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.

(Talking Points Memo)   CBO: "Letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire is the least harmful thing to the economy we can do." So obviously, Congress will do the exact opposite   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 95
    More: Interesting, Congressional Budget Office, tax cuts  
•       •       •

1193 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 10:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-09 12:32:22 PM
Hey, self congratulating circle jerkers, here's what the CBO actually said.

If the tax cuts are extended to EVERYONE...This means the poor, poor, pitiful poor AND the evil rich, the growth is 1.5%
If the tax cuts are extended only to the poor, poor, pitiful, poor, and allowed to increase on the evil rich, the grown is 1.25%

It's actually WORSE to tax the evil rich more.


Also...

gulagbound.com
 
2012-11-09 01:05:16 PM

Silly Jesus: Hey, self congratulating circle jerkers, here's what the CBO actually said.

If the tax cuts are extended to EVERYONE...This means the poor, poor, pitiful poor AND the evil rich, the growth is 1.5%
If the tax cuts are extended only to the poor, poor, pitiful, poor, and allowed to increase on the evil rich, the grown is 1.25%

It's actually WORSE to tax the evil rich more.

Also...

[gulagbound.com image 800x492]


The only circle jerk around is the ignorant bubble people like yourself who keep trying to equate a center right president with Karl Marx.

You idiots have splooged so much into each others eyes you can no longer discern the reality in front of your faces.
 
2012-11-09 01:10:19 PM

X-boxershorts: Silly Jesus: Hey, self congratulating circle jerkers, here's what the CBO actually said.

If the tax cuts are extended to EVERYONE...This means the poor, poor, pitiful poor AND the evil rich, the growth is 1.5%
If the tax cuts are extended only to the poor, poor, pitiful, poor, and allowed to increase on the evil rich, the grown is 1.25%

It's actually WORSE to tax the evil rich more.

Also...

[gulagbound.com image 800x492]

The only circle jerk around is the ignorant bubble people like yourself who keep trying to equate a center right president with Karl Marx.

You idiots have splooged so much into each others eyes you can no longer discern the reality in front of your faces.


Those quotes seem completely unrelated to you? His stated desire to have the rich pay more so that it can be redistributed to everyone else doesn't sound the least bit like Marx? I'm not arguing that he's similar to Marx in any other facet, but not seeing this similarity means that it is you with splooge in your eyes. Marx splooge, the best kind of splooge, because there's enough for everybody.
 
2012-11-09 01:24:22 PM
Best part Forever?

President Obama doesnt have to lift a finger to let them expire. Just ignore the republican diaper pail and wait them out.

Best Part FOREVER!
 
2012-11-09 01:26:12 PM

Silly Jesus: Those quotes seem completely unrelated to you? His stated desire to have the rich pay more so that it can be redistributed to everyone else doesn't sound the least bit like Marx? I'm not arguing that he's similar to Marx in any other facet, but not seeing this similarity means that it is you with splooge in your eyes. Marx splooge, the best kind of splooge, because there's enough for everybody.


Describe for me a scenario wherein taxes paid by people both rich and poor are not "redistributed".

That's what the fark taxes are FOR. Any other way means either the Feds take money and don't spend it, or no one pays taxes and there is no Federal Government.

Progressive taxation is what Obama is talking about. It's how Adam Smith described taxes. It's how Ben Franklin described taxes. It's how most modern societies understand taxation to be fairest and most effective. So we're arguing about degrees of redistribution.

Which is why we have elections - to choose our Representation for these legislative arguments. Seems like the people (66% of whom think the rich should pay more, 50+% of whom voted for a man who said he'd "raise" taxes on the rich) are in favor of redistribution.
 
2012-11-09 01:31:25 PM

Silly Jesus: His stated desire to have the rich pay more so that it can be redistributed to everyone else doesn't sound the least bit like Marx?


There is no such thing as redistribution. Link
 
2012-11-09 01:39:38 PM

Dr Dreidel: Silly Jesus: Those quotes seem completely unrelated to you? His stated desire to have the rich pay more so that it can be redistributed to everyone else doesn't sound the least bit like Marx? I'm not arguing that he's similar to Marx in any other facet, but not seeing this similarity means that it is you with splooge in your eyes. Marx splooge, the best kind of splooge, because there's enough for everybody.

Describe for me a scenario wherein taxes paid by people both rich and poor are not "redistributed".

The guy using his EBT card isn't redistributing anything to Bill Gates.

That's what the fark taxes are FOR. Any other way means either the Feds take money and don't spend it, or no one pays taxes and there is no Federal Government.

