Lookin' For That Apology...

[Big Fitz]

Well, 350 posts later, has anyone figured out who should be apologizing for what?

Figures you wouldn't remember the OP.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well at least this thread will be valuable as evidence for such things as people like daveman guaranteeing us that the cost of this new stimulus bill will be paid for next year by spending cuts.

Once again, show me where the tax rates are being reduced. They are being EXTENDED, not reduced.

Quit lying.

 

[Trajan]

I'd say that has nothing to do with my point. You're arguing FOR running up the deficit and debt, I'm arguing against it.

it is exactly on point, 90% of the fed income taxes are paid by folks who use the fewest services rendered in specie or otherwsie.


You said the gov. does not have a right to gov. they don't pay for......well???

I said the People. That's a collective noun. Rich people get enormous benefits from government spending. Ask Bill Gates how much Microsoft software the government buys. Ask a millionaire business owner with 100 employees how many of his employees were educated in public schools, got government help for college. The more wealth a person has, the more people and institutions and businesses were involved in the creation of that wealth with government having played a significant contributory role throughout. The idea that the typical millionaire in this country has received less benefits from the government than the average welfare family is preposterous.

not at all, you are choosing to make value judgments without actually explaining/defining them, using an extreme example and framing this in a narrow confine, what? you gonna tell me next a guy making 45k puts less value on his life than a guy who makes 500K.....(ever heard of the law of diminishing returns btw ?)

so I'll address you and RW.

first lets get past this question because without delineating what we are truly discussing and how we'll run in circles-


q- should equal opportunity result in equal out come? yes or no?

 

[Trajan]

The top 5% of all wage earners currently pay more than 75% of all taxes. The bottom 60% pays nothing, or worse, gets more back than they paid. This would actually take the burden off the top tax brackets while still collecting the most from them (meaning that 10% of their earnings is still larger than everyone else). The ending of the redistribution would also lower the tax burden.

Combine that with appropriate spending cuts and federal departments, problem's solved quickly.

You must realize that if hiring an accountant for a tens of thousands of dollars to play loophole games that then dodge hundreds of thousands of dollars is a great savings, even though you're still having to employ someone specifically for the job of finding exemptions because someone in the government feels it's wrong for them to have what they earn or own. Better to reduce excessive rates and eliminate social engineering loopholes and dodges and just charge it flat and let the chips fall where they may.

FYI, Russia employs a flat tax of 13%.

We pay an "income tax".....top 5% pays 75% of the tax because they take 75% of available income

FYI, Russia employs a flat tax of 13%

Never thought I would live to see the day that our conservatives said we need to be more like Russia

they don't TAKE anything jesus Christ all mighty.....who do they take it from RW, exactly??


I have asked you this twice before and you did the brave sir robin routine....

IF there is a finite amount of money to be made, how much money is that? what is that amount figure etc? how much money is there to be 'made' before there is no more?

I have asked it 2 different ways for you......


is that clear enough?

 

[Big Fitz]

Rich people get enormous benefits from government spending.

And that is just as wrong as stealing 90% of their wealth as you desire.

Ask Bill Gates how much Microsoft software the government buys.

That is called a business transaction, not a government benefit. The same as if a business purchased it from him. They probably also get it at a discount too, so I guess one hand washes the other. SECONDLY, if you would reduce the size of government this would shrink accordingly too.

Ask a millionaire business owner with 100 employees how many of his employees were educated in public schools, got government help for college.

Strawman/False analogy. The current system is a monopoly, and a rigged higher education financial system that forces people to go for government assistance. That's like saying ask how many drivers use government taxed gas and giving that tax credit for their gas mileage.

The more wealth a person has, the more people and institutions and businesses were involved in the creation of that wealth with government having played a significant contributory role throughout.

Again, the gas tax is responsible for your car being able to get good gas mileage.

The idea that the typical millionaire in this country has received less benefits from the government than the average welfare family is preposterous.

A rich person is barred by law from getting many services enjoyed by the poor. Why should he pay for his own health insurance when the government provides medicare? Why should he be barred from receiving it because he earns too much? The government gives billions in food stamps to poor people. Why should a rich man be denied government provided food because he COULD afford it doesn't mean he SHOULD pay for it by this logic.

They also pay a disproportionate amount for the right to vote over a poor person who technically is PAID by the government to do so through the earned income credit and homestead credit.

Yes, I can see the validity of this argument.

 

[Madeline]

By what right is that 75% not their property, but the government's? Do I own anything, and if so, who decides when what I earn is no longer mine? What do you have that you don't really own that I can take from you?

