The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='yourlefthand']We aren't talking about taxing the wealthy though, just taxing the rich.

Are you advocating for a confiscatory property tax?>[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Clak']....you're a strange little person.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']I'm beginning to think the same thing. A weird fascination with what denotes rich and now talk of a "confiscatory property tax".

If folks want to talk policy that's fine but this guy seems more preoccupied with painting the rich as victims of society-at-large. Either he's an impressionable kid who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time or he's just bizarre.[/QUOTE]

First, I'm not fascinated with the definition of rich, I just wanting to define terms. I think it's irresponsible to say that the rich can pay more without defining what rich is. I told the story about my former coworker to illustrate that my fairly low income at the time was rich compared to her.

When talking about taxing the rich it is typically in terms of yearly income. Someone upthread started talking about wealth. a person with a high yearly income could have almost no wealth, and a person with a lot of wealth could have a low yearly income. Who is it that you want to tax more? If you are talking about taking from wealthy people based on their wealth (not income) it makes me wonder if you are advocating raiding 401(k) money above a certain point or something. That's what I meant by confiscatory property taxes.

Rich and wealthy people are not victims of society. They have had many advantages. Some of them are smarter than most, some of them work harder than most, and some of them were born with it. I already stated that progressive income taxes make the most sense, but I thought we were discussing the degree of taxation.

Do you really think that spending can continue unabated if we just tax the rich?
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Do you really think that spending can continue unabated if we just tax the rich?[/QUOTE]

No but it's a start. And you gotta start somewhere.
 
[quote name='Clak']...being rich implies wealth...[/QUOTE]

who is going to pay more if we "tax the rich" by adjusting our current income tax framework?

Hint - it's not necessarily people with wealth.
 
I'm loving this. A bunch of folks who scream about wanting to actually talk policy are being more slippy than a greased up pig on a slip n' slide when asked to nail down some kind of policy.

[quote name='camoor']No but it's a start. And you gotta start somewhere.[/QUOTE]
Why not start at cutting spending?
 
[quote name='Clak']...being rich implies wealth...[/QUOTE]

I'm not especially surprised that you missed the point, but whatever. When we talk about "taxing the rich" we are talking about income. high income does not necessarily correlate with high personal wealth.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']I'm not especially surprised that you missed the point, but whatever. When we talk about "taxing the rich" we are talking about income. high income does not necessarily correlate with high personal wealth.[/QUOTE]

What is your opinion on capital gains taxes? What about the estate tax?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What is your opinion on capital gains taxes? What about the estate tax?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']who is going to pay more if we "tax the rich" by adjusting our current income tax framework?

Hint - it's not necessarily people with wealth.[/QUOTE]
Do you think wealthy people just hoard all their money in some sort of Scrooge McDuck like money bin? No, they invest it genius. Tax the profits from those investments at a higher rate. Besides that, those moving up the ladder of the fabously wealthy are getting it from somewhere, tax that too.

Btw, all I did was point out the not all rich and/or wealthy people spend much money, that's it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Do you think wealthy people just hoard all their money in some sort of Scrooge McDuck like money bin? No, they invest it genius. Tax the profits from those investments at a higher rate. Besides that, those moving up the ladder of the fabously wealthy are getting it from somewhere, tax that too.

Btw, all I did was point out the not all rich and/or wealthy people spend much money, that's it.[/QUOTE]

So you're talking about raising capital gains taxes? Great. What is a reasonable rate? Do we tax it as ordinary income? What should we do with losses?
 
I feel like we've had this discussion on here at least a million times before, and I never intended to get pulled into it, I was simply making a point. I made my point and then some. Let someone else rehash this again.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm loving this. A bunch of folks who scream about wanting to actually talk policy are being more slippy than a greased up pig on a slip n' slide when asked to nail down some kind of policy.


Why not start at cutting spending?[/QUOTE]

Sure that's good too.

While we're at it, can I get three cheers for mom and apple pie?
 
Wondering where Newt has been? Why, palling around with Todd Akin of course.