I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

Progressive taxation is what Obama is talking about. It's how Adam Smith described taxes. It's how Ben Franklin described taxes. It's how most modern societies understand taxation to be fairest and most effective. So we're arguing about degrees of redistribution.

I know he's talking about progressive taxation. Marx talked about it a lot too. It's a major plank of the Communist Manifesto. Just because famous people talked about it doesn't make it beyond criticism and a great and undeniable good.

Which is why we have elections - to choose our Representation for these legislative arguments. Seems like the people (66% of whom think the rich should pay more, 50+% of whom voted for a man who said he'd "raise" taxes on the rich) are in favor of redistribution.

I voted for Obama as well. I disagree with several of his policies, this being one of them, but I'm not insane.

And of course the poor, poor, pitiful, poor are going to be FOR having a greater share of the money in the government's piggy bank come from the evil rich. Using government to legally get your hands into the pockets of the wealthy isn't a new thing. The only problem with mob democratic rule is that eventually there will be more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it.

I think that we need to massively cut spending, starting with the military, and I'm not for raising taxes on anyone, but this nonsense of using the evil rich as a scapegoat for a class warfare narrative is getting absurd. You could tax them at a rate of 100% and it wouldn't put a dent in the problem that we are currently in. The rich have been demonized to the point that it's beneficial, vote wise, to say "let's tax them more" even though it solves nothing. It gets people frothing at the mouth and out to the polls, and that's what counts.

 
2012-11-09 01:42:20 PM

Silly Jesus: using the evil rich as a scapegoat


You're the only one in here using that phrase.
 
2012-11-09 01:42:31 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: His stated desire to have the rich pay more so that it can be redistributed to everyone else doesn't sound the least bit like Marx?

There is no such thing as redistribution. Link


OK, so we're down to semantics now.

I'll make sure to use the following in the future in order to be more clear...

"Spread the wealth around." - Obama
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Marx
 
2012-11-09 01:43:23 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: using the evil rich as a scapegoat

You're the only one in here using that phrase.


The rich haven't been systematically demonized by the left? Seriously? Were you awake for the campaign?
 
2012-11-09 01:48:37 PM
Sure, if you want to believe MATH. Like that's ever done anyone any good. Muuuuuch better to believe one irrational thing forever and never second guess it. Cause otherwise you're a flip flopper socialist who hates America.

Vote Republican....please?
 
2012-11-09 01:48:39 PM

Silly Jesus: OK, so we're down to semantics now.


It's not semantics. Saying redistribution implies a default distribution. There is no default distribution. Distribution is a function of many things.

Silly Jesus: The rich haven't been systematically demonized by the left? Seriously? Were you awake for the campaign?


Proposing raising their tax rates a few percentage points isn't demonization. Put away your fainting couch.
 
2012-11-09 01:51:48 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: OK, so we're down to semantics now.

It's not semantics. Saying redistribution implies a default distribution. There is no default distribution. Distribution is a function of many things.

Silly Jesus: The rich haven't been systematically demonized by the left? Seriously? Were you awake for the campaign?

Proposing raising their tax rates a few percentage points isn't demonization. Put away your fainting couch.


I'd say that the way Romney was portrayed vis-a-vis Bain was a pretty good depiction of demonization.
 
2012-11-09 01:55:50 PM

Silly Jesus: I'd say that the way Romney was portrayed vis-a-vis Bain was a pretty good depiction of demonization.


Fainting couch.
 
2012-11-09 02:12:06 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Silly Jesus: I'd say that the way Romney was portrayed vis-a-vis Bain was a pretty good depiction of demonization.

Fainting couch.


Um, ok.
 
2012-11-09 02:12:50 PM

Silly Jesus: Dr Dreidel: Describe for me a scenario wherein taxes paid by people both rich and poor are not "redistributed".

The guy using his EBT card isn't redistributing anything to Bill Gates.


Ah, but he is. Gates pays a little more in taxes (as a percentage of income when compared with average-income people like you and I) so that this guy can get an EBT card and eat for the month. The guy uses that EBT card to buy goods and services, some of which come from Microsoft. That EBT cash is going right back to Gates (and/or the owners/CEOs of banks, grocery chains/stores, gas stations/energy companies, etc), it just rests for a few hours in the account of a guy who can't really afford bread after rent and utilities.

(Re)Distribution doesn't stop when money hits a poor guy. Poor people spend more of their income than rich people - they should be happy to make sure poorer people have more money to spend on their shiat! (Alternatively, one can distribute "wealth" without mailing a check or handing out currency. Management's profit is relative to the aggregate amount by which they're underpaying labor.)

