[Daemonwolf]

worrywort, on 27 July 2011 - 04:32 AM, said:

I love discussions in which people politely agree to disagree, and where we've attempted to at least find some common ground. Even better when that common ground is "Everything is hopeless!"

True story! I know I'm new to these forums, in the grand scheme of things, but I'm finding it to be a delight.

[MTS]

If I'm missing something please call me on it, but doesn't the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy only constitute a three percent increase in income generated over $250000? If you earn $500000 and I'm doing my maths right, that's only an extra $7500, assuming you pay it all (and people with that kind of money can afford tricksy accountants to make sure they don't). After taxes that would still leave you at least $350000, and that's lowballing it. Keep in mind that would be the tax rate as it was under Clinton, whose second term was very good economically speaking. I completely fail to see how such an increase would help torpedo the entire economy, which is pretty much the impression I get from most conservatives. It would bring in hundreds of billions of extra dollars in tax revenue, taking a not insignificant bite out of the deficit (hell, Obama's 'compromise' of keeping them in place for two more years added $500bn on its own). I'm not at all saying that anything else isn't needed - spending cuts for instance are mandatory - but I really don't think that the US can get itself out of this mess without raising taxes (among other things).

By the way, I find it difficult to believe 'onerous taxes' are to blame for the death of corporate America when GE paid absolutely no federal income taxes in 2010, yet still laid off something like 30000 American workers.

[HiddenOne]

Daemonwolf, on 27 July 2011 - 04:00 AM, said:

You have a valid point, I've never said not to tax them. Greed sucks, period. Raising taxes on people that care so much about money though, isn't getting anything done that's of benefit to us the "common" folk. When you jeopardize the money they so covet, they find new ways to get it back, which inevitably lead to downsizing, relocating, and restructuring. All of which lowers the job markets, while the government is expected to go ahead and provide for all of us, since they are already taking all the wealthy peoples money, who then get it back all over again as we go make purchases.

It's just a vicious cycle, which is going to become more so, as more paper money is worth less and less, since its not backed any longer by anything quantifiable. Maybe that's really where all of this began, the printing of unbacked currency. http://alvin.foo.my/...s-currency.html is a list of some of the most worthless currency in the world, because its been printed so much with no backing, worth noting. http://www.visualeco...in-circulation/ is just informative on the amount of currency in circulation, but noticeable that it doesnt even (from my understanding) cover 1/5th of the US debt.

I dunno though. Each argument has its own merits, and I probably need to sit down and figure out the full economic spreadsheet to account for every factor at some point. Sadly even if I devised a 100% fool-proof plan to reduce the debt to a negligible level, in 10 years time. I'd be ignored.

I'd vote for you, if you could come up with that plan. But then someone would have you gunned down in the streets, so...

[Daemonwolf]

@ MTS - I am a little groggy at the moment (unsurprising side effect of very little sleep, and next to no food intake for several days) however, I will do my best to respond. First off, here's an article with some rather interesting comments and comments to comments that will give a pseudo-perspective of the "bush tax cuts" http://www.washingto...TFtbG_blog.html (As always, information garnered from the internet should be taken with a grain of salt, since there's no such thing as an un-biased media outlet)

In addition, 'past' 'present' 'future' economy issues are all reliant upon each other, things change far to quickly for ANY law or measure to solidly forecast, or correct. Things that became law in 1919 can have an effect on the 'present' economy, just like things passed in the 'present' will be affected by the 'past' economy and affect the 'future' economy. (I mention this because economics is a vastly complicated matter, that is often erroneously seen as simple)

http://www.taxpolicy...ers/revenue.cfm Is the breakdown of federal revenue sources, followed by spending, and some other stuff. Also, I suspect this is not entirely listing all revenue sources, just the tax related ones, but I could be wrong.

