I'm loving the warm and fuzzy tolerance of difference the left is known for.
Please tell me you're kidding.
|
Well from my own experience it's usually "I'm a self-made businessman, I already pay taxes so why is everyone expecting me to pay even more?"
And here's the big issue. Just because someone benefited more -maybe from wise business choices?- they have to pay more back in?
I'm sorry, but if we're both homeless and a stranger gives us both $5, if you blow yours on strippers and I set up a lemonade stand and turn my 5 into 20, I'm not giving you ten bucks. :)
You are if you set your lemonade stand up on a curb that you and I both own.
Regarding ciretose's point about increases in global temperature.
Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Disagree
Note that I had already removed that statement from my post prior to this being posted.
Note that I had already removed that statement from my post prior to this being posted.Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies DisagreeDirest copy paste from your post after refresh Three seconds ago:
Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.
Then your stuff sucks becuae I checked my post after yours was made and before making mine. I even scrolled up the screen to look at the post when making this one.
Not what you say it is.
That's a fact.
Hee hee!
Good stuff, guys. I haven't read it all yet, but I wanted to voice my approval before Paizo opens up and the thread gets locked.
Note that I had already removed that statement from my post prior to this being posted.Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies DisagreeDirest copy paste from your post after refresh Three seconds ago:
Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.
Then your stuff sucks becuae I checked my post after yours was made and before making mine. I even scrolled up the screen to look at the post when making this one.
Not what you say it is.
That's a fact.
I am not sure why your getting angry with me over a cache error.
regardless, you did say it. Good for you admitting your wrong and removing it. The information is still useful, as it supports ciretose point. I.e. That global temperature is rising and that isn't really up for debate.
I have edited the post to remove the attributation to you however.
|
You are if you set your lemonade stand up on a curb that you and I both own.Well from my own experience it's usually "I'm a self-made businessman, I already pay taxes so why is everyone expecting me to pay even more?"
And here's the big issue. Just because someone benefited more -maybe from wise business choices?- they have to pay more back in?
I'm sorry, but if we're both homeless and a stranger gives us both $5, if you blow yours on strippers and I set up a lemonade stand and turn my 5 into 20, I'm not giving you ten bucks. :)
Nope! We've both already contributed equally to our curb when we paid state tax on our last bottle of Wild Turkey we bought.
My profit is mine. Sorry, next time don't blow your money on strippers. :)
Note that I had already removed that statement from my post prior to this being posted.Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies DisagreeDirest copy paste from your post after refresh Three seconds ago:
Actually, data shows a recent cooling trend period, don't have the exact years handy at the moment. It is "climate change" instead of global warming.
Then your stuff sucks becuae I checked my post after yours was made and before making mine. I even scrolled up the screen to look at the post when making this one.
Not what you say it is.
That's a fact.I am not sure why your getting angry with me over a cache error.
regardless, you did say it. Good for you admitting your wrong and removing it. The information is still useful, as it supports ciretose point. I.e. That global temperature is rising and that isn't really up for debate.
1. Don't play stupid after previous insults. There was no reason to challenge my note in the manner that was challenged. I stated simply it should be noted that the change was made prior to posting but the repost said nothing about a cache error. It implied that my note was invalid.
2. Of course, my whole argument has been based upon the evaluation of conclusions regarding cause. So, it is moot.
You are if you set your lemonade stand up on a curb that you and I both own.Well from my own experience it's usually "I'm a self-made businessman, I already pay taxes so why is everyone expecting me to pay even more?"
And here's the big issue. Just because someone benefited more -maybe from wise business choices?- they have to pay more back in?
I'm sorry, but if we're both homeless and a stranger gives us both $5, if you blow yours on strippers and I set up a lemonade stand and turn my 5 into 20, I'm not giving you ten bucks. :)
Nope! We've both already contributed equally to our curb when we paid state tax on our last bottle of Wild Turkey we bought.
My profit is mine. Sorry, next time don't blow your money on strippers. :)
Doesn't it make more sense to give him the ten, than for him to mug you later and take everything you earned though? You might even be able to get him a good meal, and sobber for long enough to employ him, meaning one less guy with nothing and a grudge.
Doesn't it make more sense to give him the ten, than for him to mug you later and take everything you earned though? You might even be able to get him a good meal, and sobber for long enough to employ him, meaning one less guy with nothing and a grudge.You are if you set your lemonade stand up on a curb that you and I both own.Well from my own experience it's usually "I'm a self-made businessman, I already pay taxes so why is everyone expecting me to pay even more?"
And here's the big issue. Just because someone benefited more -maybe from wise business choices?- they have to pay more back in?
