Psychology of money and taxation

[Palin Rider]

When people invented currency, it was to create something that everyone agreed would have a standard value (eliminating the frustration of a barter system). A dollar is supposed to be worth the same to me as it’s worth to Noir or to Warren Buffet.

That’s how the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, there are some things it fails to take into account. The most significant thing is: the worth of a dollar depends on the number of dollars you already have. Let’s consider a few examples.

Suppose you’re broke and homeless (through no fault of your own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment), and you haven’t eaten in a few days. A stranger walking by gives you ten bucks. That ten bucks is going to be extremely valuable to you. It will help you survive one more day and give you enough energy to try to improve your situation.

Now let’s suppose you work at a gas station, making ten bucks an hour by sitting behind the register and making sure that nobody steals the candy bars. You do this for 100 hours and get paid $1,000. That thousand bucks is also going to be very real to you, because it’s supposedly the equivalent of giving over 100 boring (and maybe dangerous) hours of your life in order to make a profit for someone else. So you’ll be understandably annoyed when the government wants to take a big chunk of it.

Here’s another example. Suppose you get a big client to sign a significant contract or purchase order with your business: big enough for them to hand you a six figure check. Maybe you’ve done this in your career. Does that money seem valuable to you? Better question, does that money, dollar for dollar, seem as valuable to you as in the last two examples?

It doesn’t.

I can attest to this: when you deposit that check, it seems like you’re depositing Monopoly money. Buy a car with that money, and it doesn’t really feel like your car. People who deal in transactions of this size eventually get used to it, but it’s still nothing like “reality” as most people understand it. It’s always like playing with fantasy money in a fantasy world.

People have understood this psychological effect for well over a century now, and as a result, governments began instituting progressive tax systems to account for it. As long as these systems know where the “point of diminishing returns” is for the value of money, they make perfect sense.

Let’s look at the modern U.S. as an example. Can anyone in this country spend more than $700,000 per year without intentionally wasting money? Almost certainly not. It takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and planning to spend $700,000. If your portfolio rakes in an additional $5 million, how valuable to you is it, really?

This scenario shows us something else about the world’s wealthiest people that most of the rest of the world has no clue about. The truly wealthy don’t pursue money. To them, money is nothing beyond a way of keeping score when they want to compete with one another. They certainly don’t use it to shop. In fact, most of them aren’t very interested in acquiring more things to own. They prefer to find more things (and people) to control, instead. This viewpoint actually makes a great deal of sense, by the way. When you own things, someone else can destroy them, steal them, or use them against you. On the other hand, when you control things, you get all the benefits with far fewer headaches.

So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting. There’s no need for it: as I’ve just shown you, this money is rarely put back into the economy. The richest Americans will still be able to play the same games, just with lower scores.

[darin]

I could spend $700,000 on two cars. :)

[Palin Rider]

I could spend $700,000 on two cars. :)

I said, "without intentionally wasting money."

But on the subject of cars, would you care to take a guess on what the most popular model is for the wealthiest Americans?

It's Ford. And the second most popular is Cadillac.

[Mr. P]

Can anyone in this country spend more than $700,000 per year...
Well I see you've never bought a Yacht or a private Jet. And that's not wasted money. Don't believe it? Count the folks that make a living and support family's building either. Ain't capitalism great? !!!!:2up:

[Palin Rider]

Well I see you've never bought a Yacht or a private Jet. And that's not wasted money. Don't believe it? Count the folks that make a living and support family's building either.

A lot fewer people who can easily afford yachts and private jets aren't buying them anymore, either. Why? It goes back to what I said about owning vs. controlling. Owning one of those things is a huge pain in the ass.

The rich aren't stupid; they've become well aware of this. Most people who want to use one of these things today will just charter one. Those folks who make their living by building yachts are supported mostly by the charter business. So yeah, capitalism still works out.

[SassyLady]

Let’s look at the modern U.S. as an example. Can anyone in this country spend more than $700,000 per year without intentionally wasting money? Almost certainly not. It takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and planning to spend $700,000. If your portfolio rakes in an additional $5 million, how valuable to you is it, really?



You don't like successful people do you? Do you consider donations to charity "spending" or "intentionally wasting"? I know many millionaires, multi millionaires, and only one billionaire so far, that donate more that $700K in a year ........and if I had $700k to work on getting down to zero I could find a way that didn't onlty benefit myself and my famiy, but everyone I came into contact with. Natonal building would be one of my favs...go to Tahiti and build a school or library, hospital, etc. I do believe the value of the money is directly related to the good that you cab do with ut to improve others lives when mt direct needs have been met.