Economics is basically a mathematical equation, which relies upon models that can either be accurate or inaccurate depending on the events that take place during the projected period of forecast. If you've kept up with all the overblown bipartisan bickering (the only thing either party seems to be able to agree they need to do) you will notice that every "estimate" they give is labeled "over 10 years", the reason for this is the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has to take the economic policies proposed and apply their models for what they 'believe' will occur over the next 10 years, and calculate the numbers to get an "answer" for the equation. This is not a surefire way to answer the equation, as evidenced by the first article, due to the fact the CBO cannot predict everything that may influence things over this period of time. As an example, anything calculated in 2000 would never have taken into account the economic fallout from 9/11, Katrina, etc. (http://en.wikipedia....rricane_Katrina if your interested)

Contrary to what many might see as my "give tax breaks to the rich" attitude, for me it's really not about that. Do I believe higher taxes on the wealthy are the answer? No, I don't believe raising taxes on the wealthy is going to fix anything, but it seems everyone is willing to say that's exactly what should happen. Be honest, the wealthy are already essentially the only real providers of revenue the US has http://www.american....-pays-the-taxes (being an older article, please understand that post 2007 events did change some of the information/outcome, refer to economics paragraph)

Now your math in your example is slightly off, 1% of $500,000 = $5,000 so 3% would be $15,000, just to answer that one real quick. The second part of that, come back to mine and worrywort's aforementioned "greed sucks" comments. If you bring in $500,000, are you really okay with an invisible entity taking roughly 30% of what you made?

The reason it has an economic impact is a because of the human factor, not because of the number factor. Numbers can do whatever the creative individual wants to do with them, that's why the CBO can be inaccurate, accountants can get a tax refunds for people who didn't pay taxes and members of congress on all 4 sides of the aisle of ridiculousness they somehow 4th dimension themselves around on can come up with bullshit statistics that the average person either cant disprove or is too sheepish to try to disprove. The human factor is the, part people cant account for, you don't know what little seemingly innocent thing might turn your neighbor into a raving homicidal lunatic, let alone what a "wealthy" person who is pissed off is going to do to get back the money your taking from them by raising their already much higher, and proportionally gigantic tax payments. The non-wealthy people say raise the taxes on the wealthy, because they dont want to pay higher taxes, but the middle class average tax payment (if they even make one, instead of getting it all back) is what?

There's entire books in stores, on e-readers, in college's, inside the heads of teachers, and on the internet that cover the entirety of how economics work. I really hope you'll understand that's a bit more information than my addled mind can handle placing on a forum.

cheers =)

[LinearPhilosopher]

Daemonwolf, on 27 July 2011 - 04:00 AM, said:

You have a valid point, I've never said not to tax them. Greed sucks, period. Raising taxes on people that care so much about money though, isn't getting anything done that's of benefit to us the "common" folk. When you jeopardize the money they so covet, they find new ways to get it back, which inevitably lead to downsizing, relocating, and restructuring. All of which lowers the job markets, while the government is expected to go ahead and provide for all of us, since they are already taking all the wealthy peoples money, who then get it back all over again as we go make purchases.

It's just a vicious cycle, which is going to become more so, as more paper money is worth less and less, since its not backed any longer by anything quantifiable. Maybe that's really where all of this began, the printing of unbacked currency. http://alvin.foo.my/...s-currency.html is a list of some of the most worthless currency in the world, because its been printed so much with no backing, worth noting. http://www.visualeco...in-circulation/ is just informative on the amount of currency in circulation, but noticeable that it doesnt even (from my understanding) cover 1/5th of the US debt.

the reason it only covers 1/5 of the us debt is because that is only the M0 money supply. or to be exact the physical money that exists (coins, bills stashed under the bed sheets) etc.
The majority of the money that the FED owns is owned through other means.
http://en.wikipedia....irical_measures

im kinda shocked at a lot of these posts, going to have to make some replies later though.