I'm sorry, but if we're both homeless and a stranger gives us both $5, if you blow yours on strippers and I set up a lemonade stand and turn my 5 into 20, I'm not giving you ten bucks. :)
Nope! We've both already contributed equally to our curb when we paid state tax on our last bottle of Wild Turkey we bought.
My profit is mine. Sorry, next time don't blow your money on strippers. :)
This all assumes that if he would have mugged you without being given money then he wouldn't if you gave him the money. Second, it assumes that someone who was given five and blew it would not blow it again if given ten. It also assumes that if hired, he would take the job (this is the person who blew the money instead of using it wisely) and provide output instead of jerking off.
So, no, it doesn't make more sense.
|
|
Doesn't it make more sense to give him the ten, than for him to mug you later and take everything you earned though? You might even be able to get him a good meal, and sobber for long enough to employ him, meaning one less guy with nothing and a grudge.
Make more sense to give him money so he doesn't take my money?
Please tell me you're not serious here. I realize you're playing within my silly scenario I set up, but the Mafia called and want their protection racket back. :)In all serious, it WOULD make more sense to employ him. And if I'm a smart businessman I'll do just that!
But it's not YOUR or any other person's place to tell me to GIVE him that ten bucks so he can turn around and blow it on strippers again.
|
|
Yeah. The real problem with this scenario is that it assumes that everyone started with equal resources and the only reason one guy didn't get rich is that he blew his on strippers.
Because that's a good analogy to the real world.
Most of these economic discussions, including a lot of real economic theory (people are rational actors maximizing utility) remind me of the old joke about the physicist and the farmers "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density..."
Yeah I thought about that from the start. I was going to say that I set my lemonade stand up in front of a supermarket and he set his up at the end of a dead end alley.
But frankly strippers was funnier. :)
Yeah. The real problem with this scenario is that it assumes that everyone started with equal resources and the only reason one guy didn't get rich is that he blew his on strippers.
Because that's a good analogy to the real world.
Most of these economic discussions, including a lot of real economic theory (people are rational actors maximizing utility) remind me of the old joke about the physicist and the farmers "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density..."
Point is that although there exist people with differing levels of resources there really do exist differing people with the same level of resources who use them differently.
Doesn't it make more sense to give him the ten, than for him to mug you later and take everything you earned though? You might even be able to get him a good meal, and sobber for long enough to employ him, meaning one less guy with nothing and a grudge.Make more sense to give him money so he doesn't take my money?
Please tell me you're not serious here. I realize you're playing within my silly scenario I set up, but the Mafia called and want their protection racket back. :)In all serious, it WOULD make more sense to employ him. And if I'm a smart businessman I'll do just that!
But it's not YOUR or any other person's place to tell me to GIVE him that ten bucks so he can turn around and blow it on strippers again.
Your right I was playing with the silly. However, in the real world, there are occasions where actually it kind of is our collective right to ask certain things of one another. Atleast if we are going to live as part of the same society. Vaccination for instance.
Disease can in a large, densely populated and mobile society cause massive grief. Vaccination is one of the best ways of stopping it doing so.
While individual vaccination is effective, it is far more effective if the entire population is inoculated, a principle called Herd immunity. If you choose not to be inoculated, your decision not only endangers ourself, but also me and everyone else. If you wish to live in the same society as me, I ask that you be inoculated against common diseases.
Food, shelter and drugs are kind of the same in many ways. If i am hungry and addicted to alchol, you bet the chances that I will commit a crime are elevated from a non-hungry nor sated state. Ensuring that no member of a society is starving, without shelter, or in need of forfilling an addiction is arguably a more cost efficient way of reducing crime than incarceration. Prisons are massively expensive, as are running court and police services.
Nope! We've both already contributed equally to our curb when we paid state tax on our last bottle of Wild Turkey we bought.
Its impossible to know all the circumstances surrounding some hypothetical lemonade stand owner, and whether he enjoyed some advantages relative to some other (hypothetical) person. Luckily, we don't need to know them to say with absolute certainty that all of us owe a great deal to our fellow citizens, past and present.
Further, what remains in question is the strength of correlation between ability/drive/risk and achievement. The weaker the link, the less compelling the argument predicated on "meritocracy."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope! We've both already contributed equally to our curb when we paid state tax on our last bottle of Wild Turkey we bought.Its impossible to know all the circumstances surrounding some hypothetical lemonade stand owner, and whether he enjoyed some advantages relative to some other (hypothetical) person. Luckily, we don't need to know them to say with absolute certainty that all of us owe a great deal to our fellow citizens, past and present.
Further, what remains in question is the strength of correlation between ability/drive/risk and achievement. The weaker the link, the less compelling the argument predicated on "meritocracy."