The campaign is encouraged by the first sign of outside help since Akin's disastrous comments in August that women don't become pregnant from "legitimate rape."
...
Akin had been shunned by the rest of the Republican Party until Monday when Newt Gingrich campaigned with Akin in the congressional district Akin has represented for six consecutive terms. The former House speaker appeared with Akin at a press conference and attended a fundraiser luncheon.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...issouri-senate/story?id=17320249#.UGIHdo1lQng

Stay classy
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

Consumption taxes are regressive, you need to learn about marginal utility of income, and people don't stop trying to make more money because of taxes. Someone making 300k a year isn't going to skip out on another 50k because they'll need to pay an additional $1,500 in taxes on it. Your argument is dumb.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Consumption taxes are regressive, you need to learn about marginal utility of income, and people don't stop trying to make more money because of taxes. Someone making 300k a year isn't going to skip out on another 50k because they'll need to pay an additional $1,500 in taxes on it.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that high-income people weren't going to try to make the extra $50k. I was saying that raising capital gains as a whole raises taxes on people make $30k. In other words, a flat capital gains tax is regressive.

I understand that a flat consumption tax is regressive. Did you skip the part about a sliding scale 'rebate'?

I also understand the marginal utility of income. I think that the idea that just giving the gov't more money will solve the problem is dumb.


[quote name='dohdough']Your argument is dumb.[/QUOTE]

Stay classy, democrats. ;)
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']I think that the idea that just giving the gov't more money will solve the problem is dumb.[/QUOTE]

What part of multi-pronged approach don't you get?
 
[quote name='camoor']What part of multi-pronged approach don't you get?[/QUOTE]

I believe that a multi-pronged approach is important. I said "just giving the gov't more money" - I guess I should have said that SIMPLY giving the gov't more money is dumb.

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.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']I didn't say that high-income people weren't going to try to make the extra $50k. I was saying that raising capital gains as a whole raises taxes on people make $30k. In other words, a flat capital gains tax is regressive.[/QUOTE]
Of course you didn't say it; you only heavily imply that higher taxes would discourage investment. History says otherwise and all you're doing is obfuscating how you're using the rhetoric of the right.

I understand that a flat consumption tax is regressive. Did you skip the part about a sliding scale 'rebate'?
Click to expand...
So you want a "fair tax" system instead? Yeah...that's so much better than a flat tax especially after you throw in VAT.

I also understand the marginal utility of income. I think that the idea that just giving the gov't more money will solve the problem is dumb.
Click to expand...
And all I see it a lot of libertarian-lite double speak. When people use the same rhetoric as you, the first things to be cut are social programs. Taxes are at historical lows and raising taxes is a first step. No one is saying that it should stop there.

Stay classy, democrats. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not a democrat. Are you going to tell me about how great Ron Paul is next?:roll:

That reminds me...the way you're defining wealth and rich makes it meaningless. Cash poor; asset rich is a real concept that HENRY's bitch about all the time. You can make $200k a year and be broke if you have a mortgage on a million dollar house, but that doesn't make you poor anymore than a person on public assistance having a $500 lcd tv makes you not poor.

You're not even really making any points. All your doing is JAQ-ing off.

edit:
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.
Click to expand...
Deserves got nothing to do with it.
 
Sometimes I really do wish that Texas would secede. That way they could institue the policies we know they'd like to, then all the republican, libertarian, whateverthefuckyouwanttocallyourselves, types could move there and live out their Randian fantasies. The real moderates and left leaners can stay in the union and laugh when Texas turns into something resembling Escape from NY/LA.

Oh, and we can finally build that wall around our border that they've been wanting for so long! Might look a little different going around Texas, but hey, it's there.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Of course you didn't say it; you only heavily imply that higher taxes would discourage investment. History says otherwise and all you're doing is obfuscating how you're using the rhetoric of the right.
[/QUOTE]
Yay! Thanks for skipping the part about a flat capital gains tax being regressive.