[MTS]

Daemonwolf, on 27 July 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

@ MTS - I am a little groggy at the moment (unsurprising side effect of very little sleep, and next to no food intake for several days) however, I will do my best to respond. First off, here's an article with some rather interesting comments and comments to comments that will give a pseudo-perspective of the "bush tax cuts" http://www.washingto...TFtbG_blog.html (As always, information garnered from the internet should be taken with a grain of salt, since there's no such thing as an un-biased media outlet)

In addition, 'past' 'present' 'future' economy issues are all reliant upon each other, things change far to quickly for ANY law or measure to solidly forecast, or correct. Things that became law in 1919 can have an effect on the 'present' economy, just like things passed in the 'present' will be affected by the 'past' economy and affect the 'future' economy. (I mention this because economics is a vastly complicated matter, that is often erroneously seen as simple)

http://www.taxpolicy...ers/revenue.cfm Is the breakdown of federal revenue sources, followed by spending, and some other stuff. Also, I suspect this is not entirely listing all revenue sources, just the tax related ones, but I could be wrong.

Economics is basically a mathematical equation, which relies upon models that can either be accurate or inaccurate depending on the events that take place during the projected period of forecast. If you've kept up with all the overblown bipartisan bickering (the only thing either party seems to be able to agree they need to do) you will notice that every "estimate" they give is labeled "over 10 years", the reason for this is the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has to take the economic policies proposed and apply their models for what they 'believe' will occur over the next 10 years, and calculate the numbers to get an "answer" for the equation. This is not a surefire way to answer the equation, as evidenced by the first article, due to the fact the CBO cannot predict everything that may influence things over this period of time. As an example, anything calculated in 2000 would never have taken into account the economic fallout from 9/11, Katrina, etc. (http://en.wikipedia....rricane_Katrina if your interested)

Contrary to what many might see as my "give tax breaks to the rich" attitude, for me it's really not about that. Do I believe higher taxes on the wealthy are the answer? No, I don't believe raising taxes on the wealthy is going to fix anything, but it seems everyone is willing to say that's exactly what should happen. Be honest, the wealthy are already essentially the only real providers of revenue the US has http://www.american....-pays-the-taxes (being an older article, please understand that post 2007 events did change some of the information/outcome, refer to economics paragraph)

Now your math in your example is slightly off, 1% of $500,000 = $5,000 so 3% would be $15,000, just to answer that one real quick. The second part of that, come back to mine and worrywort's aforementioned "greed sucks" comments. If you bring in $500,000, are you really okay with an invisible entity taking roughly 30% of what you made?

The reason it has an economic impact is a because of the human factor, not because of the number factor. Numbers can do whatever the creative individual wants to do with them, that's why the CBO can be inaccurate, accountants can get a tax refunds for people who didn't pay taxes and members of congress on all 4 sides of the aisle of ridiculousness they somehow 4th dimension themselves around on can come up with bullshit statistics that the average person either cant disprove or is too sheepish to try to disprove. The human factor is the, part people cant account for, you don't know what little seemingly innocent thing might turn your neighbor into a raving homicidal lunatic, let alone what a "wealthy" person who is pissed off is going to do to get back the money your taking from them by raising their already much higher, and proportionally gigantic tax payments. The non-wealthy people say raise the taxes on the wealthy, because they don't want to pay higher taxes, but the middle class average tax payment (if they even make one, instead of getting it all back) is what?

There's entire books in stores, on e-readers, in college's, inside the heads of teachers, and on the internet that cover the entirety of how economics work. I really hope you'll understand that's a bit more information than my addled mind can handle placing on a forum.

cheers =)

I don't need the whole 'economics is complicated' spiel, ok? I get it - shit's fucking crazy.

However, while interesting, this is really all I took away from that first article:

Quote

No matter how you count it, nearly $1.3 trillion is a lot of money.

All it said was the tax cuts are probably costing 5% percent less than was forecast, but when you're talking about over a trillion dollars, that's still a shitton of money.

