. You know what else impacts your buying power? How much shiat costs. Try to wrap your head around that one. LOL indeed. Farking dope.

Thrag: So, if taxes should be related to "buying power" as you are putting forth (which is defined at least in part as money left over after rent/mortgage), should I pay less in taxes because I moved to a bigger house?


oooooooh, I see what you're trying to do here. No, your taxes wouldn't change because you spent more on stuff than someone else and therefore had less buying power. Benchmark X has a CoL of 1. Area Y has a CoL of 2. To achieve parity you would either have to cut the taxable gross income of Area Y in half or allow for deductions to make up the difference. Cute yet absolutely and completely transparent.

Thrag: So taxes should be based on not your income, but how much you have left after voluntary choices like how much you pay for your house? Are you still not seeing the flaw in your plan?


I am seeing the flaw in your "understanding"... you're pulling my leg though, right? Right?
 
2012-04-30 06:36:41 PM  

Jake Havechek: 2. President Obama killed Osama bin Laden: Romney might not have. The Navy SEALS, not Barack Obama, killed Osama bin Laden. To suggest otherwise is an insult to their bravery and valor. Besides, does any serious person honestly believe that any president--of either party--would not have pulled the trigger when informed that Osama bin Laden was in the cross-hairs? Really?


Damn right george w. bush would have let Emmanuel Goldstein Osama bin Laughin' go.

"[T]he whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken
 
2012-04-30 06:37:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Fine. But the practical fix is NOT to pin the federal income tax rate to a variable and unpredictably (arguably even unreliably measurable) local Cost of Living index. That would make the entire tax system far more fluid and unpredictable. It would result in a whole slew of problems far worse than the "problem" you are attempting to fix. Again, it is not the Federal Tax that is the disproportinate burden. It is the Cost of Living that is the disproportionate burden. Therefore, the fix should be focused on where the problem IS.


the government releases CPI numbers all the time. This is not uncharted territory.
 
2012-04-30 06:38:09 PM  

skullkrusher: Measuring this in nominal dollars


Nominal dollars usually refers to inflation adjusted dollars. A nominal value is something like "X is 1990 dollars". It's not what you have left after paying for housing and/or other living expenses.

You're doing one hell of a humpty dumpty act.
 
2012-04-30 06:41:31 PM  

Paul Baumer: Outside of a coincidental one time tax rate change occurring at 250k, what evidence do you have that a "250k is rich!" campaign is being carried out at all, let alone specifically by the president since 2008?


Is that a serious question? Do you not recall Obama solemnly promising that "no one who made less than $250K a year married would see one cent of new taxes in his administration"?

Link

Please watch this and get back to me. Obama defined $250K as the cut-off point for new taxes. Agree or disagree, that was his choice on where to draw the line between "will not get any new taxes" and "subject to new taxes".
 
2012-04-30 06:42:48 PM  

Thrag: skullkrusher: Measuring this in nominal dollars

Nominal dollars usually refers to inflation adjusted dollars. A nominal value is something like "X is 1990 dollars". It's not what you have left after paying for housing and/or other living expenses.

You're doing one hell of a humpty dumpty act.


and context hasn't allowed you to decipher that nominal is being used to mean pre-CoL calc and real is being used after the control is applied? I guess I should take it easy on it. Life must be a struggle.
 
2012-04-30 06:43:30 PM  
If you base the entire political existence of your party and your country on an event and on a subsequent war then you cannot then expect your rivals, having successfully prosecuted a plank of that war which you were unable to carry out, to not mention this because its 'cheating'. I know you think your 'war on turrur' was a wizard schtick for you but Obama took it from you and actually succeeded (never part of the republican plan that, it was supposed to go on for ever and guarantee them power indefinitely). You lose.
 
2012-04-30 06:44:05 PM  

skullkrusher: Thrag: skullkrusher: Measuring this in nominal dollars

Nominal dollars usually refers to inflation adjusted dollars. A nominal value is something like "X is 1990 dollars". It's not what you have left after paying for housing and/or other living expenses.

