Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by yourlefthand Capital gains are tricky since they are paid by people of all income brackets. Are we going to push them into a more progressive model also? I could see higher capital gains taxes above a certain level, but that goes against my ideal of simplifying the code in general. I also don't want to discourage people from using their money to back innovation and value. I'm not a big fan of the estate tax, my theory being the gov't has already gotten a cut of the income that the person generated, so why should someone's death allow them another piece of the pie? My pie-in-the-sky tax plan would be a consumption tax with some sort of sliding-scale rebate for low incomes. Encourages people to work to make extra money, rewards saving, and gets rid of some of the underground economy. That being said, I'm sure it won't ever happen since it makes sense.

Oh, so you're a 'FairTax' (quotes well deserved, by the by) kinda dude, are yeh?

The "double taxation" argument against estate taxes (as you say, "the gov't has already gotten a cut of the income that the person generated") is a silly argument. That logic, if applied evenly, would lead to being against any tax other than the income tax - including the "consumption tax" you state you support. The government "has already gotten a cut of the income that the person generated," as someone I know once said - so why would it make sense to tax goods or services when purchased? That's getting "another piece of the pie." Would also apply to property taxes, special taxes on goods like alcohol and tobacco, and import tariffs that companies pawn off onto us in the form of the price of an item manufactured overseas and then imported.

In short, there's no way to tax anything *but* income if one argues, and truly buys into, the notion that "the gov't has already gotten a cut of the income that the person generated" and shouldn't therefore tax X (X being any economic activity using earned income).

Additionally, if you support the idea of "income that the person generated" as a valuable metric for defining things that ought to be taxed, you would be substantially more in favor of a capital gains tax (since it is precisely what it is called - a tax on *gains*, a tax on "income that the person generated").

Your concepts here are pretty wildly contradictory and inconsistent when compared against themselves, friend.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Oh, so you're a 'FairTax' (quotes well deserved, by the by) kinda dude, are yeh? The "double taxation" argument against estate taxes (as you say, "the gov't has already gotten a cut of the income that the person generated") is a silly argument. That logic, if applied evenly, would lead to being against any tax other than the income tax - including the "consumption tax" you state you support. The government "has already gotten a cut of the income that the person generated," as someone I know once said - so why would it make sense to tax goods or services when purchased? That's getting "another piece of the pie." Would also apply to property taxes, special taxes on goods like alcohol and tobacco, and import tariffs that companies pawn off onto us in the form of the price of an item manufactured overseas and then imported. In short, there's no way to tax anything *but* income if one argues, and truly buys into, the notion that "the gov't has already gotten a cut of the income that the person generated" and shouldn't therefore tax X (X being any economic activity using earned income). Additionally, if you support the idea of "income that the person generated" as a valuable metric for defining things that ought to be taxed, you would be substantially more in favor of a capital gains tax (since it is precisely what it is called - a tax on *gains*, a tax on "income that the person generated"). Your concepts here are pretty wildly contradictory and inconsistent when compared against themselves, friend.

I think it's silly for the government to collect taxes on income, taxes on vices to discourage them, taxes on the supposed value of property, taxes on what you spend on some categories of merchandise, and other taxes on income that some people say aren't taxes whenever it's convenient. I know that that is lumping several levels of government together, but that is the way taxes work. My proposal of a high tax on buying things is not perfect, but it does several things that I think are important, including cutting down on wasteful collection efforts.

You obviously disagree, so what is the ideal system for paying for government?

This is off-topic for this thread, so feel free to start a new one if you want. I would love to have something other than dohdough's "it's just not fair" argument put out here.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand This is off-topic for this thread, so feel free to start a new one if you want. I would love to have something other than dohdough's "it's just not fair" argument put out here.

The only reason why you're interpreting it in that way is because you're in the shallow end of a pool and pretending it's the deep end. Your answer to the problem is to make taxation more regressive. This clearly illustrates the fact that you don't truly understand the concept of marginal utility in real terms, but as a thought experiment.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand It was intended to be a dig at the assertion that due to the marginal utility of income high-income people deserve less of what they earn. Eventually, giving the gov't more money just serves to perpetuate the problem.

LMAO. Yeah because we're doing great now that rich people aren't paying taxes. It's much better for the middle class then it was in the 50s when rich people actually paid their fair share.