As for my maths, as far as I'm aware in the US a person's personal income is taxed at different levels no matter who they are. For instance, if I earn $500000, the first $250000 I earn will fall under the tax rates of the lower brackets, and it is only income generated after I exceed that amount that is taxed at the highest level (i.e. the remaining $250000). Thus only half of that hypothetical income would be taxed at the highest rate, thus I'm pretty sure my maths is right.

Personally, I've only really just started paying taxes and even then I get a lot of it back because I don't earn all that much over the tax-free threshold, being a student and all. However, from an ideological standpoint no, I don't care all that much about the government taxing me at whatever level, because I don't subscribe to the fallacy that the government is 'stealing' my money and giving it to money-grubbing freeloaders (although I will admit abuse of the system occurs and is a problem, but that's a problem with the system and not with the concept of social welfare itself). I can see the good that my money is doing and I am happy to pay it. I'm sure as hell fine with paying my Medicare levy whenever I go into the hospital, for example.

The Tax Policy Group site provided a lot of information about how the tax cuts were a fucking stupid idea, but I suppose the general thrust of that argument was they were so terrible because instead of reducing government spending to offset it the Bush administration drove government spending up the wazoo, mainly through things like Defense spending, the wars, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and things like that. In that vein you could also say Obama's extension of the tax cuts while also extending unemployment benefits was a fucking stupid idea as well (which I think he's admitted).

By the way, are you implying that the wealthy in America would turn into homicidal, raving lunatics over an extra 3% of their over-$250k income? Damn, you guys really hate taxes.

I'm curious though, would you feel a tax increase across the board (of course not in isolation with other deficit-declining measures) would fix anything?

This post has been edited by MTS: 27 July 2011 - 03:35 PM

[Daemonwolf]

Balroglord, I apologize if my post confused you, I assumed that since it indicates clearly on the page that it's "currency in circulation" it would carry over to the post that currency is less than debt. I will strive to be more specific in future posts.

[McLovin]

Daemonwolf, on 27 July 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Be honest, the wealthy are already essentially the only real providers of revenue the US has http://www.american....-pays-the-taxes

I glanced through the linked article and it's a typical rich-apologist dodge. The difference between rich and poor is not due to salary, on which income taxes are paid at a progressive rate. The difference is wealth, on which income taxes are paid at a flat rate. Capital gains taxes (ie, the tax on increasing one's wealth) are paid at a measly 15%, much lower than the highest income-tax bracket of 35%. This is where the inequity lies.

If you work your ass off to become a lawyer and make $800K/yr, Uncle Sam takes $280K off the top in income tax. If you're a trust fund baby who just sits on his ass and collects $800K/yr in capital gains, Uncle Sam only takes $120K off the top. Same "income" level, different tax system.

[Sindriss]

It is sad that so many people become crazed or possessed, when the talk comes to higher taxes. The taxes you pay are so small anyway, don't get why it is so upsetting. Or wait, I do! The american dream, everybody wants to be the person who suddenly becomes a success and earns a few million dollars each year. And when the day comes in which this scenario occurs, then damn the government, they are not taking my hard earned money!

This is of course regardless of the fact that the system is broken and that it is incredible hard for a low/medium income person/family to break the cycle and move up the ladder.

Also, some of the sources are incredible funny. In a sad way.

[Daemonwolf]

@ MTS - Read and understand the article, its clearly stated the "1.3 trillion" is "over 10 years" which i referred to in my CBO/Economics explanation. Essentially that ton of money your talking about is 130 Billion a year, which is roughly 1/3rd of what was given in returns calendar year 2011 (see my previous post on returns) Also understand the context it was done in, they were expecting a surplus for the 10 year period, and didnt know at the time that 9/11 was going to happen, or katrina, or any of the other shit that occured. Yes a 2nd was done after 9/11 in response to a market that was shaky in light of the attacks. http://www.efile.com...CFQVR2godq2i8WA heres a calculator that still shows a single person with no dependants will pay $150,000 in taxes if he makes $500,000. heres your chart too http://www.taxbrackets2011.com/ shows 35% tax on 380,000+