[quote name='dohdough']
So you want a "fair tax" system instead? Yeah...that's so much better than a flat tax especially after you throw in VAT.
[/QUOTE]
I admit I like the fair tax idea better than some others. I'm not sure how it would work out in practice, but I think it would be better than the current mess. I didn't say anything about VAT.
[quote name='dohdough']
And all I see it a lot of libertarian-lite double speak. When people use the same rhetoric as you, the first things to be cut are social programs. Taxes are at historical lows and raising taxes is a first step. No one is saying that it should stop there.
[/QUOTE]
Lots of people seem to be saying that it should stop there, as that is all they talk about. Leaving debt and deficits out of it, why is a low tax rate a bad thiing?
[quote name='dohdough']
I'm not a democrat. Are you going to tell me about how great Ron Paul is next?:roll:
[/QUOTE]
What label do you prefer? Not a fan of Ron Paul.
[quote name='dohdough']
That reminds me...the way you're defining wealth and rich makes it meaningless. Cash poor; asset rich is a real concept that HENRY's bitch about all the time. You can make $200k a year and be broke if you have a mortgage on a million dollar house, but that doesn't make you poor anymore than a person on public assistance having a $500 lcd tv makes you not poor.
[/QUOTE]
That's kinda my point, actually. saying "tax the rich" without defining rich is meaningless. High income high expenses, which is the case with a lot of upper-middle class entrepreneurs shouldn't necessarily result in higher taxes.

Now you're using an interesting definition of poor, also. A person with a $500 TV may be poor relative to those around them, but they are certainly not poor on a historical or world-wide stage.
[quote name='dohdough']
You're not even really making any points. All your doing is JAQ-ing off.
[/QUOTE]
Trying to discuss tax policy with people who won't state their actual positions is not JAQ.
[quote name='dohdough']
edit:

Deserves got nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]

What does it have to do with then?
 
[quote name='Clak']Sometimes I really do wish that Texas would secede. That way they could institue the policies we know they'd like to, then all the republican, libertarian, whateverthefuckyouwanttocallyourselves, types could move there and live out their Randian fantasies. The real moderates and left leaners can stay in the union and laugh when Texas turns into something resembling Escape from NY/LA.

Oh, and we can finally build that wall around our border that they've been wanting for so long! Might look a little different going around Texas, but hey, it's there.[/QUOTE]
Irony is that originally, Mexico didn't want the people, gringos from the US really, that moved to what would eventually become Texas either because they were breaking a bunch of laws by stealing land and practicing slavery, to name a couple. There's a huge part of history about the Mexican-American War that we're not really taught, but we all know that stupid "Remember the Alamo!" rally.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Irony is that originally, Mexico didn't want the people, gringos from the US really, that moved to what would eventually become Texas either because they were breaking a bunch of laws by stealing land and practicing slavery, to name a couple. There's a huge part of history about the Mexican-American War that we're not really taught, but we all know that stupid "Remember the Alamo!" rally.[/QUOTE]
Oh I know, which makes some arguments for deportation that much more ironic. That people would accuse Mexican immigrants of coming here and breaking laws, as if we didn't do it first.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Yay! Thanks for skipping the part about a flat capital gains tax being regressive.[/quote]
Capital gains is really a financial tool of the wealthy and not the worker with a 401k. It's also based on PROFIT; not earned income, so if you take a loss on the initial investment, you don't see a tax, but a deduction. You're using "regressive" in an oddly loaded way.

I admit I like the fair tax idea better than some others. I'm not sure how it would work out in practice, but I think it would be better than the current mess. I didn't say anything about VAT.
Click to expand...
Wow...aren't we being literal today? VAT is a consumption tax. Do you prefer the term GST instead?

The only reason why it's a mess today is because those with wealth have twisted the system back into their favor like it was the Gilded Age.

Lots of people seem to be saying that it should stop there, as that is all they talk about. Leaving debt and deficits out of it, why is a low tax rate a bad thiing?
Click to expand...
Well lemme think for a sec...if tax revenue isn't sufficient at the margins, then they need to be raised on those that have benefitted the most from abnormal low rates! Crazy right!

What label do you prefer? Not a fan of Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
You first.