[darin]

I said, "without intentionally wasting money."

But on the subject of cars, would you care to take a guess on what the most popular model is for the wealthiest Americans?

It's Ford. And the second most popular is Cadillac.

It wouldn't be a waste. Have you SEEN a Rolls in person?

What does 'most popular' mean? Who are 'the wealthiest' Americans?

[Palin Rider]

You don't like successful people do you? Do you consider donations to charity "spending" or "intentionally wasting"? I know many millionaires, multi millionaires, and only one billionaire so far, that donate more that $700K in a year ........and if I had $700k to work on getting down to zero I could find a way that didn't onlty benefit myself and my famiy, but everyone I came into contact with. Natonal building would be one of my favs...go to Tahiti and build a school or library, hospital, etc. I do believe the value of the money is directly related to the good that you cab do with ut to improve others lives when mt direct needs have been met.

Either you totally missed the point or you're just trying to spin my statement into something it never was.

So, to be clear, I'm talking about the money someone spends on themselves and on their immediate families when I refer to that $700K. It it possible to spend more than that on yourself and your family in a year? Yes, but not without a considerable amount of time and effort, which almost no one would want to bother with.

Apart from which, I'm sure you know there's a fairly low cap on how much you can deduct from your taxes when you donate to charity. The rest is between you and your god.


It wouldn't be a waste. Have you SEEN a Rolls in person?
Many times. You're trying to tell me a Rolls is NOT an extravagance?


What does 'most popular' mean? Who are 'the wealthiest' Americans?
"Most popular" usually means the greatest number owned. For these stats, I think the "wealthiest" were the top 1%, but if you REALLY care that much, I can go back and dig for the link for you.

[Kathianne]

Many times. You're trying to tell me a Rolls is NOT an extravagance?


"Most popular" usually means the greatest number owned. For these stats, I think the "wealthiest" were the top 1%, but if you REALLY care that much, I can go back and dig for the link for you.

If one works hard and wants an extravagance or 30 or 100, why not? While it might not be how I'd spend my money, who are you or anyone else to decide my extravagances?

[Palin Rider]

If one works hard and wants an extravagance or 30 or 100, why not? While it might not be how I'd spend my money, who are you or anyone else to decide my extravagances?

Don't be ridiculous: I never so much as hinted that someone should "decide" other people's extravagances.

(The whole purpose of the phrase "intentionally wasting money" was to come up with a reasonable amount that most people would have a hard time spending beyond.)

[darin]

Many times. You're trying to tell me a Rolls is NOT an extravagance?




Not to some people. Your measures are highly subjective. That's my point. Are my cars extravagant?

One day I was sitting at a car meeting surrounded by exotics. I lamented to a friend "Geesh...I want a cool car someday." He got sort of annoyed. "You HAVE cars." "But not like these..."I said. "It's not like you drive a fucking FOCUS..."

To some people I'm successfully - even well off. I'm making probably 50% of what some of my neighbors make. To them...meh...not so much. That's the problem with liberals - the problem I think you have in this case - you're placing short-sighted and limited brands on what rich means.



"Most popular" usually means the greatest number owned. For these stats, I think the "wealthiest" were the top 1%, but if you REALLY care that much, I can go back and dig for the link for you.


Usually to whom? In the instance of your claimed data?

[MtnBiker]

perhaps people earning a million dollars and more (through no effort of their own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment), should be buying fords for homeless people (through no fault of their own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment) and of course a bloated government bureaucracy can decide on who gets what

[Palin Rider]

Not to some people. Your measures are highly subjective. That's my point.

There's a huge difference between "subjective" and "unreasonable." You seem fairly desperate to spin one into the other.

Is it possible to come up with a yearly dollar figure beyond which hardly anyone could spend on themselves and be COMPLETELY objective about it? Probably not; there are just too many variables.

So, if you think my figure is unreasonable, why don't you suggest another one?


Usually to whom? In the instance of your claimed data?
Usually when any statistical study uses the term "most popular," they're talking about the best selling or the largest number owned, yes.


perhaps people earning a million dollars and more (through no effort of their own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment), should be buying fords for homeless people (through no fault of their own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment) and of course a bloated government bureaucracy can decide on who gets what

Sarcasm isn't your strength, but I'll ignore your politics for the moment.