And in america(and britain too, to our eternal shame), where you start your life seems to be a far more important than any of those things.
|
Stuff about GE paying foreign taxes
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/google-tax-cut/google-terminal.html (shiney! its interactive!)
Typically, you are correct, when a company operates an active business through a permanent establishment, they do pay local taxes, and get a credit/deduction. Double taxation would put american firms at a disadvantage. However, a lot of ta structures are set up to game the system, usually by transferring ownership of "ip" developed in the US to a shell company in a tax haven, like the example above.
Google is fairly tame as far as arbitrage / power gamey tax optimization goes. IIRC GE has a very interesting strategy where they pay more tax abroad than they do at home, but I'll have to get to a real computer to check.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With so many posts to link to, so I’m just going to do a general response.
1. Of course China wants us to follow regulations they don’t follow. We also want China to follow regulations we aren’t willing to follow. It is called competition. A perfect example is the whole Solyndra controversy.
Do you know why Solyndra went out of business? Because China could make and sell solar panels cheaper. Why? China subsidizes their solar businesses much, much more than we do, allowing them able to undersell everyone else. So they now are the leaders in produce a renewable resource technology that will be growing in value as fossil fuels dry up/become more expensive while we subsidize the oil and gas industry that will be in decline over time given the fact that they sell an non-renewable resource. It is not coincidence that the highly subsidized Oil and Gas industry are having record profits.
You’ll notice the “Small Government” side isn’t calling for cuts for subsidies for Oil and Gas.
You'll have to explain what you mean by small government side, because I consider myself a small government guy, but I support ending subsidies for oil and gas, as well as certain states (note that this is a state by state thing, not a federal thing), esp. Florida and California, passing laws that require new buildings be built with solar panels, unless they are in areas of of shade due to trees/etc. That requirement should not however be that you have to get a certain companies solar panels because I want there to be market competition.
3. On the topic at hand, the entire point of what she is saying is to point out that wealth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If you are born poor in a corrupt nation without a middle class, you are pretty much SOL. Lets ask the question, assuming you are a super awesome business genius “What would a business need to be successful.”A. Capital to start the business. If you aren’t inheriting this, you are taking out a loan, generally a government subsidized small business loan.
B. Security to assure that if you start making money, it isn’t just taken by thieves and bandits. Additionally security to assure that the retailers you are selling to aren’t just robbed so they can’t get money for your products. Generally this is a Government paid for police or military.
C. Intellectual Property and Physical Property protection. Something we take for granted here, but in China if your business gets to successful the Government can either take it over as a state business if you are Chinese and won’t play ball, or steal your technology for an internal state company if you are foreign. (I point this out to show that I’m not saying “all” government is good, checks and balances need to apply both to private and public sector, which is where I differ from Comrade Anklebiter) In countries without security, warlords will just come in and take over your factory, because what are you going to do about it with Government Protection. And of course without Government patent protection, good luck not getting crushed.
D. Educated employees. Believe it or not, human beings are not born literate. Not to mention able to follow schedules and complete assignments. Without mandatory government funded public schooling, good luck a) Finding employees who can do what you need to do and b) Finding customers who can be employed enough to purchase your product.
E. A Transportation infrastructure that will allow you to get supplies and equipment to you and then to get goods to market.
F. A communications infrastructure that will allow you to receive and send orders, which would include at minimum postage and telephone, and would likely extend to internet and could even go as far as television and radio for advertising.
G. An stable electrical grid that will allow you to power your equipment (including the above communication tools)
H. Confidence that the laws and regulations will be enforced consistently rather than having to bribe different “officials” and wonder if the guy in power today saying these are the rules and demanding that kickback with we in power next week…and if your factory will be looted during the riots…All of the above do not happen without a stable, well funded government. Do. Not. Happen.
This country was not created in a vacuum. In the glorious 1950’s the marginal tax rates on high incomes was 91%.
91%
What she is saying, and what she is correct about, is that we have to fund the system that made you rich to assure the next generation has the same benefits as you do. Instead, we are running up debt, neglecting our infrastructure, and unsurprisingly slipping.
I think the thing is that we question how much the government has a right to take from its people, I think we all agree that the government should take "something" to fund itself and function, the question then becomes "how much, and how is it taken."
Everyone should be able to make money. But someone has to pay the bills. I don’t like paying my mortgage, but I do like living in my house. If you are making over 250,000 dollars a year, you are doing really, really well.
