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.

(Washington Post)   So if Congress doesn't act, half of America can't get a tax refund until late March   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 164
    More: Fail, congresses, Alternative Minimum Tax, tax refunds, income taxes  
•       •       •

3854 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-14 04:12:31 AM  

fusillade762: Wow, I'm actually seeing a reasonable discussion in a Politics Tab thread...

[img.photobucket.com image 250x208]


Hah.
A reasonable discussion of tax reform and national debt isn't reasonable until you start to cogitate on the population bubble of the boomer moving out of the labour force and into dependency. There needs to be a new bracket, adjustment of the old ones, and I would be seriously surprised if top rates don't reach 70% in the next 20 years.

More simply put, it is going to likely be impossible to balance the budget until the boomers die off. Period. And that's something everybody needs to accept and start thinking about, especially those bastards in Congress.

And from a moral-less, Vulcan-like standpoint, the health care reform was the worst thing to enact just preceding it. Health insurers are going to go bankrupt. Which is why the country needs single payer.
 
2012-11-14 05:58:56 AM  

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


How about the Automated Payment Transaction tax? (PDF)
 
2012-11-14 06:08:51 AM  

starsrift: More simply put, it is going to likely be impossible to balance the budget until the boomers die off. Period. And that's something everybody needs to accept and start thinking about, especially those bastards in Congress.


Enact a 100% estate tax and kill 'em all?
 
2012-11-14 06:43:05 AM  

skullkrusher: Fark the AMT with a rusty railroad spike but who the hell files their taxes before the very last minute? March? I haven't even started putting it off at that point.


Responsible Americans file it early. Like Romney.
 
2012-11-14 06:46:27 AM  

Blue_Blazer: jso2897: Blue_Blazer: Zandor: Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.

I think it's more that people want everyone contributing to what they all use. The poor use the roads as much as anyone. One could argue that they didn't use the school system as much, or at least didn't use it to their advantage, but that's not always the case either... They still live in a society which benefits from an educated populace, so why shouldn't they (and everyone) be expected to contribute?

No, the poors do not use the roads as much as anyone. Huge trucks (for industry and commerce) use roads the most, and that's why the pay the most for them. Most poors don't go much farther than a few miles from their house, and if they do it's probably only once or twice a year.

But they still have to buy gas - and pay taxes on it. Taxes that are large in the context of their small incomes.

Oh I agree with you, I was just pointing out the flaw in suggesting that poors use the roads the most. I think that consumption taxes are in general bad, and I would not support the U.S. taking on a VAT or some kind of Federal Sales Tax. I don't know anybody who is serious and argues that consumption taxes are progressive.


Every year (usually at tax time) they drag the spavined old "flat tax" bandwagon out and parade it down Main Street. The people bombard it with rotten fruit, and they roll it back to the garage for another year, muttering darkly about what fools their fellow Americans are for seeing through the idiocy of their "cunning plan".
 
2012-11-14 06:55:25 AM  
Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.
 
2012-11-14 07:01:00 AM  

shotglasss: Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.


You're gonna run into one of two very bad situations. Pensioners don't get paid, and they die of starvation or temperature extremes as a result. Or, problem two is that the military doesn't get paid... History is replete with examples of what happens after that.
 
2012-11-14 07:01:39 AM  

shotglasss: Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.


That won't work. Kansans like cutting taxes to zero and abolishing government...well, government that helps the proletariat at least.
 