That's what the fark taxes are FOR. Any other way means either the Feds take money and don't spend it, or no one pays taxes and there is no Federal Government.

I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."


Take it up with pretty much any non-Steve Forbes economist out there. From Adam Smith and Jefferson and Franklin to, yes Marx (who was a pretty good social theorist, if not a good economist) and Keynes, pretty much everyone of note agrees that rich people should pay more. Why? Marginal utility. (Also basic fairness, but "fair" isn't in the Constitution.)

Progressive taxation is what Obama is talking about. It's how Adam Smith described taxes. It's how Ben Franklin described taxes. It's how most modern societies understand taxation to be fairest and most effective. So we're arguing about degrees of redistribution.

I know he's talking about progressive taxation. Marx talked about it a lot too. It's a major plank of the Communist Manifesto. Just because famous people talked about it doesn't make it beyond criticism and a great and undeniable good.


It's also a major part of "The Wealth of Nations", by Adam Smith. He's not just some bozo the libs trot out when we're feeling undertaxed, he's the father of modern economics. The fact that Jefferson and Franklin also favored that system suggest it's not as foreign or "communist-y" as you think (they predate Communism by about 100 years). Marx isn't the only one who thought about it.

Progressive taxation isn't beyond criticism, but you'll have to do a lot better than "It's not fair to rich people" or "Marx said it, therefore Communist."

Which is why we have elections - to choose our Representation for these legislative arguments. Seems like the people (66% of whom think the rich should pay more, 50+% of whom voted for a man who said he'd "raise" taxes on the rich) are in favor of redistribution.

I voted for Obama as well. I disagree with several of his policies, this being one of them, but I'm not insane.

And of course the poor, poor, pitiful, poor are going to be FOR having a greater share of the money in the government's piggy bank come from the evil rich. Using government to legally get your hands into the pockets of the wealthy isn't a new thing. The only problem with mob democratic rule is that eventually there will be more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it.


Assuming no one ever earns enough to make it out of the lower classes. JK Rowling, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and my great-grandfather were born in the poorer class and not a one was able to rise above that circumstance. How sad for them and the millions of others (like Craig Nelson) who also never made it out of poverty due to government assistance.

I think that we need to massively cut spending, starting with the military, and I'm not for raising taxes on anyone, but this nonsense of using the evil rich as a scapegoat for a class warfare narrative is getting absurd.

I agree. So?

You could tax them at a rate of 100% and it wouldn't put a dent in the problem that we are currently in. The rich have been demonized to the point that it's beneficial, vote wise, to say "let's tax them more" even though it solves nothing. It gets people frothing at the mouth and out to the polls, and that's what counts.

A brilliant reposte. So what if we taxed income over $250k (for joint filers) at 39.6%? (That's 4.6 cents extra on every dollar of income starting with the 250,001st. FYI.) I'll tell you - the Feds would have 4.6 cents extra for every dollar of income starting with the 250,001st. That's 4.6 cents for every dollar that we wouldn't otherwise have.

When you pay your bills, do you never pay beyond the minimum payments? My car payment is ~$150/month, but I usually pay ~160, 170. Am I not making an appreciable difference in my balance? Are you telling me that my overpayments won't make my balance shrink faster?

Or are you gearing up for a "b-b-b-but growth!"? Because Clinton's rates led to growth (or at least didn't stop growth from happening).

Like I said, arguing is fair. Just, you know, have good arguments against that aren't the same tired trickle-down-works-because-I-say-it-works garbage.

// interest has already been calculated, but I'd be saving even more if they recalculated every year or every month
 
2012-11-09 02:16:32 PM

Dr Dreidel: I think that we need to massively cut spending, starting with the military, and I'm not for raising taxes on anyone, but this nonsense of using the evil rich as a scapegoat for a class warfare narrative is getting absurd.

I agree. So?


The bolded part is what I agree with. I farked up my HTML.

// good thing I don't work in IT for a living...
 
2012-11-09 02:28:22 PM

Dr Dreidel: Silly Jesus: Dr Dreidel: Describe for me a scenario wherein taxes paid by people both rich and poor are not "redistributed".

The guy using his EBT card isn't redistributing anything to Bill Gates.

Ah, but he is. Gates pays a little more in taxes (as a percentage of income when compared with average-income people like you and I) so that this guy can get an EBT card and eat for the month. The guy uses that EBT card to buy goods and services, some of which come from Microsoft. That EBT cash is going right back to Gates (and/or the owners/CEOs of banks, grocery chains/stores, gas stations/energy companies, etc), it just rests for a few hours in the account of a guy who can't really afford bread after rent and utilities.