[MtnBiker]

What am I thinking, Fords??. It should be Chevy Volts, that would be a much better handout from government bureaucrats.

[Palin Rider]

What am I thinking, Fords??. It should be Chevy Volts, that would be a much better handout from government bureaucrats.

Still ignoring the wandering didactics (too insipid to qualify as "politics")

[MtnBiker]

It does make you wonder where homeless people(of course through no fault of their own) would plug in their Chevy Volts. Oh well, bureaucrats cannot be bothered with such details when redistributing.

[Agnapostate]

The concept of diminishing marginal utility is a bit above the heads of most of this board's membership, I suspect.

[Palin Rider]

The concept of diminishing marginal utility is a bit above the heads of most of this board's membership, I suspect.

There are a few who I suspect understand it but prefer to be disingenuous.

[DragonStryk72]

When people invented currency, it was to create something that everyone agreed would have a standard value (eliminating the frustration of a barter system). A dollar is supposed to be worth the same to me as it’s worth to Noir or to Warren Buffet.

That’s how the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, there are some things it fails to take into account. The most significant thing is: the worth of a dollar depends on the number of dollars you already have. Let’s consider a few examples.

Suppose you’re broke and homeless (through no fault of your own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment), and you haven’t eaten in a few days. A stranger walking by gives you ten bucks. That ten bucks is going to be extremely valuable to you. It will help you survive one more day and give you enough energy to try to improve your situation.

Now let’s suppose you work at a gas station, making ten bucks an hour by sitting behind the register and making sure that nobody steals the candy bars. You do this for 100 hours and get paid $1,000. That thousand bucks is also going to be very real to you, because it’s supposedly the equivalent of giving over 100 boring (and maybe dangerous) hours of your life in order to make a profit for someone else. So you’ll be understandably annoyed when the government wants to take a big chunk of it.

Here’s another example. Suppose you get a big client to sign a significant contract or purchase order with your business: big enough for them to hand you a six figure check. Maybe you’ve done this in your career. Does that money seem valuable to you? Better question, does that money, dollar for dollar, seem as valuable to you as in the last two examples?

It doesn’t.

I can attest to this: when you deposit that check, it seems like you’re depositing Monopoly money. Buy a car with that money, and it doesn’t really feel like your car. People who deal in transactions of this size eventually get used to it, but it’s still nothing like “reality” as most people understand it. It’s always like playing with fantasy money in a fantasy world.

People have understood this psychological effect for well over a century now, and as a result, governments began instituting progressive tax systems to account for it. As long as these systems know where the “point of diminishing returns” is for the value of money, they make perfect sense.

Let’s look at the modern U.S. as an example. Can anyone in this country spend more than $700,000 per year without intentionally wasting money? Almost certainly not. It takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and planning to spend $700,000. If your portfolio rakes in an additional $5 million, how valuable to you is it, really?

This scenario shows us something else about the world’s wealthiest people that most of the rest of the world has no clue about. The truly wealthy don’t pursue money. To them, money is nothing beyond a way of keeping score when they want to compete with one another. They certainly don’t use it to shop. In fact, most of them aren’t very interested in acquiring more things to own. They prefer to find more things (and people) to control, instead. This viewpoint actually makes a great deal of sense, by the way. When you own things, someone else can destroy them, steal them, or use them against you. On the other hand, when you control things, you get all the benefits with far fewer headaches.

So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting. There’s no need for it: as I’ve just shown you, this money is rarely put back into the economy. The richest Americans will still be able to play the same games, just with lower scores.

In the end, the argument is moot, because you're basing their ability solely based on numerical funds. To tax one person more than another is discriminatory, and were it to be reversed, then there would be open revolt, but the rich are a minority, so the larger mass of people see no problem with it.

There are only two reasons to tax the rich excessively. One is because they can get away with it, because people lack sympathy for the rich,and two, because the government wastes more than 700k a day, and doesn't want to have to actually be responsible with their money.

Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.

[Solar]

There are a few who I suspect understand it but prefer to be disingenuous.

It appears you overlook one simple equation.
Wasteful spending, there is no need to tax anyone more than another, there is, though, an awful lot of wasteful spending that needs to be curtailed.

[Agnapostate]

There are a few who I suspect understand it but prefer to be disingenuous.

The problem is that they have emotion-based dogmatic moral views that conflict with economic rationality. While it's clear enough that the actual costs imposed on different economic classes can only be made equivalent by different prices, they believe that the wealthy earned their spot through hard work and saving (despite the empirical research to the contrary), and that their productivity is punished instead of rewarded through progressive taxation, though it be consistent with diminishing marginal utility.