Get a clue.

Back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1XpA...layer_embedded

:facepalm:

Capital gains are tricky since they are paid by people of all income brackets.

What a greasy load of garbage, who is more effected? Someone who makes a few hundred dollars a year playing the market on top of their regular job or a billionaire who has more investment money than income?

I think it's silly...

Instead of asking us to show it isn't silly why not show us an example of a country that does it your way and succeeds?

Originally Posted by dohdough The only reason why you're interpreting it in that way is because you're in the shallow end of a pool and pretending it's the deep end. Your answer to the problem is to make taxation more regressive. This clearly illustrates the fact that you don't truly understand the concept of marginal utility in real terms, but as a thought experiment.

I'd probably be more willing to listen to what you have to say if you'd lay off the snide remarks. I've tried to make it clear that I am willing to listen to other ideas, but you won't say anything that doesn't boil down to "it's not fair". Why would my plan be more regressive that the current way? Is it because it would necessarily allow people to have a negative effective tax rate?

Originally Posted by camoor LMAO. Yeah because we're doing great now that rich people aren't paying taxes. It's much better for the middle class then it was in the 50s when rich people actually paid their fair share. Get a clue.

Because the tax rates are the only economic changes that have happened since the 50s? Riiiiiiight.

Originally Posted by Msut77 What a greasy load of garbage, who is more effected? Someone who makes a few hundred dollars a year playing the market on top of their regular job or a billionaire who has more investment money than income? Instead of asking us to show it isn't silly why not show us an example of a country that does it your way and succeeds?

Since everyone on the left likes talking about taxes as percentages, they are affected in the EXACT SAME WAY! In real dollars, of course, people with more capital gains would be more affected by a rate hike, but real dollar amounts don't seem to matter to many people in this discussion. If we were talking about real dollars someone might admit that Mitt Romney just paid more in taxes last year than many people will gross in their lifetime. He made a lot more than most anyone will, so he should pay more taxes.

Why should a new policy have to have been implemented somewhere else? Aren't we supposed to be leading the world? Many of you have made the claim that we need to tax the rich more. Why don't you provide the evidence that this will work as expected. Maybe you could start with stating what you think a reasonable top tax rate should be.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand Because the tax rates are the only economic changes that have happened since the 50s? Riiiiiiight.

What else changed so drastically as to affect the lives of the middle class?

There was deregulation - making corporate raiders, sub-prime mortgage reps, and other nefarious Wall Street players billions of dollars on the backs of the middle class. There was offshoring which also cut down drastically on the number of middle class jobs. There were the unnecessary wars that cost the country trillions in debt and tens of thousands of lives but made billions for the contracting companies like Halliburton and Blackwater.

So yes there were other factors. But most can be directly attributed to the widening gap between rich and poor, the disappearing middle class, and our inability to get the rich to play by the rules and pay their fair share.

Originally Posted by camoor What else changed so drastically as to affect the lives of the middle class? There was deregulation - making corporate raiders, sub-prime mortgage reps, and other nefarious Wall Street players billions of dollars on the backs of the middle class. There was offshoring which also cut down drastically on the number of middle class jobs. There were the unnecessary wars that cost the country trillions in debt and tens of thousands of lives but made billions for the contracting companies like Halliburton and Blackwater. So yes there were other factors. But most can be directly attributed to the widening gap between rich and poor, the disappearing middle class, and our inability to get the rich to play by the rules and pay their fair share.

You forgot the part where corporate America broke the backs of the unions.

Originally Posted by RedvsBlue You forgot the part where corporate America broke the backs of the unions.

Yeah good point, that's another big one.

So lefthand, have you had enough? Can we do away with the "rich people are job makers" mythology and start talking turkey? I mean, you think they should pay more taxes, I think they should pay more taxes, and now you know why I am skeptical of anyone who kowtows to the lies and bs spread by Republican party leaders (and certain Dems)

Originally Posted by camoor What else changed so drastically as to affect the lives of the middle class? There was deregulation - making corporate raiders, sub-prime mortgage reps, and other nefarious Wall Street players billions of dollars on the backs of the middle class. There was offshoring which also cut down drastically on the number of middle class jobs. There were the unnecessary wars that cost the country trillions in debt and tens of thousands of lives but made billions for the contracting companies like Halliburton and Blackwater. So yes there were other factors. But most can be directly attributed to the widening gap between rich and poor, the disappearing middle class, and our inability to get the rich to play by the rules and pay their fair share.