(Re)Distribution doesn't stop when money hits a poor guy. Poor people spend more of their income than rich people - they should be happy to make sure poorer people have more money to spend on their shiat! (Alternatively, one can distribute "wealth" without mailing a check or handing out currency. Management's profit is relative to the aggregate amount by which they're underpaying labor.)

That's what the fark taxes are FOR. Any other way means either the Feds take money and don't spend it, or no one pays taxes and there is no Federal Government.

I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

Take it up with pretty much any non-Steve Forbes economist out there. From Adam Smith and Jefferson and Franklin to, yes Marx (who was a pretty good social theorist, if not a good economist) and Keynes, pretty much everyone of note agrees that rich people should pay more. Why? Marginal utility. (Also basic fairness, but "fair" isn't in the Constitution.)

Progressive taxation is what Obama is talking about. It's how Adam Smith described taxes. It's how Ben Franklin described taxes. It's how most mode ...


Well said. I may be slowly coming around to your side on this. I read some of the pros and cons of progressive taxation on Wiki and what you've said mirrors many of the pros.

As for the growth thing at the end, the CBO did just say that growth would be better without raising taxes on the wealthy, FWIW.

Also, on the point about raising taxes on the wealthy (slowing the economy notwithstanding), my argument was that it was simply a political tactic that doesn't in reality do much of anything. Of course money would be added to the coffers, but it's so inconsequential that it's clearly a class warfare tactic and not an actual solution to anything. That's the point it was making there.

Beyond all that, i think that I just have a fundamental problem...I guess morally....with "a fair share" meaning that this one small group of people pays significantly more for no other reason than that they were more successful in life. If they were using the fire department and the police department etc. at a rate much higher than everyone else, then it would make sense that they pay a greater share of the taxes for those services....but for them to pay a greater burden so that everyone else can do whatever with it just doesn't seem quite "fair."

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. Was a great post.
 
2012-11-09 02:34:15 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Problems for economy, in order of seriousness: (1) widening inequality and declining real wages, (2) high unemployment, (3) budget deficit.- Robert Reich (@RBReich) November 9, 2012


Who cares what one of the sharpest minds on public policy and economics thinks. Wake me up with Sarah Palin adds her 2 cents to the debate.
 
2012-11-09 02:38:50 PM

Silly Jesus: Also, on the point about raising taxes on the wealthy (slowing the economy notwithstanding), my argument was that it was simply a political tactic that doesn't in reality do much of anything. Of course money would be added to the coffers, but it's so inconsequential that it's clearly a class warfare tactic and not an actual solution to anything. That's the point it was making there.


I don't have hard numbers, but I think that "inconsequential" amount was in the tens of billions (70, IIRC) per year. Not chump change, but, like the $10-20 extra I pay each month, will add up over time. If nothing else, it'd pay for our "interest on the debt" payments for the next few years. A solid investment.

Beyond all that, i think that I just have a fundamental problem...I guess morally....with "a fair share" meaning that this one small group of people pays significantly more for no other reason than that they were more successful in life. If they were using the fire department and the police department etc. at a rate much higher than everyone else, then it would make sense that they pay a greater share of the taxes for those services....but for them to pay a greater burden so that everyone else can do whatever with it just doesn't seem quite "fair."

Those are typically paid for via state taxes (also progressive). But let's take that example - a rich person may have a $3M home, a $50k car and $300k (totally made up) worth of "stuff". A poor person rents a 1000 sqft apartment, has no car (or a $4k beater - maybe they, like me, have some payments left on a $7-8k car, whatever) and $4-5k of "stuff". Who benefits more from police and fire protection?

Federally, who has more to lose if the system crashes or Russia finally decides to rear into Alaskan airspace to take our jerbs?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. Was a great post.

Thanks. You sounded like you're arguing honestly, which will almost always get a measured response. And hey, it sounds like you've learned something today - that's always a plus.
 
2012-11-09 03:18:47 PM

Dr Dreidel: Silly Jesus: Also, on the point about raising taxes on the wealthy (slowing the economy notwithstanding), my argument was that it was simply a political tactic that doesn't in reality do much of anything. Of course money would be added to the coffers, but it's so inconsequential that it's clearly a class warfare tactic and not an actual solution to anything. That's the point it was making there.

I don't have hard numbers, but I think that "inconsequential" amount was in the tens of billions (70, IIRC) per year. Not chump change, but, like the $10-20 extra I pay each month, will add up over time. If nothing else, it'd pay for our "interest on the debt" payments for the next few years. A solid investment.