And please. Once again. What is the purpose of government?

For simplicity's sake, let's assume it costs $5,000 in government services to enable you to make $50,000, Fitz. The numbers aren't that important; what matters is, conceding there are government-incurred costs involved in enabling you to earn income.

On these facts, is it so unfair to expect you to pay some or all of that $5,000 in tax?

Now let me be clear. Government service should be paid for. It is a shared common good and responsibility for all citizens. But, there are some basic guidelines that should be followed.

1. Under equal protection and representation, if you want to get persnickity, everyone should pay the same amount. If it costs 5k a person, everyone who is a citizen should pay it. But since this is a retroactive tax that hurts the poorest the most, it is a reasonable request for a percentage to be paid to cover that amount for the cost of government. Therefore a millionaire could pay 500k and thereby paying the difference of those paying only $100 in taxes due to their poverty. This is a reasonable expectation, as long as the percentage taken is the SAME for everyone.

2. The cost of government is limited by the services allowed to be provided by government. Currently, the federal government has become a cancer. It has far outgrown it's original mandated duties and has taken on new, previously unknown and dubious, responsibilities when compared to it's original mandate. This of course means that to return the national government to its lawful limits would result in a massively dramatic reduction in it's size, services and scopes, ceded to the states where it correctly belongs. This also allows people to vote with their feet and leave states and systems of governance that they disagree with.

3. Financial crimes are woefully underpunished. Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay should have been looking at the death penalty for the amount of damage they did to people's lives and the nation at large. White collar crime needs to see a dramatic increase in the severity of the punishment for the damage is often far worse than mugging or assaulting a single person.

4. Lastly, the government needs to be removed from the 'shaping' of the private markets except in the form of national security, consumer protection, labor protection, pro-competition, and anti criminal activities. The fed should be abolished as it is using monetary policy as an economic weapon to shape the markets and pick the pockets of the citizenry through inflation (essentially acting as a pay cut) or against our trade partners. Money not backed by something other than our word, is dangerous ultimately, because if our word becomes worthless, so does our money.

I never said I wish to decriminalize theft, as you can see. I am saying that we HAVE decriminalize theft by government in the form of punitive/excessive taxation against a minority of people (the rich or at least those who earn) for the sake of the indigent or working poor. And a common economic law of course that you should know is that when you want less of something, tax it. When you want more of it, subsidize it. Through the tax code, we have stated, we wish more poverty and less productivity and wealth.

Back to the Laffer Curve. We are currently being overtaxed and that provides an incentive for people to, within the law and outside it, find ways to dodge paying taxes. This decreases the overall pool of money in which the higher tax rate can be applied to. Rich people are able to keep their capital mobile and move it away from high taxation, sheltering it, OR leave the place where they are suffering high taxation.

This means that, like the state of Maryland proved through it's Millionaires Tax passed 2 years ago, that the rich can and will flee taxation because the cost of moving it out of the reach of government is LESS than the tax savings. Like I said before, a 50k a year accountant who can hide 500K of your money from the tax man is a great investment as well as a good matter of principle to prevent what amounts effectively to looters in your bank account.

Now, if you dropped the taxes so that you were collecting only 100k in taxes instead of 500k, you have created a disincentive to hire the accountant who will be saving little more than what they pay in taxes. More people pay and thereby increase the amount of money in the pool because less can afford, or are inclined to dodge taxes. It is economically sensible to just pay the tax and be done with it. Now mind you that's an extreme example. If you go too low on the taxes there is an opposite effect that you are undertaxed and need to raise them to collect the most efficient amount for government to function.

We are far from there, still.

This is all very appealing, Fitz, and some of it I'd agree with.....but not enough to get us on the same page here.

"Lawful" government acts include all such acts which are not criminal or at least tortious in nature. Criminal prosecutions are legal, but abuse of prosecutorial power is not. In seeking to reduce the size of government, it is supremely unhelpful to say such things as "scale back government to its lawful limits", as I find them meaningless.

I distrust the Laffer Curve in part because we are in a period of deflation. One of its assumptions is, there is a measurable, anticipated use of newly-freed capital. In this economy, I think that's a flawed assumption.

I agree, financial crimes need better prosecution and better punishment. The solution IMO is more than simply funding more full time positions for the SEC; we need a chinese wall between regulator and regulated persons, for starters.