You're doing one hell of a humpty dumpty act.

and context hasn't allowed you to decipher that nominal is being used to mean pre-CoL calc and real is being used after the control is applied? I guess I should take it easy on it you. Life must be a struggle.

 
2012-04-30 06:46:20 PM  

skullkrusher: oooooooh, I see what you're trying to do here.


I'm trying to get an actual definition of your plan out of your idiotic and often contradictory statements.

No, your taxes wouldn't change because you spent more on stuff than someone else and therefore had less buying power.

I'm sorry, hasn't your entire farking point been that taxes should take into account your "real buying power".

I could have sworn we just had this exchange when I tried to get you to define what specifically you mean by "real buying power".

Thrag: Your "real buying power" is not the "true metric". It's not even a metric since unless I missed some math above while skimming the thread you haven't even defined it in a way that can be calculated. After a quick scan I don't even see any specific definition of what you mean by "buying power". If I move to a bigger house and thus the money I have left over after paying my new bigger mortgage is less than before would you say my "buying power" has decreased?

yes, when you buy something, you have less buying power than you had previously. Really straight forward.

If houses are the only thing to buy in the economy and the cost of a house in location X is $250,000, if you move to location Y where a house costs $500,000, your real buying power has been cut in half.


You just said that the larger mortgage reduces your buying power. You say want takes to take into account buying power.

I really wish you would just make up your mind and settle on some definitions and actually define this tax system that you desire that takes into account whatever you will decide to define as "real buying power" next.
 
2012-04-30 06:47:59 PM  

skullkrusher: the government releases CPI numbers all the time. This is not uncharted territory.


We do it in certain limited circumstances for a national average cost of living, I believe, but that would not really address your regional disparity anyway.

And Uncharted or not, it would not be a workable solution. It would result in too much volatility in taxes varying from year to year based on unpredictable and uncontrollable factors. This would make the federal budget nearly unworkable becasue revenue predictions would become an order of magnitude more speculative than they already are, even in the short term, and businesses would be unable to reliably plan for their tax burdens from year to year hampering economic development.

And just imagine if every year your Income tax rate could go up or down based on what some local government in your city did. Or what some local government in some OTHER city did?

I hear what you are saying. I get your point. But your solution is simply not workable or practical, and it doesn't address the side of the equation where the problem actually *IS*.

It's not a bad concept in principle, but in my inexpert opinion, it would fail spectacularly when it collided with reality.
 
2012-04-30 06:49:19 PM  
Get a room you two.
 
2012-04-30 06:51:50 PM  

2wolves: Get a room you two.


Shush you. Perfesser SK has taken valuable time off from curing cancer and discovering cold fusion to school us dimwits on economics.

Don't interrupt.
 
2012-04-30 06:54:33 PM  

Thrag: I really wish you would just make up your mind and settle on some definitions and actually define this tax system that you desire that takes into account whatever you will decide to define as "real buying power" next.


Ummm... Thrag... Are we agreeing on something?

it feels weird.
 
2012-04-30 06:55:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer: Outside of a coincidental one time tax rate change occurring at 250k, what evidence do you have that a "250k is rich!" campaign is being carried out at all, let alone specifically by the president since 2008?

Is that a serious question? Do you not recall Obama solemnly promising that "no one who made less than $250K a year married would see one cent of new taxes in his administration"?

Link

Please watch this and get back to me. Obama defined $250K as the cut-off point for new taxes. Agree or disagree, that was his choice on where to draw the line between "will not get any new taxes" and "subject to new taxes".


That's hardly defining the set of $250k people as "the rich" - it's defining those below that level as those who bear the vast burden of our tax structure. But for someone who founds their knowledge of tax burden from the glib comments of his well-off neighbors, I can only offer the words of David Stockman - perhaps you'll recall the name -

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They're on an anti-tax jihad - one that benefits the prosperous classes."

or perhaps Bruce Bartlett - remember him? "Taxes are ridiculously low! And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So - where's the farking growth?"