Beyond all that, i think that I just have a fundamental problem...I guess morally....with "a fair share" meaning that this one small group of people pays significantly more for no other reason than that they were more successful in life. If they were using the fire department and the police department etc. at a rate much higher than everyone else, then it would make sense that they pay a greater share of the taxes for those services....but for them to pay a greater burden so that everyone else can do whatever with it just doesn't seem quite "fair."

Those are typically paid for via state taxes (also progressive). But let's take that example - a rich person may have a $3M home, a $50k car and $300k (totally made up) worth of "stuff". A poor person rents a 1000 sqft apartment, has no car (or a $4k beater - maybe they, like me, have some payments left on a $7-8k car, whatever) and $4-5k of "stuff". Who benefits more from police and fire protection?

Federally, who has more to lose if the system crashes or Russia finally decides to rear into Alaskan airspace to take our jerbs?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. Was a great post.

Thanks. You sounded like you're arguing honestly, which will almost always get a measured response. And hey, it sounds like you' ...


All well said again. You've given me a new perspective today, and that's pretty cool. Thank you.

Sometimes it just takes a certain person to explain something a certain way and it clicks.

For some reason the other responses that I got in the vein of "STUPID REPUBLICAN ROMNEY LOVER LET ALL THE POOR PEOPLE DIE WHARGARBLLL" didn't do much to move my opinion.
 
2012-11-09 04:01:39 PM

Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."


I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.
 
2012-11-09 04:02:09 PM

jst3p: Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.


In income tax?
 
2012-11-09 04:04:41 PM

Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.

In income tax?


Yes, in federal income tax. My effective rate is 16%. Mitt Romney had to not claim some of his charitable giving to get his UP to 13%.
 
2012-11-09 04:11:34 PM

jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.

In income tax?

Yes, in federal income tax. My effective rate is 16%. Mitt Romney had to not claim some of his charitable giving to get his UP to 13%.


That wasn't his income tax rate, that was his effective tax rate. Most of his money came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate for everyone, not just the rich. You're confusing different things for the same thing.
 
2012-11-09 04:15:30 PM

Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.

In income tax?

Yes, in federal income tax. My effective rate is 16%. Mitt Romney had to not claim some of his charitable giving to get his UP to 13%.

That wasn't his income tax rate, that was his effective tax rate. Most of his money came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate for everyone, not just the rich. You're confusing different things for the same thing.



I am not confusing anything. I am comparing his effective tax rate to mine. I pay a higher effective rate than he does and I don't care what the reason is, it is wrong.
 
2012-11-09 04:17:28 PM

jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.

In income tax?

Yes, in federal income tax. My effective rate is 16%. Mitt Romney had to not claim some of his charitable giving to get his UP to 13%.

That wasn't his income tax rate, that was his effective tax rate. Most of his money came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate for everyone, not just the rich. You're confusing different things for the same thing.


I am not confusing anything. I am comparing his effective tax rate to mine. I pay a higher effective rate than he does and I don't care what the reason is, it is wrong.


So capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income even though capital gains investments carry significant risk and need to be incentivized?
 
2012-11-09 04:19:31 PM

Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.

In income tax?

Yes, in federal income tax. My effective rate is 16%. Mitt Romney had to not claim some of his charitable giving to get his UP to 13%.

That wasn't his income tax rate, that was his effective tax rate. Most of his money came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate for everyone, not just the rich. You're confusing different things for the same thing.


He has no money invested. It is a Bain salary disguised is investment income. It is called "the Carry" and feel free to look into it. "The Carry" is largely from fees paid by the actual investors and they get that even if the investments tank.

Consider this, where does the revenue for the secretaries, cleaning and security salaries come from at Bain?
 
2012-11-09 04:21:58 PM

Silly Jesus: So capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income even though capital gains investments carry significant risk and need to be incentivized?



That's a rather poor assumption.
 
2012-11-09 04:23:46 PM

jst3p: Silly Jesus: So capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income even though capital gains investments carry significant risk and need to be incentivized?


That's a rather poor assumption.


So you think the model of greater reward for greater risk is faulty?
 
2012-11-09 04:27:40 PM

mrshowrules: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: I understand the principle of taxation. Everyone should pay taxes. I just don't abide by the principle that the rich need to pay a greater percentage than everyone else because it's somehow "just fair that way."

I am middle class and currently the rich pay a smaller percentage than I do. That is the problem.

In income tax?