@McLovin - Read and understand instead of dismissing, go find me an article that says 60+% of the tax revenue doesn't come from the top 10% of earners. Capital Gains tax is performed on assets that are sold. They are taxed at income tax levels if the asset is sold with less that a year in the individuals possession, and at a reduced rate if it was held for more than a year. http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States These are typically related to stocks. Trust fund's are a far different concept and have different regulations they abide by, for more info here ya go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law

@Sindriss - Ummmmm, yes/maybe/no...... I'm not entirely clear on anything you were saying (sorry, maybe its the previously noted fuzzy mind I have at the moment)

Raising taxes maybe needs to happen, maybe it doesn't need to happen, if the taxes want to go flat rate, then great, if the taxes want to increase for everyone, go for it, if the taxes want to single out one small segment of the population then its no better than racism or sexism. It's a prejudice, IMHO. My biggest issue is I really wish people would quit singling out the wealthy as who needs to "carry their fair share" since every ounce of information shows that they are carrying that and more. Not only do the "wealthy" pay 60+% of the total national tax revenue (what about the sales tax, state tax, estate tax, capital gains taxes, luxury taxes, interest tax....but all that aside just looking at federal income tax) but we are back to the businesses that provide JOBS to everyone else. I posted a video in an earlier thread that isn't 100% factual, but certainly isn't wrong.

cheers to all!

[McLovin]

Daemonwolf, on 27 July 2011 - 07:32 PM, said:

@McLovin - Read and understand instead of dismissing, go find me an article that says 60+% of the tax revenue doesn't come from the top 10% of earners.

I don't believe I disputed the fact that top earners pay more income taxes. Straw man much?

[Daemonwolf]

McLovin, on 27 July 2011 - 07:58 PM, said:

Daemonwolf, on 27 July 2011 - 07:32 PM, said:

@McLovin - Read and understand instead of dismissing, go find me an article that says 60+% of the tax revenue doesn't come from the top 10% of earners.

I don't believe I disputed the fact that top earners pay more income taxes. Straw man much?

Apologies, getting really groggy and your comment on the linked article being "typical rich apologist" led me to believe you determined it to be unfactual, I'm normally not one to jump to conclusions.

This post has been edited by Daemonwolf: 27 July 2011 - 09:10 PM

[Illuyankas]

Are you saying that 60% of tax comes from the people who have 60% of the money? COLOUR ME SHOCKED

[stone monkey]

One would have thought that the top 10% of US earners had considerably more than 60% of the money tbh.

[Daemonwolf]

stone monkey, on 27 July 2011 - 09:40 PM, said:

One would have thought that the top 10% of US earners had considerably more than 60% of the money tbh.

Near as I can find (haven't found anything I consider concrete) the speculation is that the top 10% control 90% of the US wealth...http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

[worry]

Doesn't that just send chills down your spine when you refer to them all as "earners"? "Job creators" is bad enough on the surface, but there's something a bit more insidious with "earner".

[stone monkey]

worrywort, on 27 July 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

Doesn't that just send chills down your spine when you refer to them all as "earners"? "Job creators" is bad enough on the surface, but there's something a bit more insidious with "earner".

Welcome to the world of neo-con newspeak. Sometimes it seems like the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be applied to politics particularly well.

The interesting, and eye-opening, conclusion we then reach is that 40% of the total US tax take is paid by the people who have only 10% of the wealth... And yet the wealthiest 10% (who have 90% of the total wealth but only pay 60% of the taxes) have still managed to convince the US public that their tax burden is too high.