100k is not a disincentive to hire a tax planner. For some people, 1k is not. Rationally though, as long as the tax planner is less expensive than the tax bill he saves, using him is incentivized and anyway, a great many individual tax return plans are drawn up at the expense of third parties, usually a business. You can bet the CEO of GM is not paying for his own tax planning.

Dropping taxes is pie in the sky thinking at this time, IMO. The only question on the table should be raising them (while cutting government spending) and in what fashion.

 

[Big Fitz]

Criminal prosecutions are legal, but abuse of prosecutorial power is not. In seeking to reduce the size of government, it is supremely unhelpful to say such things as "scale back government to its lawful limits", as I find them meaningless.

The federal government has strictly enumerated powers that it was not to stray outside of. The meanings of these powers has been distorted to give the national government broad undefined powers that were the venue of the state. We need to return to the strictly defined powers and hold government to that. If states want to become bloated, they may... I'll move and so will many others. That is the way our founders set up our government to be checked and balanced. Vertically and horizontally.

I distrust the Laffer Curve in part because we are in a period of deflation.

That is because they have rigged the numbers currently. When you include food and fuel prices, inflation is rising fast. You can't print an extra 2 trillion dollars in 3 years with nothing to back it and have deflation. It's just not possible.

It's currently a numbers game to protect those responsible from the consequences that will come for as long as possible. Like a kid hiding stained clothing at the bottom of the hamper, this will be discovered later, when it's too late to fix nicely or simply.

One of its assumptions is, there is a measurable, anticipated use of newly-freed capital. In this economy, I think that's a flawed assumption.

Actually, that's precisely the reason QE1 and QE2 have failed. Banks were expected to put the money into circulation. They didn't. They know the reality of what will happen when they do so they are sitting on it. The value of the dollar WILL plunge into possible hyper inflation of 30-50% per annum repeating the Weimar Republic on a scale never seen before. Some economic experts are prediction that by the time it is over we could see, in a worst case scenario 2300% total inflation over the upcoming years. Imagine paying 23 dollars for a loaf of bread and 80 dollars for a small can of coffee. That is the worst case over time.

I agree, financial crimes need better prosecution and better punishment. The solution IMO is more than simply funding more full time positions for the SEC; we need a chinese wall between regulator and regulated persons, for starte

We need to back off on many regulations, and make those that remain just what you say, a Chinese Wall. Go after fraud, corruption and unfair practices and leave the rest for the market to sort out. Set firewalls for trading protection to prevent collapses and crashes.

100k is not a disincentive to hire a tax planner. For some people, 1k is not.

The point is that you need to make it a disincentive. The number was just used as an example. Accountants, good ones cost more than that.

You can bet the CEO of GM is not paying for his own tax planning.

Illustrates my point. If you didn't need to because the rate was cheaper and the code was simple, you'd solve that.

Dropping taxes is pie in the sky thinking at this time, IMO. The only question on the table should be raising them (while cutting government spending) and in what fashion.

Raising taxes will only hurt the ability to pay them because money is taken out of the private sector to hire people, invest in improvements or even replace the worn business infrastructure making businesses less able to cope. Spending cuts should be the only thing on the table. Right now, we have a government who has gone Imelda Marcos on shoes and is complaining that she must still have money because she still has checks in her check book while the mortgage is going unpaid.

 

[Madeline]

Big Fitz wrote in part:

Raising taxes will only hurt the ability to pay them because money is taken out of the private sector to hire people, invest in improvements or even replace the worn business infrastructure making businesses less able to cope. Spending cuts should be the only thing on the table. Right now, we have a government who has gone Imelda Marcos on shoes and is complaining that she must still have money because she still has checks in her check book while the mortgage is going unpaid.

I just think you're wrong, Fizzy. But I'll concede I only want things to improve and am fearful of trying the Reagan solution again....I can't see it working this time. It isn't that I think your objectives are any different from mine.

 

[Big Fitz]

But I'll concede I only want things to improve and am fearful of trying the Reagan solution again....I can't see it working this time.

But it worked. We got out of stagflation then. And to add the Harding/Coolidge method of chopping the federal government in half... You can't fail. We just can't raise taxes. It will get worse.

Both actions resulted in booms. Historically proven winners. Tax hikes are historically proven failures.

 

[Madeline]

I just do not agree, Fizzy, but you've got me thinking and I promise, I will read more on the subject.

Meanwhile, back to the Op. Did we ever learn why PC thought McCain would have been the better choice?

 

[daveman]

There is no spending decrease in this bill you're supporting. It's a spending INCREASE. It adds hundreds of billions to the deficit.