Are we talking business or person. I can cite a small business and I guarantee that it takes in over $250,000 a year. but it's in an industry (aviation) where 250,000 frankly isn't that much. So the business hits that bracket, but is still struggling to pay its bills and keep itself functioning from week to week. The owner actually skipped his last two paychecks. but I know that when the tally at the end of the year hits, it made that much money, but its expenses are equally high. So yes increasing its tax burden in this economy could run it out of business, so that's the problem, I don't know when they talk about the increase in taxes that they are only referring to personal income, and the way they always mention corporations doesn't help make that line any clearer. So yeah it sounds great, but no making 250,000 a year isn't necessarily a bar of doing great depending upon circumstance. And while Jimmy Buffet could take the hit, the company I'm thinking of couldn't.
And so, you can afford to give more than someone making less than 250,000 a year. At least on the income you are receiving over 250,000.
and they already do.
]Do I think we should lower some taxes and clean up a lot of regulations? Absolutely. We have a scam business tax rate that screws small businesses who don’t have lobbyists to get them loopholes so they aren’t paying that tax rate.
We need to lower the general business tax rate, paying for this by stopping using tax breaks as backdoor subsidies. If you want to subsidize a business or industry, do it. But call it what it is, a subsidy.
On the other hand, don’t try and tell me raising income taxes on people making over 250,000 is going to kill re-investment in business when I know that re-investment is the money you don’t receive in income specifically because it is being reinvested in the business and not paid to you as income.
Things we want from our government cost money. When 23.5 of all money is going to 1% of the population, that means that more than 1 dollar out of every 5 dollar bills goes to one out of 100 people.
So if you are going to get money to fund the things we want to pay for, those people are the ones who have it. And they have it thanks to the things I listed above, which are provided by the government.
I get people being made about lazy people getting handouts, believe me I firmly believe in welfare reform. I work in a field that sees this every day and if you get a couple of beers in me I’ll tell you about my “Social Services Black Ops” idea along with my “Depoprava in School Lunches” plan.
But at the end of the day we need roads, we need schools, we need old people to not be burdens on their family, we need health care, we need police, fire fighters, infrastructure, etc…
And these things cost money.
And the people that can afford to pay for these things are also the people who have benefited the most financially from these things existing.
And so it is not at all unreasonable to ask them to pay more. From whom much is given, much is expected.
the brick wall we hit is that I don't think it's right to take more money because we've grown the governments size exponentially, and then it grows still and it wants to take more in so it makes these arguments at the same time its not doing well the things that it said it was goiong to do in the first place.
I'd support ending the bush era tax cuts and an increase on taxes of those earning over two million a year if it was paired with a balanced budget amendment and a sizable cutback on federal programs. Instead what I see being asked is for people who earn more to fund things that are rapidly deteriorating and pay for wars we shouldn't have gotten into.
...With so many posts to link to, so I’m just going to do a general response.
1. Of course China wants us to follow regulations they don’t follow. We also want China to follow regulations we aren’t willing to follow. It is called competition. A perfect example is the whole Solyndra controversy.
Do you know why Solyndra went out of business? Because China could make and sell solar panels cheaper. Why? China subsidizes their solar businesses much, much more than we do, allowing them able to undersell everyone else. So they now are the leaders in produce a renewable resource technology that will be growing in value as fossil fuels dry up/become more expensive while we subsidize the oil and gas industry that will be in decline over time given the fact that they sell an non-renewable resource. It is not coincidence that the highly subsidized Oil and Gas industry are having record profits.
You’ll notice the “Small Government” side isn’t calling for cuts for subsidies for Oil and Gas.
2. The fact that the Earth is getting warmer isn’t a debate. We have these new fangled inventions called “Thermometers” that say it is happening. The only thing even marginally debatable is the cause, and when over 95% of people studying a problem say it is caused by humans…well.
Taking it another way, there is a huge incentive financial incentive from oil and gas industries and right wing groups to take the other side. The above listed “Scientists” make a lot more money in speaking fees and think tank payments than they would doing research. Yet despite that, they are still a tiny minority.
That to me should speak volumes to anyone who believes in the power of the free market.
3. On the topic at hand, the entire point of what she is saying is to point out that wealth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If you are born poor in a corrupt nation without a middle class, you are pretty much SOL. Lets ask the question, assuming you are a super awesome business genius “What
My point is that gaming the system will not be fixed by just taxing businesses more. That will really screw those who do not game the system.
And in america(and britain too, to our eternal shame), where you start your life seems to be a far more important than any of those things.
Sadly, there is no "seems" about it. Though of course this opens up the whole other issue of posthumous property rights...
the brick wall we hit is that I don't think it's right to take more money because we've grown the governments size exponentially, and then it grows still and it wants to take more in so it makes these arguments at the same time its not doing well the things that it said it was going to do in the first place.
My understanding is that our problem largely consists of two things:
1. Wars2. So-called "entitlement" programs
As far as I know, #2 isn't a result of increased benefits levels, but rather is simply a demographic factor. The solution seems simple to me -- gradually increase the retirement age to match increases in life expectancy.