2012-11-14 07:12:44 AM  
Two things:
a) The AMT patch is just as stupid as the debt ceiling debate. OMG LIFE IS GOING TO BE RUINED UNLESS WE DO THE SAME THING WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR 20 YEARS. It is a contrived congressional controversy. There is no reason it can't be fixed permanently.
2) anyone who argues for a flat tax is an idiot. It is amazingly regressive and makes a massive shift of the tax burden. The only way to avoid this is to include specific deductions and refunds to ease the transition on the poor. So, you end up lessening the strain on upper incomes, keeping the transition the same for lower incomes, and screwing over the middle class. Every version of the flat tax I've seen discussed ends up being a poorly formed progressive tax structure with a huge bump in the middle for people to get beat up.
D) The "people need to have skin in the game" argument as it relates to income tax is idiotic (which makes sense because it is related to the idiots from my previous point). Poor people pay sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, and payroll taxes and they take up a far greater percentage of their income than rich people. And, they make so little income that they don't have enough to reasonably live while also paying income tax. That's the people that you are demonizing with the "they don't pay income tax!" (Which gets intentionally distorted by people leaving off the income part) Rich people are afforded more protection in society. They are far and away benefitted more by a strong government and functioning America. Their companies are similarly protected. But, god forbid that family of four with a total pretax income of 37k get a break on income tax. Those bastards are cheating the system!
 
2012-11-14 07:25:07 AM  
Only suckers get tax refunds. Why would you want to give the government a no-interest loan when you can get a no-interest loan from the government? Yes, I'll be paying again this year, just like every year. Thanks for the no-interest loan.
 
2012-11-14 07:27:53 AM  

Spaced Lion: "When Congress doesn't act, half of America can't get a tax refund until late March."

Fixed that for ya, subby.


Wouldn't be a first, they are usually late at approving forms, taxes, ect. Two years ago you couldn't itemize till February due to this same crap.
 
2012-11-14 07:28:17 AM  

jjorsett: Ever wonder why Congress continues to enact temporary patches to things like the AMT, the Medicare "doc fix", etc.? Because A) a sense of impending crisis lets those in power sneak in other less-palatable things to the must-pass new "fixes", and B) it ensures that the campaign donations continue to flow because not to kick in risks pissing off the guy you need to make sure your fix or your unpalatable law gets enacted.


There is also the fact that the projected budget has to be balanced 10 years out, so Congress keeps laughable assumptions on the books that they will "sunset" certain policies they have no intention of doing so.
 
2012-11-14 07:30:10 AM  

fusillade762: Getting sick of this "Fiscal cliff" boogeyman. I get the feeling we're being coaxed into a panic to make it easier to screw us when the time comes.


Of course. What they're really trying to do is scare people into changing their minds. Most people WANT the government to spend less and reduce (or eliminate) the deficit, which is what the fiscal cliff is. Bring it on. Anybody with a brain knows that they can't keep borrowing our prosperity for ever, and the day they stop it all comes crashing down. Let's get it over with so we can start to rebuild.
 
2012-11-14 07:43:35 AM  

DrPainMD: fusillade762: Getting sick of this "Fiscal cliff" boogeyman. I get the feeling we're being coaxed into a panic to make it easier to screw us when the time comes.

Of course. What they're really trying to do is scare people into changing their minds. Most people WANT the government to spend less and reduce (or eliminate) the deficit, which is what the fiscal cliff is. Bring it on. Anybody with a brain knows that they can't keep borrowing our prosperity for ever, and the day they stop it all comes crashing down. Let's get it over with so we can start to rebuild.


No. I don't give two shiats about the deficit. It effects me exactly ZERO. Interest rates are still quite low in historical terms. Call me a Keynisian but austerity is best saved for times of plenty.
 
2012-11-14 08:10:17 AM  
I don't think that any of you understand that we're on a fiscal cliff. A FISCAL CLIFF!!!!! I can't emphasize how much of a fiscal cliff we're on. It's not a real cliff, it's a metaphor, or palindrome.
 
2012-11-14 08:23:16 AM  

skullkrusher: moefuggenbrew: Blame the dumb lbieral Socialist tax monster.
[i.imgur.com image 600x486]

40%?


39 rounded up? Maybe it's out of date? I didn't get that either. Point remains of course.
 
2012-11-14 08:28:06 AM  

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


Flat tax would only be "fair" in the purportional amount taxed to earned but in reality places an unfair burden on lower income earners. 20% of a minimum wage earner's wages would be devastating in relation to the cost of living, 20% of a high income earners wages would go relatively unnoticed. For someone who earns $100 weekly, a tank of gas may make up 33% of their post taxed earnings, as opposed to ~ 3% for someone earning $1000 weekly.