Yes, in federal income tax. My effective rate is 16%. Mitt Romney had to not claim some of his charitable giving to get his UP to 13%.

That wasn't his income tax rate, that was his effective tax rate. Most of his money came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate for everyone, not just the rich. You're confusing different things for the same thing.

He has no money invested. It is a Bain salary disguised is investment income. It is called "the Carry" and feel free to look into it. "The Carry" is largely from fees paid by the actual investors and they get that even if the investments tank.

Consider this, where does the revenue for the secretaries, cleaning and security salaries come from at Bain?


I haven't looked into "the Carry." And I don't want to right this second because the point here can be made without that specific example. People have a problem with the rich "paying a lower tax rate." They have been fed this talking point and don't understand that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate FOR EVERYONE and that it's different from income tax.

The propaganda is "Rich guy is only being taxed at 13% [fail to mention his only income is from capital gains] while the janitor is being taxed at 17% [fail to mention that his only income is from his salary] and this is an outrage because the janitor pays a higher tax rate than the rich guy!"
 
2012-11-09 04:28:56 PM

Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: So capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income even though capital gains investments carry significant risk and need to be incentivized?


That's a rather poor assumption.

So you think the model of greater reward for greater risk is faulty?


I have much more "at risk" than Romney does. He could engage in several failed "investments" and would still be a very wealthy man. If my kid ends up in the hospital it could bankrupt me in a very short amount of time. Don't talk to me about Romney's exposure to risk.

Your claim was that the wealthy shouldn't pay a higher percentage than I do. Now you are making the case that it is OK that they pay a smaller percentage. It isn't.

And the idea that the weathy would want to make less money if their tax rates are slightly increased is laugable.
 
2012-11-09 04:29:55 PM

Silly Jesus: The propaganda is "Rich guy is only being taxed at 13% [fail to mention his only income is from capital gains] while the janitor is being taxed at 17% [fail to mention that his only income is from his salary] and this is an outrage because the janitor pays a higher tax rate than the rich guy!"


It isn't propoganda, it is fact. And it isn't right.
 
2012-11-09 04:36:19 PM

Silly Jesus: I haven't looked into "the Carry." And I don't want to right this second because the point here can be made without that specific example. People have a problem with the rich "paying a lower tax rate." They have been fed this talking point and don't understand that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate FOR EVERYONE and that it's different from income tax.

The propaganda is "Rich guy is only being taxed at 13% [fail to mention his only income is from capital gains] while the janitor is being taxed at 17% [fail to mention that his only income is from his salary] and this is an outrage because the janitor pays a higher tax rate than the rich guy!"


If you don't understand the concept of "the Carry" you can't understand the issue. It is salary disguised as investment income. Romney has no personal money invested or at risk. He is paid from the carry from Bain based on overall profits. The exact same pot they pay the lowly employees from but Romney can pay 13% on that. Do you sorta understand? Romney has structured the carry in his benefits package with Bain.

Capital Gains loophole is stupid to begin with but Romney has found a loop hole to the loop hole through the carry.
 
2012-11-09 04:43:32 PM

mrshowrules: Silly Jesus: I haven't looked into "the Carry." And I don't want to right this second because the point here can be made without that specific example. People have a problem with the rich "paying a lower tax rate." They have been fed this talking point and don't understand that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate FOR EVERYONE and that it's different from income tax.

The propaganda is "Rich guy is only being taxed at 13% [fail to mention his only income is from capital gains] while the janitor is being taxed at 17% [fail to mention that his only income is from his salary] and this is an outrage because the janitor pays a higher tax rate than the rich guy!"

If you don't understand the concept of "the Carry" you can't understand the issue. It is salary disguised as investment income. Romney has no personal money invested or at risk. He is paid from the carry from Bain based on overall profits. The exact same pot they pay the lowly employees from but Romney can pay 13% on that. Do you sorta understand? Romney has structured the carry in his benefits package with Bain.

Capital Gains loophole is stupid to begin with but Romney has found a loop hole to the loop hole through the carry.


He doesn't want to learn about it "right this second" because he isn't interested in intellectually honest discussion. He just wants to parrot his talking points.
 
2012-11-09 07:42:24 PM

jst3p: Silly Jesus: jst3p: Silly Jesus: So capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as income even though capital gains investments carry significant risk and need to be incentivized?


That's a rather poor assumption.

So you think the model of greater reward for greater risk is faulty?

I have much more "at risk" than Romney does. He could engage in several failed "investments" and would still be a very wealthy man. If my kid ends up in the hospital it could bankrupt me in a very short amount of time. Don't talk to me about Romney's exposure to risk.