[Palin Rider]

In the end, the argument is moot, because you're basing their ability solely based on numerical funds. To tax one person more than another is discriminatory, and were it to be reversed, then there would be open revolt, but the rich are a minority, so the larger mass of people see no problem with it.
You obviously don't understand the argument. Let me sum it up once more: the same amount of money is less valuable to a rich person than to a poor one. This makes higher taxation on the rich a reasonable supposition.


There are only two reasons to tax the rich excessively. One is because they can get away with it, because people lack sympathy for the rich,and two, because the government wastes more than 700k a day, and doesn't want to have to actually be responsible with their money.
You've crafted an argument so vague, with terms like "excessive" and "waste" that ultimately it makes no point at all. What you call "waste," someone else will call "critical spending."


Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.
I'm sure that even you know this argument is beyond silly. Raise the costs of goods and services beyond what the traffic will allow, and NO ONE will buy them.


It appears you overlook one simple equation.
Wasteful spending, there is no need to tax anyone more than another, there is, though, an awful lot of wasteful spending that needs to be curtailed.
Same as above: what do you call "wasteful?"

Not to mention the ridiculous amount of money owed to China. The poor and middle class can't pay for that: they're broke already. So if the money doesn't come from the rich, where else is it going to come from, hm?

[Agnapostate]

Taxing the rich is also ultimately only hurting the poor. The rich, having lots more money, generally tend to own, or having controlling interests in businesses, thus allowing them to set the price of goods and services. This means that any tax hike against them is useless, because they will simply figure the extra tax into the costs of goods and services, meaning that we pay the tax, not them.

The concept of diminishing marginal utility predicts relative inelasticity in cases of extreme excess wealth, so they'll actually be less responsive than that.

[SassyLady]

You don't like successful people do you? Do you consider donations to charity "spending" or "intentionally wasting"? I know many millionaires, multi millionaires, and only one billionaire so far, that donate more that $700K in a year ........and if I had $700k to work on getting down to zero I could find a way that didn't onlty benefit myself and my famiy, but everyone I came into contact with. Natonal building would be one of my favs...go to Tahiti and build a school or library, hospital, etc. I do believe the value of the money is directly related to the good that you cab do with ut to improve others lives when mt direct needs have been met.

Wow .... guess I didn't proof read this before posting!!! Must have been very sleepy!! :laugh:

[SassyLady]

Either you totally missed the point or you're just trying to spin my statement into something it never was.

So, to be clear, I'm talking about the money someone spends on themselves and on their immediate families when I refer to that $700K. It it possible to spend more than that on yourself and your family in a year? Yes, but not without a considerable amount of time and effort, which almost no one would want to bother with.

Apart from which, I'm sure you know there's a fairly low cap on how much you can deduct from your taxes when you donate to charity. The rest is between you and your god.

Regardless of how the money is to be spent, it can be spent without wasting any of it. You just want people to think being wealthy is a horrible thing and it's not, really. Wealthy people keep others gainfully employed, buy and use products (that they pay taxes on), keeping people gainfully employed.

I could puchase the home that is for sale next door, refurbish it and put it up for sale .... spent my money wisely and am now getting a profit on it. Not a bad move at all.

How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!

[darin]

There's a huge difference between "subjective" and "unreasonable." You seem fairly desperate to spin one into the other.

Is it possible to come up with a yearly dollar figure beyond which hardly anyone could spend on themselves and be COMPLETELY objective about it? Probably not; there are just too many variables.

I'm not spinning anything - your claims and your cited stats blow. It's your mess - clean it up with real data.


So, if you think my figure is unreasonable, why don't you suggest another one?


because your arbitrary number is YOUR issue.



Usually when any statistical study uses the term "most popular," they're talking about the best selling or the largest number owned, yes.

Does it count OTHER cars owned? So - if I have two ford, and 15 other cars of different makes, the ford is my "Most Popular"? I own a Ford, a Subaru, and a Mazda. My ford is my least favourite; least used. But if polled - assuming I was 'well-off' - I'd answer I own a Ford. What if I was rich and had a $150,000 Fort GT. World-class car. Doesn't add ANYTHING to your argument. You'd take that data and use it for some non-related use...such as your implied claim "more rich folk own/prefer Fords than any other brand". Just doesn't pass Common Sense tests...Common sense. You might be able to pick some up on Ebay.