In short, there will never be an answer that will please you. Government is hard work that requires courage, compromise, and duty to the country before constituency, which is why the GOP as currently constructed is so godawful bad at it.
 
2012-04-30 07:04:41 PM  

skullkrusher: Thrag: skullkrusher: Measuring this in nominal dollars

Nominal dollars usually refers to inflation adjusted dollars. A nominal value is something like "X is 1990 dollars". It's not what you have left after paying for housing and/or other living expenses.

You're doing one hell of a humpty dumpty act.

and context hasn't allowed you to decipher that nominal is being used to mean pre-CoL calc and real is being used after the control is applied? I guess I should take it easy on it. Life must be a struggle.


"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'"

As I said, you are doing one hell of a humpty dumpty act. Sure, you can use words that don't mean what you think they mean, and you can then insist your incorrect use was somehow correct, but that doesn't make it so.
 
2012-04-30 07:06:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: skullkrusher: the government releases CPI numbers all the time. This is not uncharted territory.

We do it in certain limited circumstances for a national average cost of living, I believe, but that would not really address your regional disparity anyway.

And Uncharted or not, it would not be a workable solution. It would result in too much volatility in taxes varying from year to year based on unpredictable and uncontrollable factors. This would make the federal budget nearly unworkable becasue revenue predictions would become an order of magnitude more speculative than they already are, even in the short term, and businesses would be unable to reliably plan for their tax burdens from year to year hampering economic development.

And just imagine if every year your Income tax rate could go up or down based on what some local government in your city did. Or what some local government in some OTHER city did?

I hear what you are saying. I get your point. But your solution is simply not workable or practical, and it doesn't address the side of the equation where the problem actually *IS*.

It's not a bad concept in principle, but in my inexpert opinion, it would fail spectacularly when it collided with reality.


There's also the consideration of incentive structure that such a plan would produce. There would now be a tax disincentive to live in a lower cost of living area. Low cost of living areas are usually that way because they are already severely depressed. Creating a new economic disincentive to live in them isn't exactly going to help.
 
2012-04-30 07:13:39 PM  

skullkrusher: demaL-demaL-yeH:
you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of economics, do you? Or English?


Ya, guess I should ask Dave, Mordechai, Bill, JohnnyZ, John, Femi, and Vernon for a refund or a refresher.
Thanks for pointing out my lack of grounding in basic economics.

No, I think you're stupid because your mom abused drugs while you were cooking. I suppose you're selfish because you were never taught any better.
It's not what I say that makes these things so, it's what you say.


Helpful hint about economics: That list is not remotely exhaustive.
Helpful hint about mother references: I'm not subby.
Helpful hint about pissing contests: Make certain you're not standing in a well before you start one.
 
2012-04-30 07:15:53 PM  
Hey guys, instead of asking the government to meddle in the marketplace of population distribution, why don't we just get all bootstrappy about it and take up a collection to help skullkrusher better afford his decadent east coast elitist NYC (get a rope) lifestyle?

I'll go set up a paypal account for it, back in a jiff with the link...
 
2012-04-30 07:18:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Thrag: I really wish you would just make up your mind and settle on some definitions and actually define this tax system that you desire that takes into account whatever you will decide to define as "real buying power" next.

Ummm... Thrag... Are we agreeing on something?

it feels weird.


I actually don't think it's the first time either. I know we've disagreed in the past over things and as is the custom here those disagreements likely came with a heaping side order of snark, but I have the sense we're both more pragmatically inclined than ideologically driven. While I may come off on fark as a flaming liberal, that's simply by nature of the fact that I usually only reply to things that make me laugh, facepalm, or both, and in this tab the lulz are often provided in greater volumes by the right side of the political divide (at least since czarangelus left). I'm a Rockefeller Republican at heart. I think it's a shame that when it comes to topics like a social safety net the arguments are ideological ones about whether it should exist at all rather than practical ones based around how to accomplish the goals efficiently without accidentally creating incentives to abuse the system.