I'd support ending the bush era tax cuts and an increase on taxes of those earning over two million a year if it was paired with a balanced budget amendment and a sizable cutback on federal programs.
So would I. Please point me to the party seriously considering this. ;-)
|
|
Your right I was playing with the silly. However, in the real world, there are occasions where actually it kind of is our collective right to ask certain things of one another. Atleast if we are going to live as part of the same society. Vaccination for instance.
Disease can in a large, densely populated and mobile society cause massive grief. Vaccination is one of the best ways of stopping it doing so.
While individual vaccination is effective, it is far more effective if the entire population is inoculated, a principle called Herd immunity. If you choose not to be inoculated, your decision not only endangers ourself, but also me and everyone else. If you wish to live in the same society as me, I ask that you be inoculated against common diseases.
Food, shelter and drugs are kind of the same in many ways. If i am hungry and addicted to alchol, you bet the chances that I will commit a crime are elevated from a non-hungry nor sated state. Ensuring that no member of a society is starving, without shelter, or in need of forfilling an addiction is arguably a more cost efficient way of reducing crime than incarceration. Prisons are massively expensive, as are running court and police services.
Sorry I gotta disagree with you. See it's once again "good of all" vs "right to make own-darn-decisions". (Isn't this always one of the big differences?) :)
With vaccinations, as you very correctly pointed out, your right to CHOOSE not to get vaccinated steps on my right to be healthy and may very well step on my right to live (depending on the severity of the disease).
Same way you can't CHOOSE to get staggeringly drunk and drive around town... you might run over me and take my right to live.
BUT for you to take more of my money to reduce overall poverty for "the good of all"... that crosses a line in my book.
And I'm not arguing that less poverty wouldn't reduce crime! That's a fact that I agree with you on (and I'm sure we could both find stats to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt).
But you're talking about taking money from people (in this case millionaires) to give to an (incredibly inefficient government) to try and reduce poverty. Check. Well if that reduces some poverty, then we should be taking money from the middle class too, right? That will reduce even more poverty! And then we can start telling people that they have to have homeless people stay in their houses! They've got extra rooms and it will reduce crime, right?
I'm kind of rambling now, but do you see what I'm saying? It can quickly become a slippery slope (as I think I've mentioned before.)
|
|
Yeah. The real problem with this scenario is that it assumes that everyone started with equal resources and the only reason one guy didn't get rich is that he blew his on strippers.
Because that's a good analogy to the real world.
Most of these economic discussions, including a lot of real economic theory (people are rational actors maximizing utility) remind me of the old joke about the physicist and the farmers "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density..."
Yeah I thought about that from the start. I was going to say that I set my lemonade stand up in front of a supermarket and he set his up at the end of a dead end alley.
But frankly strippers was funnier. :)
There is a counter argument at play here.
The 5 dollars you gave to lemonade stand man went into starting a small business. He likely purchased Sugar and Lemons and Cups…Great! But sugar isn’t generally an American made product, and it isn’t unlikely the lemons were imported as well as well, depending on the season and prices in Florida and California. And you can bet that those cups came from man overseas manufacturer.
So a good part of 5 dollars goes to his suppliers…who tend to be overseas. He makes a profit, reinvests it, again in products that tend to be made overseas. If he ever becomes successful he is going to cut out the middle man and buy directly from these suppliers, meaning the only money staying in US business is his and that of his employees.
That 5 dollars you gave supported a small business, specifically a stripper. That stripper is a US worker, so she will likely spend that 5 dollars on something in the economy, possibly liquor, hopefully Kentucky Bourbon. She will pay taxes on the income, and on the booze and the money will circulate in the economy.
Obviously a lot of this is sarcasm, but an underlying truth is at play. Poor people who “waste” money at least waste it within the larger economy. If you give a poor person money, they will support local business.
Am I arguing we should just give poor people money? Of course not, that is silly. But I am attacking the myth of money going to the poor being “wasted”.
Small businesses are job creators, and the guy with the lemonade stand is going to better contribute to society than the bum and the stripper. We should support him, and we do support him. He would probably get a small business loan at some point, not to mention all of the other benefits of good government we noted.
But any income he is receiving is money he ISN’T reinvesting in his business. It is his personal income, spent no more valuably than the bum and the stripper. When he vacations in the Swiss Alps, his income leaves our economy. When he buys a Ferrarri, his income leaves our economy.
When the bum pays the stripper, that 5 dollars stays in the economy.
If the rich person is taxed, that money goes to pay salaries of government workers. That money stays in the economy.