That's kinda my point, actually. saying "tax the rich" without defining rich is meaningless. High income high expenses, which is the case with a lot of upper-middle class entrepreneurs shouldn't necessarily result in higher taxes.
Click to expand...
Someone mentioned $140k and I'm good with that. A couple years ago, people making over $250 were bitching about 3%. Occupy was harping on the 1%. I'd say the term isn't as nebulous as you're making our argument out to be. As for taxing those rich fucks more, that's what AGI on marginal tax rates and capital gains is for.

Now you're using an interesting definition of poor, also. A person with a $500 TV may be poor relative to those around them, but they are certainly not poor on a historical or world-wide stage.
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about the US; not the world. And just because the poor have it better here than in Africa doesn't mean that their plight isn't bad.

Trying to discuss tax policy with people who won't state their actual positions is not JAQ.
Click to expand...
So you admit to being vague.

What does it have to do with then?
Click to expand...
Ensuring the sustainability of the economic system.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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

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...
Click to expand...

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?
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='yourlefthand']Because the tax rates are the only economic changes that have happened since the 50s? Riiiiiiight.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

You forgot the part where corporate America broke the backs of the unions.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You forgot the part where corporate America broke the backs of the unions.[/QUOTE]

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)
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...
http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2011/08/are-taxes-really-lower-than-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?
 
[quote name='camoor']What else changed so drastically as to affect the lives of the middle class?[/QUOTE]

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.?
 
[quote name='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.?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']Well, as far as taxes go, I think this is an interesting discussion about where the problems are:

http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2011/08/are-taxes-really-lower-than-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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Then I guess I'm in the 1%, because I have that and then some.

Don't tax me, bro.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
That's not my viewpoint, it's your strawman. :)

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so tax capital gains as ordinary income and cut loopholes. What's the effective rate that's fair?
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']That's not my viewpoint, it's your strawman. :)[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, however you're being shy about your feelings for the rich.

Let it out, if you have a crush on the one percenters let's hear it.
 
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]

I didn't think I was an elite. Thought I was middle class. But, apparently, according to you, I have more than most middle class folks...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I didn't think I was an elite. Thought I was middle class. But, apparently, according to you, I have more than most middle class folks...[/QUOTE]

I was joking but you do.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"I was joking but I was serious."

Okay then.[/QUOTE]

You're not a one percenter. You do have alot of crap.

You are doing better then middle class but you are not superrich.

Getitgotitgood.
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']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?[/quote]
There's absolutely nothing snide about my remarks; they're direct attacks on you and your reasoning.

If you're reducing my argument to "it's just not fair," what makes you think yours can't be? Cause guess what...you're doing the exact same thing with specious points. Comparing the average 401k holder to Romney's capital gains is fucking ludicrous by saying it'd be unfair to Romney because he paid more than most people earn in their lifetime. You're completely divorcing his gains from how he massively benefits from the system. Your use of the loaded terms "deserves" and "fair" is irrelevant when that system breaks down because he isn't kicking in enough money back to make it sustainable.

Your plan is more regressive because of marginal fucking utility. "Negative effective tax rate," or whatever the fuck that means, is not a guaranteed minimum income or translates into a non-poverty level AGI.

Btw, my insults are icing on the cake. You can ignore them or throw them back at me, but there's plenty of meat in my arguments. Focusing on the insults just makes you look whiney.

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.
Click to expand...
Didn't you say that you understand the concept of marginal utility? This again proves that you don't.

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.
Click to expand...
Define "work as expected." You're using a lot of loaded language, so just spit it out. Maybe then, people wouldn't have to infer what you're saying. This is why everyone is ignoring your harping for a specific number. Not to mention that your arguments betray your lack of understanding of some very basic economical concepts.

[quote name='yourlefthand']That's not my viewpoint, it's your strawman. :)


Ok, so tax capital gains as ordinary income and cut loopholes. What's the effective rate that's fair?[/QUOTE]
For someone that whines about my argument being about "fairness," you sure do use that term a lot.:roll:

I'll address your libertarian blog later.

FYI, we all know that for you, it's not about the number, but the concept. If numbers regarding sustainability were important to you, you'd understand why it makes sense for the high earners to pay more.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]
I have to wonder what might happen years down the road, when a large number of people end up dying while still largely in debt. Can't collect from a dead man, and if they had no real savings, that isn't going to pay much of it either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top