Why are you demanding that I insist the government be reduced at the same time you're pushing for MORE government spending, less government revenue...

...the double dose of fiscal irresponsibility that has gotten us where we are today.

unbelievable.

No, what's unbelievable is your insistence that ONE bill cover everything.

After those Republican tax cut bills, that bill cutting spending never seems to come around..

Does it?

Why don't we cut spending FIRST....and then cut taxes

Again...stop pretending you want to cut spending.

 

[Big Fitz]

He had Palin as a Veep. That unto itself would have been the improvement, but other than that... yes. It still would have been a LITTLE better. Healthcare would not have passed.

 

[daveman]

If that is the case, then why not have the system of paying voluntary fees to use the services instead of taxing everyone for things they don't use?

Who then pays the carrying costs of maintaining the services for whatever demand there might be in future, boedicca? Do we hurry up and build a prison after the man who assaulted you is convicted?

Some on the left think that's the way we should run the military.

 

[daveman]

There is no spending decrease in this bill you're supporting. It's a spending INCREASE. It adds hundreds of billions to the deficit.

Why are you demanding that I insist the government be reduced at the same time you're pushing for MORE government spending, less government revenue...

...the double dose of fiscal irresponsibility that has gotten us where we are today.

unbelievable.

No, what's unbelievable is your insistence that ONE bill cover everything.

I have history on my side. You don't. The history has been that tax cuts passed with only promises of some later cut in spending have never been followed by those cuts.

So, once again, you're criticizing a House that hasn't even been seated yet.

 

[daveman]

Well at least this thread will be valuable as evidence for such things as people like daveman guaranteeing us that the cost of this new stimulus bill will be paid for next year by spending cuts.

Where did I do that?

If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.

 

[daveman]

If that is the case, then why not have the system of paying voluntary fees to use the services instead of taxing everyone for things they don't use?

And how would that work? I can opt out of my share of military spending because I don't 'use' the military?

Are you a free man who enjoys the protections of the Constitution?

Looks like you use the military, then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee, imagine that. One more idiot leftist who can't tell the difference between a military member who earns his pay and benefits, and a welfare recipient who merely has to breathe.

So you're going to tell us that the only government spending you want to cut that would take money out of anyone's pockets is welfare spending?

lolol. And how much does that amount to?

Let me ask you this. If this country did do a meaningful spending reduction, what are you willing to sacrifice?

How many times do I have to tell you idiots before you stop claiming I never told you?

Government waste at it’s finest | Political Realities

Excellent link...it wouldn't let me give a rep...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course it makes sense. If spending is cut at the same time taxes are lowered, the debt would be paid off in short order.

What you don't want to do is cut spending -- because you'd lose a lot of Democrat voters.

Now YOU"RE agreeing with me. I'm saying taxes can't be cut unless spending is cut at the same time. THAT'S my opposition to this GOP/Obama stimulus package.

Now you're saying do it at the same time, but, you won't INSIST on doing it at the same time, you're willing to let them do the easy part, cutting taxes. That never works. The cuts are never made later.

Pay as you go has to work both ways. No spending without paying for it. No tax cuts without paying for them.

It's funny the way you pretend you want to decrease the size of the government.

Where have you been the last two years while the Democrats were skyrocketing the deficit?

There have been four President's who have been able to get Congress to cut taxes for the benefit of growing the economy...

1. Coolidge
2. Kennedy
3. Reagan
4. Bush II

Only one has been able to follow through on reduced spending at the same time...Coolidge.

BTW, if the Obama-GOP deal goes through, that will be five.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What a catchy slogan. So, IYO, we just whistle in the dark while the deficit looms over our heads and hope we never need borrow again?

Great plan, Dave.

Good thing that's not what I'm advocating, huh?

We cannot cut spending deeply enough or fast enough to address the deficit in time, Dave. The debt load we are carrying is equal to the GDP.

Increasing taxes is a necessity.

No, the necessity is to change the attitude toward business, achievement and success.

A thriving economy will bring in the taxes, and curtailing spending will eventually take care of the debt.

 

[daveman]

So you're going to tell us that the only government spending you want to cut that would take money out of anyone's pockets is welfare spending?

lolol. And how much does that amount to?

Let me ask you this. If this country did do a meaningful spending reduction, what are you willing to sacrifice?

How many times do I have to tell you idiots before you stop claiming I never told you?

Government waste at it’s finest | Political Realities

Excellent link...it wouldn't let me give a rep...

Thankee right kindly, ma'am. *tips hat*