Farkers are already upset with the highest income earners are only paying 20% of their income on taxes- would you now expect the lowest wage income earner to pay their share as well? Why you hate the poor?

The real issue isn't about trying to target the highest wage earners to extract their wealth but rather to prevent the hoarding and keep the money in circulation. Why not put a cap on wealth and earnings, a cap on bonuses, tax capital gains on all earnings made by investors who are under 60 years of age, make derivatives from offshore accounts taxable, and treat all products manufactured offshore as imports, regardless of where the parent company resides.

Capping wealth. - Do you believe that capping wealth at 50M per family will cause "undue hardship" or discourage innovation? Think again! Any income over 50M cap could be credited (in case of "tough times") while the rest in reinvested into the new innovators willing to step up to the plate for their share of the 50M pie. Don't worry about the money train pulling in the station at 50M- you'll be receiving a small stipend of untaxed 1-2% earnings on any capitol investment above 50M. Plus you have the government's word (promissary notes?) that you will be covered in time of need. As for the rest of that wealth- it will be circulating about the economy instead of holed up in a vault or private investment somewhere.

Cap earnings and bonuses. A ceiling on the highest earnings would be win-win for the business who will no longer have to financially compete with other businesses to retain their top wage earners, and for top wage earners to retain their positions instead of feeling the need to seek higher wages elsewhere. As the pay will be capped and bonuses, smaller business will be able compete for more skilled labor. Again, don't worry about losing innovators as they will be attracted by the top dollar, capped or not.

Capital gains. If they make up a bulk of your earnings, they should be taxed as regular income. If capital gains make up less than earned income they are taxed purportionally to that income. The exception would be for students over 16 or attending college (presumeably earnings would be going toward tuition or future business venture) and retirees over 55. I'm inclined to say 64, however I do not see the point of penalizing anyone who has remained fiscally responsible and were able to retire earlier at 55.

Socking money away in foreign accounts- If you live in America, share in the benefits and protections of being an American, then why not pay your share of the burden as well.

Penalizing business that take their business outside the country. Self evident. You sought the benefits of running your business outside this country, your products will be taxed as any other foreign good. By the way foreign investors- have we got a tax break for you should you choose to start up a business in our country.

Of course with all this new found wealth and cash floating around, they'll be a heavy demand on limited natural resources so out of control inflation will be inevitable
 
2012-11-14 08:38:54 AM  

elchip: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith


Luxury taxes! Unpossible!!!!

I'm assuming this tax could be applied to any luxury item regardless of the consumer's income.
 
2012-11-14 08:46:44 AM  

mrshowrules: I would just like to say that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple.


Would you prefer we pay higher taxes to cover the lost interest in lieu of a refund? It's relatively painless to provide the government with much needed interest free revenue as well as affords the tax payer an opportunity to save money where most would otherwise squander it along the way. This is also an opportunity for the low wage income earner to step up to the plate and make a small contribution by at least providing interest free revenue before getting it all back in the form of a refund.

In short, I don't have a problem with this.
 
2012-11-14 08:59:50 AM  
not the better half.
 
2012-11-14 09:16:50 AM  

Pocket Ninja: financially incompetent sheeple or some other variant of the term.


Since the IRS limits the exemptions you can claim, in many cases you can't balance your withholding properly. I used to claim 10-11 dependents and had small refunds. Now that isn't an option and I get large refunds.
 
2012-11-14 09:34:00 AM  
A fair system in which everyone plays by the same rules. A flat tax could indeed be fair, if coupled with widely-applicable deductions for necessities (rent/mortgage payments on one's own residence, health care expenses, educational expenses, and so on, some limited deduction for debt payments, and so on).
 
2012-11-14 09:39:38 AM  

Summoner101: Well it's only people that pay federal income taxes, so no Obama supporters will be affected!