When factories are built overseas, that money leaves the economy. The reason 23.5% of income goes to 1% now (as opposed to 8% in the 70’s) is that the rich are paying people in other countries to make products, and they stay in this country and collect the profit from that work.
Because who wants to live in the third world if you can afford to live here?
Let’s not put the rich on some pedestal and pretend all the money they get in income makes the world better.
If they are investing that money in business it isn’t income.
Let me say that again.
If they are investing that money in business, it isn’t income.
We are talking about taxing income in excess of either 250,000 dollars or 1,000,000 per year at a higher rate than the income they receive under that rate. If they decide to invest money back into business expenses instead, great. That isn’t income. That won’t be taxed at a higher rate. That will actually be deductible.
|
|
Excellent stuff
Great explanation, but I think you're short changing my lemonade stand owner.
See you're right that when he's vacationing in the Alps and buying his Ferrari (NOTE TO SELF: start lemonade stand... soon!) he's not dumping money back in the economy, BUT if he's a smart businessman (and judging from his spending habits I have to assume he is) he's expanding his business. He's buying more lemonade stands and employing more people. And THESE employees start paying income tax. It's a continuing source of income to the government
But I agree with you, money given to poor isn't necessarily wasted. It just tends to be a short term return. Employing someone and getting a new source of revenue pays off in the longer term.
Great points though for sure!
|
|
the brick wall we hit is that I don't think it's right to take more money because we've grown the governments size exponentially, and then it grows still and it wants to take more in so it makes these arguments at the same time its not doing well the things that it said it was goiong to do in the first place.
I'd support ending the bush era tax cuts and an increase on taxes of those earning over two million a year if it was paired with a balanced budget amendment and a sizable cutback on federal programs. Instead what I see being asked is for people who earn more to fund things that are rapidly deteriorating and pay for wars we shouldn't have gotten into.
I don't disagree with this.
And if you remove the cost of the two wars and put the Bush Tax cuts, along with the debt we are paying interest on for those two things because we didn't pay for them, we would be balanced now.
Changes would still be needed for entitlement programs due to demographics, but we would be able to afford those changes if we didn't have the debt we accrued due to the tax cuts and wars.
From the point we are currently at, we are effectively firing people from middle class government jobs when unemployment is high rather than looking for an increase in revenue from the people who have the majority of the money is off the table.
That makes no sense.
|
|
the brick wall we hit is that I don't think it's right to take more money because we've grown the governments size exponentially, and then it grows still and it wants to take more in so it makes these arguments at the same time its not doing well the things that it said it was going to do in the first place.My understanding is that our problem largely consists of two things:
1. Wars
2. So-called "entitlement" programsAs far as I know, #2 isn't a result of increased benefits levels, but rather is simply a demographic factor. The solution seems simple to me -- increase the retirement age to match increases in life expectancy.
I'd support ending the bush era tax cuts and an increase on taxes of those earning over two million a year if it was paired with a balanced budget amendment and a sizable cutback on federal programs.So would I. Please show me which party is seriously considering this. ;-)
Did I say I was part of a party? I am, I did register libertarian, but that doesn't mean that I agree 100% with all libertarian ideas, just that it's the party that's the best fit for me.
I believe in a small efficient federal government, I'm not opposed to it collecting taxes, investing in research and infrastructure, and funding education.
But when I say collecting taxes, I think it should be consumptive taxation not income taxation. I laugh when people say the poor don't pay income taxes (yes that means I laugh at right wing pundits) because they do, every check they get is smaller, and I have never seen my poor friends who got refunds get as much back as was taken out in the year, even when they got large refunds. When income is taxed and then a labyrinthine refund system is put into place it doesn't work the way its supposed to and the people who get screwed are the ones without the wherewithal to game the system. Those poor friends I mentioned by the way didn't realize that they didn't get what they should have, until I pointed it out to them, and then they didn't bother to try and fix it because they didn't want to waste the time to deal with it and were just happy too get their refunds.
When I say investing in research and infrasructure, I don't mean a revolving door where we just throw money into a hole and set it on fire. which is what i feel our government does. Not all the time, but there is a lot of waste and abuse, hell, the toll roads in my state are increasing to cover costs, but those "costs" shouldn't have been the new multi-million dollar office building they built, the toll money was supposed to be used to pay for the road not opulent luxury offices for the people in charge. I also realize the irony of using a state programs waste as an example to support my argument for more state power and a smaller federal government, should I have just used "the war in Iraq" as my example?
Yeah. The real problem with this scenario is that it assumes that everyone started with equal resources and the only reason one guy didn't get rich is that he blew his on strippers.
Because that's a good analogy to the real world.