Well, as far as taxes go, I think this is an interesting discussion about where the problems are:

The chart below was derived from statistics published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. According to the data, personal taxes, as a percentage of GDP, averaged 7.6% in the 1950s, and 7.5% between 2001 and 2010. So in that sense, Americans are paying a whopping 1.3% less in personal taxes than our grandparents, and great-grandparents paid back in the 1950s. I included federal government spending just out of curiosity. It turns out that government spending as a percentage of GDP, while only averaging 16.4% in the 1950s, has averaged 21.3% since 2001. So it appears that the percentage decline of 1.3% in personal taxes, which we are all enjoying today, is miniscule, compared to the unsustainable 29.8% spike in federal government spending.

http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2...han-1950s.html

I won't say that the analysis is perfect, but feel free to back up any refutation.

Deregulation has good and bad sides as far as I can see. I think that we all enjoy greater choice and service due to the government breaking up the ma bell and deregulating airlines. I refuse to put all the blame for subprime mortgages on the evil reps, as there were plenty of buyers who should have had the brains to look into what they were signing.

Offshoring does move jobs by definition, but it also lowers prices. You can't just blame the rich for offshoring when few people are willing to pay more for 'made in america'. Have you been to North Carolina lately and seen the empty furniture factories and hosiery mills? We buy socks that are made in NC and they cost 2-3x as much as socks made in China. They are also much better quality.

Which wars are you stating were unnecessary? I'm assuming that was just mean Afghanistan and Iraq, so while the unneeded deaths have affected people, I don't think that the debt has really hit anyone yet. You could even argue that all the money that went to contractors helped the middle class make more money.

You forgot to mention other changes that affect the way middle class people live, like increasing automation making manual labor less necessary in factories and the Internet allowing more competition for local businesses. Skyrocketing immigration has probably had an impact as well.

I won't dispute that the gap between rich and poor is wide, but I am still not sure that that is as big a deal as some want us to believe. Why is the default answer to take more for rich people rather than trying to encourage personal acchievement?

Why do you still insist on not saying what is a fair share of a person's income?

Originally Posted by camoor What else changed so drastically as to affect the lives of the middle class?

Lifestyles have changed. In the 50's, how many families did you know that had two cars, multiple TVs (with a pay-TV subscription, including Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc), cell phones (heck, home phones were just coming back into the mainstream at this point), home computers, internet, video games, etc., etc.?

Originally Posted by UncleBob Lifestyles have changed. In the 50's, how many families did you know that had two cars, multiple TVs (with a pay-TV subscription, including Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc), cell phones (heck, home phones were just coming back into the mainstream at this point), home computers, internet, video games, etc., etc.?

I don't know that people have that now. I feel very privileged to have only a few of the luxuries that you mention and most of my friends have way less, and I live in a nice area! Times are tough and sales of these luxuries, like the latest HDTVs, are way down.

Man you read about the lives of some folks who are barely making it in the midwest and it breaks your heart. Unless you're from Wall Street, then you just get a woody.

Then I guess I'm in the 1%, because I have that and then some.

Don't tax me, bro.

Originally Posted by yourlefthand Well, as far as taxes go, I think this is an interesting discussion about where the problems are: http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2...han-1950s.html I won't say that the analysis is perfect, but feel free to back up any refutation. Deregulation has good and bad sides as far as I can see. I think that we all enjoy greater choice and service due to the government breaking up the ma bell and deregulating airlines. I refuse to put all the blame for subprime mortgages on the evil reps, as there were plenty of buyers who should have had the brains to look into what they were signing. Offshoring does move jobs by definition, but it also lowers prices. You can't just blame the rich for offshoring when few people are willing to pay more for 'made in america'. Have you been to North Carolina lately and seen the empty furniture factories and hosiery mills? We buy socks that are made in NC and they cost 2-3x as much as socks made in China. They are also much better quality. Which wars are you stating were unnecessary? I'm assuming that was just mean Afghanistan and Iraq, so while the unneeded deaths have affected people, I don't think that the debt has really hit anyone yet. You could even argue that all the money that went to contractors helped the middle class make more money. You forgot to mention other changes that affect the way middle class people live, like increasing automation making manual labor less necessary in factories and the Internet allowing more competition for local businesses. Skyrocketing immigration has probably had an impact as well. I won't dispute that the gap between rich and poor is wide, but I am still not sure that that is as big a deal as some want us to believe. Why is the default answer to take more for rich people rather than trying to encourage personal acchievement? Why do you still insist on not saying what is a fair share of a person's income?