[Shinrei]

stone monkey, on 27 July 2011 - 11:04 PM, said:

The interesting, and eye-opening, conclusion we then reach is that 40% of the total US tax take is paid by the people who have only 10% of the wealth... And yet the wealthiest 10% (who have 90% of the total wealth but only pay 60% of the taxes) have still managed to convince the US public that their tax burden is too high.[/size][/font]

Those who pay 60% of the taxes receive benefits in the form of infrastructure spending etc., but are for the most part funding large portions of programs they will never use nor benefit from. So what is fair? Charity is wonderful, and I do not take issue with the rich paying a higher portion in taxes, to a point. But how much is enough? I would argue that those calling for higher taxes on the rich cannot be satisfied.

[worry]

Shinrei, on 28 July 2011 - 03:45 AM, said:

Those who pay 60% of the taxes receive benefits in the form of infrastructure spending etc., but are for the most part funding large portions of programs they will never use nor benefit from.

Well that's kind of the point of civilization. If the aim was to leave the weak, crippled, needy, and elderly to the wolves, we could have done that without all the hubbub. The point is a diffuse set of benefits, where one taxpayer isn't benefited by every single dollar spent, but every dollar spent still benefits some (not a cue for cynical references to folks who bilk government programs; they exist but are by and large not the beneficiaries of these programs). And while tangible stuff like infrastructure is among the most important spending, the intangible stuff (or less obviously tangible) is extremely important as well. National morale, supporting the arts, research, humanities education, environmental programs, the FDA, all that kind of stuff. The NASA thread we're having now. All this stuff is necessary for the country, even if it's not necessary (or immediately recognizable) in every individual's life.

Shinrei, on 28 July 2011 - 03:45 AM, said:

So what is fair? Charity is wonderful, and I do not take issue with the rich paying a higher portion in taxes, to a point. But how much is enough? I would argue that those calling for higher taxes on the rich cannot be satisfied.

Fair is not crediting the pretense that determination, work ethic, or indeed fairness are tied to wealth accumulation in any significant way; and reciprocally, recognizing that lack of wealth doesn't necessarily indicate a failing of such. Once we get over that godforsaken charade (which should be a formality but apparently isn't), it only seems reasonable that the vast gap between the highest haves and the lowest have-nots, besides being sickening, does our society a disservice. The fact that vast amounts of suffering can be alleviated (in large part, not entirely) by imposing minor inconveniences on the wealthiest people is a no-brainer; refusing to enact such a widely beneficial, minimally invasive response would take a no-hearter (I just came up with that, real smart-like).

You're correct that "enough" is hard to define. But I'd be happy with food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and basic utilities for just about everybody. And while I recognize the argument that people who don't support themselves shouldn't have many of the same benefits of people who do, my problem with that is that working people are still making subsistence level or below, not welfare recipients have oh so much. But then again, we still talk about welfare like the "reforms" of the '90s never happened, so whatever. You could support every willing "welfare queen" in the country for life and not a single billionaire would have to give up his private plane, but oh well. I think we might approach "enough" by making sure everyone working a full time job is making at least lower middle class income, and not leaving everyone below that level to a miserable dog-eat-dog existence.

As far as satisfaction goes, I don't see a purpose in it. Did we become a utopia and I missed it? If not, then I still seek improvement. Nobody is seeking tax raises on the wealthy out of revenge. They have something in massive surplus that other people have in frightening scarcity. It's a matter of life and death for many of them, and a matter of suffering vs not suffering for many more. And that thing is a man-made tool created to alleviate just that kind of suffering by streamlining the process of distributing life's necessities to society at large so that humanity can seek a diverse set of tasks and occupations. All within a framework of cooperation and mutual interest that does its best (or should) to account for ill fortune, natural disasters, human mistakes, infirmities, aging, etc. as well as the mathematical reality that not even every healthy adult can be employed at once. All of that goes way, way, waaaaaay before protecting millionaires from sizable but not really life-disrupting taxation. Siding with the latter doesn't hold up, whether you're sacrificing people for principles or for property.

[worry]

Not to get too preachy or anything.