It's that kind of thinking that led to the Republicans gobsmacked surprise on election night.
 
2012-11-14 09:44:51 AM  

coeyagi: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

Wow, I blew that call, I figured a 2 year deep sleep on that handle after 11/6.

But anyway bro, look at the actual taxes people pay. Deductions incentivize consumer participation. I know, I know, liberty to be a wealth-hording hermit that does nothing for the economy including job creation.

But hey, if you think the income of the 1% can continue to climb while everyone else stays stagnant, I've got a few Panic Rooms to sell you before 2020.


Sorry- I think he already has a panic room.
 
2012-11-14 10:04:40 AM  
I'm not too worried. If there is one thing the current congress is known for, it's an ability to get shiat done!
 
2012-11-14 10:05:03 AM  

idsfa: Zandor: So there is a problem that all the people who voted because "they wanted to make everyone pay their fair share" suddenly realize that means that everyone actually has to pay something?

Define "their fair share" and we can discuss.


The only 'Fair' way to do it is a consumption tax. Exempt food and medical, 8% on everything else. $100 item $8, $500 item $40, $1M yacht $80,000.
 
2012-11-14 10:06:11 AM  

fusillade762: DrPainMD: fusillade762: Getting sick of this "Fiscal cliff" boogeyman. I get the feeling we're being coaxed into a panic to make it easier to screw us when the time comes.

Of course. What they're really trying to do is scare people into changing their minds. Most people WANT the government to spend less and reduce (or eliminate) the deficit, which is what the fiscal cliff is. Bring it on. Anybody with a brain knows that they can't keep borrowing our prosperity for ever, and the day they stop it all comes crashing down. Let's get it over with so we can start to rebuild.

No. I don't give two shiats about the deficit. It effects me exactly ZERO. Interest rates are still quite low in historical terms. Call me a Keynisian but austerity is best saved for times of plenty.


You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?
 
2012-11-14 10:07:41 AM  
PS. Unless we fix the economy, there will be no more "times of plenty."
 
2012-11-14 10:40:05 AM  
This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.


So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.
 
2012-11-14 10:52:55 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.


You're going to complain about language when Frank Luntz single-handedly created the phrase "death tax"?
 
2012-11-14 11:08:25 AM  

Serious Black: Debeo Summa Credo: This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

You're going to complain about language when Frank Luntz single-handedly created the phrase "death tax"?


"death tax" is an ooga booga term and decades old. If a tax cut is massive, rolling it back it massive. This is just run-of-the-mill mealy mouthed bullshiat
 
2012-11-14 12:09:32 PM  

Serious Black: shotglasss: Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.

That won't work. Kansans like cutting taxes to zero and abolishing government...well, government that helps the proletariat at least.


My town just elected to have a tax increase just so we can have a new pool.

/A lot of people who wanted the tax also voted for Romney
//They will probably never see the irony
 
2012-11-14 12:32:33 PM  

clowncar on fire: elchip: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith

Luxury taxes! Unpossible!!!!

I'm assuming this tax could be applied to any luxury item regardless of the consumer's income.


He wasn't proposing luxury taxes, but taxes on house-rents. Because then as now, the wealthiest individuals in a highly developed society are thoroughly invested in land and its utility.

However, now we have an alternative venue which encompasses even that type of activity. The equivalent to Smith's argument of 1776 would be Increased Capital Gains taxes.
 
2012-11-14 12:42:19 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: Debeo Summa Credo: This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

You're going to complain about language when Frank Luntz single-handedly created the phrase "death tax"?

"death tax" is an ooga booga term and decades old. If a tax cut is massive, rolling it back it massive. This is just run-o ...


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?
 
2012-11-14 12:51:16 PM  

Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?


they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?
 
2012-11-14 01:04:18 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?


No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.
 
2012-11-14 01:08:57 PM  

Serious Black: No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.


I guess the difference is that he's not directly contradicting himself.
 
2012-11-14 01:13:55 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.