Ahahah you're a trip. Maybe you didn't see when all the telecom companies glued themselves back together again, or as Jon Stewart said it, exploded and then reformed like the liquid terminator from T2.

Offshoring - ok the elite are just making a buck and are not humanitarians, I get that. But let's dispel this myth that they are job creators - they are really callous relentless voracious profit makers which can mean making jobs but also often means eliminating jobs with new tech or offshoring. Giving them no-strings-attached tax breaks does nothing to help the job situation, make the rich pay their fair share.

The debt of the wars may have not hit folks hard, but it casts a pall on the national debate. The debt can be used as a foil by extremist right-wingers for various purposes, such as eliminating social programs that offer a base standard of living for the middle class that are down on their luck.

Yeah there are other factors too. But I'm addressing your mythological viewpoint of the rich as some kind of benevolent overseers who would fix the economy if we would just get that durn gubmint to stop takin ther moneys.

If the government bundled personal income with investment, eliminated the useless loopholes, and made the rich actually pay the graduated rate for personal income as it stands, that would be a big step towards fairness in my book.

Originally Posted by UncleBob Then I guess I'm in the 1%, because I have that and then some. Don't tax me, bro.

You? A midwest Wally World manager? You think you're an elite? You think you're in the boy's club, the one percenters, one of them?

That is too cute for words.

Originally Posted by camoor You? A midwest Wally World manager? You think you're an elite? You think you're in the boy's club, the one percenters, one of them? That is too cute for words.

No, but he thinks he could be, they all do. That's the only logical reason why you'd defend someone with so much more than you, if you think you might one day be in their position. It's no different than college athletes all thinking they'll go pro, when so few actually do.

Originally Posted by camoor But I'm addressing your mythological viewpoint of the rich as some kind of benevolent overseers who would fix the economy if we would just get that durn gubmint to stop takin ther moneys.

That's not my viewpoint, it's your strawman.

Originally Posted by camoor If the government bundled personal income with investment, eliminated the useless loopholes, and made the rich actually pay the graduated rate for personal income as it stands, that would be a big step towards fairness in my book.

Ok, so tax capital gains as ordinary income and cut loopholes. What's the effective rate that's fair?

Originally Posted by Clak No, but he thinks he could be, they all do. That's the only logical reason why you'd defend someone with so much more than you, if you think you might one day be in their position. It's no different than college athletes all thinking they'll go pro, when so few actually do.

You could also think that speaking out is the right thing to do.

A few years ago I was living in NY and they came out with some new taxes. Each of them was tailored to hit a small enough group that nobody could get a large enough constituency to stop them. There was a tax on digital goods (itunes), there was a tax on certain types of alcohol sales, etc. Just because something doesn't directly affect you negatively or positively doesn't mean that you shouldn't speak out.

Originally Posted by camoor I don't know that people have that now. I feel very privileged to have only a few of the luxuries that you mention and most of my friends have way less, and I live in a nice area! Times are tough and sales of these luxuries, like the latest HDTVs, are way down. Man you read about the lives of some folks who are barely making it in the midwest and it breaks your heart. Unless you're from Wall Street, then you just get a woody.

I think the missed point is people have all those things now, but they do so at the expense of having no savings, and often in racking up consumer debt.

Hell, a lot of our grad students (and people I went to grad school with--and myself back then other than not having or needing 2 cars) have all that stuff. But they (and I) took out too many student loans to afford the lifestyle vs. going without cable, living with a bunch of roommates etc.

So I don't think the middle class is any better off just because they have more gadgets and entertainment services in their home. They're just living more paycheck to paycheck (or under a mountain of debt) than people in the middle class did in the past.