Oh, and my mindset comment above was really just an aside and not directed at your post. I should have separated it from my reply.
 
2012-04-30 07:28:22 PM  

Paul Baumer: In short, there will never be an answer that will please you. Government is hard work that requires courage, compromise, and duty to the country before constituency, which is why the GOP as currently constructed is so godawful bad at it.


Ummm...

Yeah. OK. You are now taking a running start flying leap of assumptions past anything I have said here. I am not a Republican, and I am not advocating anything regarding THEIR approach here. I have said repeatedly I have no issue with raising taxes on the hyper-wealthy (though I do also believe it is largely pointless in terms of fiscal policy, and I find the whole 'fix the economy by increasing taxes on the wealthy' approach to be misdirected and wrong-headed) and I have explicitely said that a single man making $250K a year should be considered to be "rich" and certainly has superflous income whcih could be taxed with little risk of substantial negative impact. I have further even argued that an increase of capital gains to their previous levels might be acceptable and would be unlikely to cause a catastrophic economic downturm.

So if you think I am championing the cause of the teabaggers or some other such nonsense, I'm afraid you have not only go the wrong guy, you have misread what I have posted and insterted your own inferences.

My only point is that annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric for determing who can absorb additional taxes without negative consequences. Particularly when that income is overwhelmingly salary based (as opposed to financial investments, stocks, real estate revenue, etc.) and when ther emay be other sunstantial expenses such as special needs medical care. multiple children, elderly parents and what not. When those with the income to handle these things without taxpayer money are able to do so, it is a benefit to all of us, and increasing their tax burden to the point that they ar enot able to do so runs counter to what I understand our objectives to be.

If you want to launch into a screed about why Republicans suck, feel free. But don't drag me into it as it in unrelated to the point I made.
 
2012-04-30 07:36:21 PM  

Thrag: I actually don't think it's the first time either. I know we've disagreed in the past over things and as is the custom here those disagreements likely came with a heaping side order of snark, but I have the sense we're both more pragmatically inclined than ideologically driven.


Agree and agree.

Thrag: I'm a Rockefeller Republican at heart. I think it's a shame that when it comes to topics like a social safety net the arguments are ideological ones about whether it should exist at all rather than practical ones based around how to accomplish the goals efficiently without accidentally creating incentives to abuse the system.


Same here, although I tend to wear that heart more on my sleeve. I also notice, however, that there is a disturbing tendancy to respond to ANY criticism of the social support systems or entitlement progams as if they were a call for thier complete dismantling.

This blind absolutist defense of the sacred cows of the social support systems (and the political power base inextricable intwined with them) makes it nearly impossible to effect substanative reform.

But that is probably a discussion for another day :)
 
2012-04-30 07:37:17 PM  

Jake Havechek: I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

-- George W. Bush


Republicans would desperately like to equate Obama taking credit for finishing Osama to something as absurd as if Nixon had taken credit for Kennedy and Johnson's man on the moon, but Kennedy never said, "I don't know where Russia is. I truly am not that concerned about Sputnik or that Yuri fellow."
 
2012-04-30 07:42:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Paul Baumer:
My only point is that annual taxable income alone is an insufficient metric for determing who can absorb additional taxes without negative consequences.


Let's pretend that "supply-side economics" and the Laffer curve aren't huge festering lagoons of pig diarrhea.

Pick a better metric, then.

Difficulty: You then have to tell me tell me how medical expenses, elderly parents and other dependents and associated expenses, and "what not" aren't already mitigated by itemized deductions under the current tax system for taxpayers at the quarter million dollar a year income level.

/I won't be holding my breath.
 
Displayed 50 of 689 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report