It would take longer for him to get there, but he has the same ultimate safety nets that you do. That's not the risk that I'm talking about though. His dollar in a capital investment is more at risk than your dollar in your paycheck.

Your claim was that the wealthy shouldn't pay a higher percentage than I do. Now you are making the case that it is OK that they pay a smaller percentage. It isn't.

I'm saying that you're equating two different things. You would pay the exact same capital gains rate as Romney. He would pay much more than you in income taxes.

And the idea that the weathy would want to make less money if their tax rates are slightly increased is laugable.

There are a myriad of studies on the diminishing returns of raising taxes. The laffer curve comes to mind.


www.heritage.org
 
2012-11-09 07:45:32 PM

mrshowrules: Silly Jesus: I haven't looked into "the Carry." And I don't want to right this second because the point here can be made without that specific example. People have a problem with the rich "paying a lower tax rate." They have been fed this talking point and don't understand that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate FOR EVERYONE and that it's different from income tax.

The propaganda is "Rich guy is only being taxed at 13% [fail to mention his only income is from capital gains] while the janitor is being taxed at 17% [fail to mention that his only income is from his salary] and this is an outrage because the janitor pays a higher tax rate than the rich guy!"

If you don't understand the concept of "the Carry" you can't understand the issue. It is salary disguised as investment income. Romney has no personal money invested or at risk. He is paid from the carry from Bain based on overall profits. The exact same pot they pay the lowly employees from but Romney can pay 13% on that. Do you sorta understand? Romney has structured the carry in his benefits package with Bain.

Capital Gains loophole is stupid to begin with but Romney has found a loop hole to the loop hole through the carry.


The point I'm making is concerning rich people in general. Do rich people in general have a carry from Bain?
 
2012-11-09 07:48:16 PM

jst3p: mrshowrules: Silly Jesus: I haven't looked into "the Carry." And I don't want to right this second because the point here can be made without that specific example. People have a problem with the rich "paying a lower tax rate." They have been fed this talking point and don't understand that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate FOR EVERYONE and that it's different from income tax.

The propaganda is "Rich guy is only being taxed at 13% [fail to mention his only income is from capital gains] while the janitor is being taxed at 17% [fail to mention that his only income is from his salary] and this is an outrage because the janitor pays a higher tax rate than the rich guy!"

If you don't understand the concept of "the Carry" you can't understand the issue. It is salary disguised as investment income. Romney has no personal money invested or at risk. He is paid from the carry from Bain based on overall profits. The exact same pot they pay the lowly employees from but Romney can pay 13% on that. Do you sorta understand? Romney has structured the carry in his benefits package with Bain.

Capital Gains loophole is stupid to begin with but Romney has found a loop hole to the loop hole through the carry.

He doesn't want to learn about it "right this second" because he isn't interested in intellectually honest discussion. He just wants to parrot his talking points.


I don't want to learn about it because I'm not specifically talking about Romney. I'm talking about the rich in general. Does the average rich person have a "carry" from Bain Capital?

Speaking of intellectually dishonest, you're the one who refuses to acknowledge that capital gains tax and income tax are two different things. You repeat the propaganda that equates the two.
 
2012-11-10 02:03:58 AM

Silly Jesus: If the tax cuts are extended to EVERYONE...This means the poor, poor, pitiful poor AND the evil rich, the growth is 1.5%
If the tax cuts are extended only to the poor, poor, pitiful, poor, and allowed to increase on the evil rich, the grown is 1.25%
It's actually WORSE to tax the evil rich more.


What the hell is growth? .....can people eat growth? Do they get paid in growth? ....does growth make whiter teeth, cheaper gas and better television programming? ....just how the hell is growth meaningful to anyone?

I'm sick of the talking point that GDP growth is the only metric that matters, that somehow everyone will be happy and prosperous if growth is infinite (which is impossible anyway). Growth is utterly and inhumanly amoral -- it doesn't measure standard of living or affluence, it only measures productivity. But there's no qualifier on what that productivity is. You can spend a billion dollars saving people or you can spend a billion dollars killing people, it's still a billion dollars of increased growth (and therefore good according to some economic indexes). But which is actually better for the health and well-being of the citizenry.

So fark growth. How about focusing less on undirected growth and focusing more on policies favoring an equitable distribution of affluence?
 
2012-11-10 02:16:44 AM

Silly Jesus: There are a myriad of studies on the diminishing returns of raising taxes. The laffer curve comes to mind.