Most of these economic discussions, including a lot of real economic theory (people are rational actors maximizing utility) remind me of the old joke about the physicist and the farmers "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density..."
Yeah I thought about that from the start. I was going to say that I set my lemonade stand up in front of a supermarket and he set his up at the end of a dead end alley.
But frankly strippers was funnier. :)
There is a counter argument at play here.
The 5 dollars you gave to lemonade stand man went into starting a small business. He likely purchased Sugar and Lemons and Cups…Great! But sugar isn’t generally an American made product, and it isn’t unlikely the lemons were imported as well as well, depending on the season and prices in Florida and California. And you can bet that those cups came from man overseas manufacturer.
So a good part of 5 dollars goes to his suppliers…who tend to be overseas. He makes a profit, reinvests it, again in products that tend to be made overseas. If he ever becomes successful he is going to cut out the middle man and buy directly from these suppliers, meaning the only money staying in US business is his and that of his employees.
That 5 dollars you gave supported a small business, specifically a stripper. That stripper is a US worker, so she will likely spend that 5 dollars on something in the economy, possibly liquor, hopefully Kentucky Bourbon. She will pay taxes on the income, and on the booze and the money will circulate in the economy.
Obviously a lot of this is sarcasm, but an underlying truth is at play. Poor people who “waste” money at least waste it within the larger economy. If you give a poor person money, they will support local...
Solo cups are perhaps the most popular I can think of. They are based in Illinois. Lemons are grown in California and the south but may be bought from overseas. So may the drink mixes that contain fruits and so may be the glasses they are served in and so may be the clothing worn during the strippers performance and so may be the lighting etc.
Although mentioned as sarcasm, the point was being made that these people will more likely support local economy without giving anything to support the point.
|
|
the brick wall we hit is that I don't think it's right to take more money because we've grown the governments size exponentially, and then it grows still and it wants to take more in so it makes these arguments at the same time its not doing well the things that it said it was goiong to do in the first place.
I'd support ending the bush era tax cuts and an increase on taxes of those earning over two million a year if it was paired with a balanced budget amendment and a sizable cutback on federal programs. Instead what I see being asked is for people who earn more to fund things that are rapidly deteriorating and pay for wars we shouldn't have gotten into.
I don't disagree with this.
And if you remove the cost of the two wars and put the Bush Tax cuts, along with the debt we are paying interest on for those two things because we didn't pay for them, we would be balanced now.
Changes would still be needed for entitlement programs due to demographics, but we would be able to afford those changes if we didn't have the debt we accrued due to the tax cuts and wars.
From the point we are currently at, we are effectively firing people from middle class government jobs when unemployment is high rather than looking for an increase in revenue from the people who have the majority of the money is off the table.
That makes no sense.
Right, but the woman who is quoted also opposed the balanced budget amendment IIRC.
Did I say I was part of a party?
Did I say you had? I think you might be reading in some hostility where none was intended.
I think most reasonable and informed people could probably compromise on a solution...but our politicians cannot, largely because there is very little incentive for them to do so -- and a great deal of incentive for them not to.
|
|
Did I say I was part of a party?Did I say you had? I think you might be reading in some hostility where none was intended.
I think most reasonable and informed people could probably compromise on a solution that works for America...but our politicians cannot, largely because there is very little incentive for them to do so -- and a great deal of incentive for them not to.
um internets fail, there was no hostility in that statement, my question was as tounge in cheek as yours.
um internets fail, there was no hostility in that statement, my question was as tounge in cheek as yours.
D'oh. My defense is that I originally used a smiley. :P
|
|
Business "income" taxes are on profit not revenue. Profit is what is left after all your expenses are paid. The business will be taxed on what's left over after it's paid its bills and the salary of all its employees and whatever else it needs to spend money on. Many business that are making a profit will go out and buy more equipment at the end of the fiscal year to reduce their tax burden.
This is an oversimplification, since I'm not a corporate tax accountant, but the basic principle is true.
It sounds like your business is making over $250,000 in revenue, but not in profit.
Jeff (or anyone else), do you have a (preferably non-partisan) link where the proposed tax increases are only going to apply to those making a TAXABLE income of $250k?
There's actually a great deal of confusion about this. I've found a couple sources (some from the Obama camp!) talking that the proposed increases are for those MAKING (or bringing in) over $250k. To me, that applies before expenses (aka. revenue).
And as I'm sure you know, even if you're making over $250k, you may only be bringing home to the wife and kids a few thousand (depending on expenses.) I'd hate to see those folks get a tax hike. :)
Thanks!
-J (always likes to get the correct facts! :) )
A balanced budget amendment is a horrible idea in many ways. Many states have them and it's killing them in this economy.