Yeah, the analogy fails. The "death tax" thing is applying a negative term to something Luntz unequivocally dislikes. He's not contradicting himself, just applying a term, appropriate or not.

Carney is contradicting himself within the same press conference by calling the expiration of the tax cuts for the rich "a little bit more", while calling the extension of those same cuts "massive".

It would be the equivalent to
Luntz, or anyone in the GOP, calling a planned cut in spending a "very modest reduction" but 5 minutes later describing the notion of not making that exact cut a "massive increase in wasteful spending"
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-14 01:27:49 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.


Yes. Usually this is called "Orwellian." Words have meanings and a lot of conservatives have been wanting to change those meanings to fit their own agenda.

Saying "small business" is anything under 1000 employees is a classic example.
 
2012-11-14 01:31:38 PM  

d23: Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.

Yes. Usually this is called "Orwellian." Words have meanings and a lot of conservatives have been wanting to change those meanings to fit their own agenda.

Saying "small business" is anything under 1000 employees is a classic example.


or equal changes in tax policy being simultaneously "massive" and "a little bit more". Ya know, as we're discussing.
 
2012-11-14 01:51:56 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?


More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

But from a practical perspective, I actually don't think Carney is making the abominable contradiction you think he is.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

Therefore, the impact on the individuals in question is "little" and the cost of the alternative, to society, is "massive". Carney is not a "Lying POS".

QED.

What's interesting to me is that you chose to ignore the other hundred or so words in that statement in lieu of identifying an imaginary rhetorical transgression. I mean, par for the course for you, but a little forced this time, don't you think.
 
2012-11-14 01:59:46 PM  

BeesNuts: More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."


if we assume he was speaking about EV votes when talking about Romney's "landside" prediction despite the fact that the context of the video in which he makes the comment seems to indicate he was referring to popular vote then yes.

BeesNuts: If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.


this is true. Good point.

BeesNuts: What's interesting to me is that you chose to ignore the other hundred or so words in that statement in lieu of identifying an imaginary rhetorical transgression. I mean, par for the course for you, but a little forced this time, don't you think.


wasn't me who posted the quote.
 
2012-11-14 02:25:05 PM  

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

But from a practical perspective, I actually don't think Carney is making the abominable contradiction you think he is.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

Therefore, the impact on the individuals in question is "little" and the cost of the alternative, to society, is "massive". Carney is not a "Lying POS".

QED.


Preposterous and shameful dodge! You are choosing to look at the dollar value related to the tax cuts/tax hikes to the country and individuals on an absolute basis. The possible tax increases/tax cuts are, relatively speaking, a higher percentage of income of the people affected than the government revenues as a whole. So while they may raise total income tax revenue by 4% for the treasury next year (assuming $80b increase on $2.5t in current revenues - very rough estimate), because they are only falling on the 2% top earners it would increase their taxes by a larger amount, say on average 10% (39.6% of income is 13% more than 35%, but adjusted downward because it wont affect the taxes paid on the 2%s first $250k in earnings.).

In your mind, or at least in your justification of whatever's going on in Carney's mind, a 4% increase in total revenue is 'massive', but a 10% increase in individual taxes is 'a little bit', because you are looking at the $80b vs. the smaller amounts that each individual taxpayer's taxes will increase.

Be sure to let the GOP know about that thought process when they start talking entitlement reform. I'm sure each EITC, WIC, medicaid, social security, and medicare recipient can do fine with a 8 or 10% cut in benefits. After all, that's just a little bit. But the savings to society would be massive!!
 
2012-11-14 02:48:27 PM  

elchip: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith


Pfft. Commie. What would our founding fathers say about such tripe?
 
2012-11-14 03:38:53 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

if we assume he was speaking about EV votes when talking about Romney's "landside" prediction despite the fact that the context of the video in which he makes the comment seems to indicate he was referring to popular vote then yes.


Wut?

Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By Dick Morris - 11/05/12 07:21 PM ET

Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.