The Laffer Curve isn't an actual study or even a theory or platform. It's just a simple, non-specific sweeping generalization of taxes and revenues using polar opposite extremes to accentuate the bell curve. It is woefully inefficient at differentiating the various types of taxes, the additive value of each (and their role at the federal/state/municipal level), and other nitty gritty stuff. It just doesn't go there. Implementing actual tax strategy is far more complicated than the Laffer Curve lets on.

So while it is true, it's only true insomuch as it's a philosophical thought experiment. It has no practical application at all -- certainly not enough substance to construct an entire economic platform around.

There are only two data points on the Laffer Curve, but they are functionally useless -- taxes will NEVER be set at either 0% or 100%, so what good is it illustrating that neither will bring revenue? Great, Arthur, thanks for warning us about something we were never going to do.
 
2012-11-10 07:44:27 PM

Ishkur: Silly Jesus: There are a myriad of studies on the diminishing returns of raising taxes. The laffer curve comes to mind.

The Laffer Curve isn't an actual study or even a theory or platform. It's just a simple, non-specific sweeping generalization of taxes and revenues using polar opposite extremes to accentuate the bell curve. It is woefully inefficient at differentiating the various types of taxes, the additive value of each (and their role at the federal/state/municipal level), and other nitty gritty stuff. It just doesn't go there. Implementing actual tax strategy is far more complicated than the Laffer Curve lets on.

So while it is true, it's only true insomuch as it's a philosophical thought experiment. It has no practical application at all -- certainly not enough substance to construct an entire economic platform around.

There are only two data points on the Laffer Curve, but they are functionally useless -- taxes will NEVER be set at either 0% or 100%, so what good is it illustrating that neither will bring revenue? Great, Arthur, thanks for warning us about something we were never going to do.


Wikipedia
 
2012-11-10 07:45:04 PM

Ishkur: Silly Jesus: If the tax cuts are extended to EVERYONE...This means the poor, poor, pitiful poor AND the evil rich, the growth is 1.5%
If the tax cuts are extended only to the poor, poor, pitiful, poor, and allowed to increase on the evil rich, the grown is 1.25%
It's actually WORSE to tax the evil rich more.

What the hell is growth? .....can people eat growth? Do they get paid in growth? ....does growth make whiter teeth, cheaper gas and better television programming? ....just how the hell is growth meaningful to anyone?

I'm sick of the talking point that GDP growth is the only metric that matters, that somehow everyone will be happy and prosperous if growth is infinite (which is impossible anyway). Growth is utterly and inhumanly amoral -- it doesn't measure standard of living or affluence, it only measures productivity. But there's no qualifier on what that productivity is. You can spend a billion dollars saving people or you can spend a billion dollars killing people, it's still a billion dollars of increased growth (and therefore good according to some economic indexes). But which is actually better for the health and well-being of the citizenry.

So fark growth. How about focusing less on undirected growth and focusing more on policies favoring an equitable distribution of affluence?


S[reading the wealth around, you mean?
 
2012-11-10 11:46:44 PM

Silly Jesus: Wikipedia


What about it?

Silly Jesus: S[reading the wealth around, you mean?


Wealth redistribution is always happening. It happens naturally. It's happening right now. If we do nothing, it will trend up. Wealth inequality will ultimately graduate into a neo-feudal level of existence before the market tries to correct itself. There is nothing wrong with intervention. It makes everyone better off in the long run.
 
2012-11-11 06:35:56 AM

Ishkur: Silly Jesus: Wikipedia

What about it?

Your Laffer Curve analysis was a bit off, IIRC.

Silly Jesus: S[reading the wealth around, you mean?

Wealth redistribution is always happening. It happens naturally. It's happening right now. If we do nothing, it will trend up. Wealth inequality will ultimately graduate into a neo-feudal level of existence before the market tries to correct itself. There is nothing wrong with intervention. It makes everyone better off in the long run.

OK, here's my wallet. How much would you like to give to someone else to correct for this neo-feudalism?

 
2012-11-11 12:40:58 PM

Silly Jesus: Your Laffer Curve analysis was a bit off, IIRC.


In what way? You didn't specify.

Silly Jesus: OK, here's my wallet. How much would you like to give to someone else to correct for this neo-feudalism?


It's not about how much I have or how much I give to someone else. It's about how much is used for the health and well-being of the system.

See, your problem is you think the system exists to provide people with privilege and position. Rather, privilege exists to provide for the system. And if it fails in that one task, the system will take what it needs because it prefers to survive at the expense of privilege rather than let it profit while it suffers.
 
Displayed 45 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report