That doesn't mean that a balances budget isn't a good idea over the long run. It means that forcing it on a yearly basis reinforces economic cycles where the government should be a counter-cyclical force.
With a balanced budget, when the economy is good the government will either cut taxes or increase spending, which tends to inflate the economy even more at least...
I do not dispute the desirability of spending flexibility. However, I see no logical reason money couldn't be saved and invested during good times, then spent to stimulate during the bad.
Although I grant there would be cries of "give the people back their money" from some circles.
|
|
A balanced budget amendment is a horrible idea in many ways. Many states have them and it's killing them in this economy.
That doesn't mean that a balances budget isn't a good idea over the long run. It means that forcing it on a yearly basis reinforces economic cycles where the government should be a counter-cyclical force.
With a balanced budget, when the economy is good the government will either cut taxes or increase spending, which tends to inflate the economy even more at least in the short run, but when the economy goes into recession the government will be forced to either raise taxes or cut spending at the very time when there is more demand for safety net services. This will depress the economy even more.What the government should be doing is borrowing money to support those services and to stimulate the economy in hard times and then repaying it when times get better. Unfortunately we haven't been doing that in our more recent boom cycles.
are you a keynesian?
are you a keynesian?
Hey, that's Keynesian, with a capital 'K,' bub.
Are you one of those Supply-Siders? ;)
|
|
A balanced budget amendment is a horrible idea in many ways. Many states have them and it's killing them in this economy.Every state in the US except Vermont has a balanced budget ammendments.
Not all of them are being killed.Just sayin.
thank you, there's a lot more to the states in a bad position than just the fact that they have a BBA.
...and you can Keep your capital Ks to yourself.
Oh SNAP!
Seriously, though, how much do you know about Keynesianism? Many people seem to attribute to it a hostility toward industry that is not actually present.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saving enough money to deal with a major crisis is simply not going to happen. Many states had "Rainy Day Funds" and blew through them in the beginning of this downturn, even with Federal Stimulus money.
The last time the fed ran a surplus, Bush claimed that proved we were overtaxed and gave us the first of his tax cuts. And that's not even like we'd paid back our debt and were just piling the money up in a vault somewhere.
And yes, I'm a Keynesian. Even without that, it's a simple fact that demand for government spending goes up in hard times just as revenues fall. Do you think the government should raise taxes in recessions to cover the needed spending? Or cut spending on social services just as more people lose jobs and homes?
Actually, I've already stated what I think should happen, you simply discounted it as impossible because it hasn't yet happened. ;)
However, limiting our conversation to our present circumstances: In a perfect world, I would address our present situation with further deficit spending. However, in order for the to be the best course of action, we'd have to be able to ensure that we would subsequently eliminate the deficit and begin to chip away at the debt when times improve. Since we're emphasizing the practical, I see no practical way in which this can be assured. In the absence of such assurance, I would support a balanced budget amendment as being preferable to ever-increasing debt.
In short: We have demonstrated that we, through our leaders, lack the will to do the right thing for future generations. If putting a fiscal gun to our heads is the only solution, then so be it.
|
|
Are you talking about personal or business income here?
(No one who's making $250K personal income is only bringing a few grand home to the wife and kids unless he's doing something extremely wrong. Like blowing it all on strippers:)
Well played, sir! Very well played. lol.
Yes, I was talking about business income.A quick look around the web didn't find anything that specifically shows this.
Frankly I never even imagined that it could work any other way. The original rhetoric was around the repeal of part of the Bush tax cuts. That involved an increase in the top marginal rate and possibly moving the break points between the top rates. That, by its very nature, applies to taxable income not total income.
There's a whole ton of rhetoric about this and a lot of the sound bytes and speeches are fairly sloppy, designed to sound good rather than be analyzed. It's fairly common discussing income tax issues in the media to just refer to the taxable income and not specify that.
For business rates, anything else is simply not possible. Taxing the revenue of any business would kill it very quickly. Few make more than a few of their revenue in profit. Taxing revenue at 25% would shut down every business in the country. Because the entire business community hasn't erupted in howls of outrage and laughter, I have to assume that hasn't been proposed.
OK. That's pretty much what I found as well.
And for the record, I'd always ASSUMED it was an increase on taxable income, but had never found anything in solid writing saying it either.Just wanted something solid to reference when confusion comes up.
Thanks for the second check though!
On the topic of deficit spending: Businesses do this all the time. If you don't believe me, just look at their balance sheets. And isn't the whole idea of venture capital to invest money that you do not yet have?
One big difference is that businesses generally have the continuity of leadership and the discipline to ensure that loans get repaid. Our government, on the other hand, can change composition, philosophy, and direction as often as every few years. Look at the business cycle durations here. What's wrong with this picture?