BeesNuts: If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

this is true. Good point.


Thanks! I just literally hadn't read his quote the way you did, and so the affront you found seemed way out of left field.

BeesNuts: What's interesting to me is that you chose to ignore the other hundred or so words in that statement in lieu of identifying an imaginary rhetorical transgression. I mean, par for the course for you, but a little forced this time, don't you think.

wasn't me who posted the quote.


Really? *checks*. Well fark me... no idea what happened. Carry on.
 
2012-11-14 03:48:23 PM  

BeesNuts: Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By Dick Morris - 11/05/12 07:21 PM ET

Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.


that's certainly an EC prediction. In the interview he did with GVS on FNC he focuses almost entirely on the popular vote and talks about how he is able to look into polls unlike other people and see what they "really" say. Hadn't seen his written prediction before this
 
2012-11-14 03:55:30 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: BeesNuts: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

But from a practical perspective, I actually don't think Carney is making the abominable contradiction you think he is.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

Therefore, the impact on the individuals in question is "little" and the cost of the alternative, to society, is "massive". Carney is not a "Lying POS".

QED.

Preposterous and shameful dodge! You are choosing to look at the dollar value related to the tax cuts/tax hikes to the country and individuals on an absolute basis. The possible tax increases/tax cuts are, relatively speaking, a higher percentage of income of the people affected than the government revenues as a whole. So while they may raise total income tax revenue by 4% for the treasury next year (assuming $80b increase on $2.5t in current revenues - very rough estimate), because they are only falling on the 2% top earners it would increase their taxes by a larger amount, say on average 10% (39.6% of income is 13% more than 35%, but adjusted downward because it wont affect the taxes paid on the 2%s first $250k in earnings.).

In your ...


Never took calculus, did you?

We're discussing the difference between a principle and a derivative here. And until you can stop talking about percentage increases and decreases you're going to miss the point. Abandoning $80b is massive. If I made 300k and my taxes were 35% above 250, I'd be paying 35%*50k = 17.5k At 40% we're talking 20k. that's an increase of 2.5k across 300k income or a net increase of 0.8% and has "little" effect on the individual or household.

$80b of revenue, by contrast, is 2.75% of our total yearly revenue.

since 2.75% is THREE TIMES BIGGER than 0.83%, one might very well be justified in calling the former MASSIVE and the latter LITTLE. You can disagree with the semantics, but the fact is that no matter how badly you wanted to make Carney out to be some spinster on par with those Bush employed over his tenure, he's not a "Lying POS" because of what he said there.

This isn't spin. This is farking simple.
 
2012-11-14 03:57:15 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By Dick Morris - 11/05/12 07:21 PM ET

Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.

that's certainly an EC prediction. In the interview he did with GVS on FNC he focuses almost entirely on the popular vote and talks about how he is able to look into polls unlike other people and see what they "really" say. Hadn't seen his written prediction before this


Not gonna lie. I had to dig for that cocksucker. All that turned up were his vague retractions. I had to reduce the search to articles from 11/5/2012 only and boom, there it was. I'm honestly not sure if he was retracting his written statement or his verbal one, so we'll call that one a draw :p
 
2012-11-14 04:24:09 PM  
wtf is a refund.. what are all you guys poor
 
2012-11-14 04:41:07 PM  

jso2897: The poor already pay - sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes


Sales taxes are levied by states and counties to pay for necessary services, as are gasoline taxes levied by the federal, state and local government to pay only for roads. Property taxes are levied at the county level, usually to pay for schools and municipal services. Payroll taxes are Supposed to be us stashing our money away to the federal government to pay for social security.

None of these are the Federal Income tax. - which pays for the Military, court system, parks, patent offices and a littany of other departments along with the national debt, foreign aid, etc...

A poor person shopping at Wal-mart and paying sales tax is contributing to the operation his or her state/county. That sales tax does not go towards the operation of the federal government.

shotglasss: Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending


Although debate rages as to whether or not he actually said it, you've just described the Tytler cycle.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | 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