Your data sucks big ol' donkey wang. :)

[Palin Rider]

Regardless of how the money is to be spent, it can be spent without wasting any of it.

Sure, just not on 1-4 people's personal stuff, and not without lots of planning and effort.


You just want people to think being wealthy is a horrible thing and it's not, really.
Where's the paranoia coming from, sweetie? Do you consider me a "traitor to my class" like they did with FDR?


Wealthy people keep others gainfully employed, buy and use products (that they pay taxes on), keeping people gainfully employed.
So does everyone else who buys and sells products.


How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!
You're just proving my point, hon. You can jack up tax rates in the highest brackets and we'll STILL figure out how to make plenty more.

Now just pour yourself a nice glass of your wine, sit back, relax, and let the real people discuss the issues.
:coffee:


I'm not spinning anything - your claims and your cited stats blow. It's your mess - clean it up with real data.
And you're the one complaining about it without showing what the problems are OR supplying any other data.

Forget it. You lose that one.


Does it count OTHER cars owned? So - if I have two ford, and 15 other cars of different makes, the ford is my "Most Popular"? I own a Ford, a Subaru, and a Mazda. My ford is my least favourite; least used. But if polled - assuming I was 'well-off' - I'd answer I own a Ford. What if I was rich and had a $150,000 Fort GT. World-class car. Doesn't add ANYTHING to your argument. You'd take that data and use it for some non-related use...such as your implied claim "more rich folk own/prefer Fords than any other brand". Just doesn't pass Common Sense tests...Common sense. You might be able to pick some up on Ebay.

Your data sucks big ol' donkey wang. :)
Tell you what. Feel free to forget I said anything about cars: they have practically nothing to do with the argument, anyway.

Happy now? :slap:

[darin]

You going to pull an Obama and refuse to admit your data sucks; therefore your entire position is invalid?

:)

http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/the_cat_is_pushing_a_watermelon_out_of_a_lake.thum bnail.jpg

[Palin Rider]

You going to pull an Obama and refuse to admit your data sucks; therefore your entire position is invalid?

No. You're just going to have to point out exactly what data points suck and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate how they suck. Otherwise you're just ranting like a 3-year-old.

[darin]

No. You're just going to have to point out exactly what data points suck and OBJECTIVELY demonstrate how they suck. Otherwise you're just ranting like a 3-year-old.

Your data sucks because:

You dont place $700,000 in ANY appreciable context. You haven't demonstrated what 'most popular' means, and to what extent owning a Ford brand vehicle has to do with anything. This study says Porsche is the most popular, albeit 3 years ago: http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1026611_porsche-most-popular-with-the-wealthy. This points towards a rise in exotic car purchases (assuming those who buy those cars are "rich") http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16001131



You haven't provided any data - actually...you claim 'sources'. (shrug).


It's false moral ground - where you're standing. You're assuming what "right" looks like for people you don't know.

[Palin Rider]

Your data sucks because:

You dont place $700,000 in ANY appreciable context.

Okay, here's the context (again):

Consider an adult individual in the US, optionally with a spouse and a kid or two. Suppose this individual has an income, from some unspecified source, of $700K per year. Suppose further this individual is allowed to spend this income only on personal and family expenses.

Now, supposing that this individual spends this money "reasonably," by which I mean it's not used to purchase, for example, 30 tons of peaches (which the family could not possibly eat before they spoil).

That context should make the yearly income of $700K more than enough for just about anybody, correct?



You haven't demonstrated what 'most popular' means, and to what extent owning a Ford brand vehicle has to do with anything.

You haven't provided any data - actually...you claim 'sources'. (shrug).

Why are you still talking about the car statistics after I withdrew that point?


It's false moral ground - where you're standing. You're assuming what "right" looks like for people you don't know.

Are you saying that everybody is entitled to whatever arbitrary system of morality that they think is "right?" Scary idea...

[darin]

Okay, here's the context (again):

Consider an adult individual in the US, optionally with a spouse and a kid or two. Suppose this individual has an income, from some unspecified source, of $700K per year. Suppose further this individual is allowed to spend this income only on personal and family expenses.

Now, supposing that this individual spends this money "reasonably," by which I mean it's not used to purchase, for example, 30 tons of peaches (which the family could not possibly eat before they spoil).

That context should make the yearly income of $700K more than enough for just about anybody, correct?


No. It's not enough because 'just about anybody' is a very simple way of categorizing people. In your mamby-pamby land, sure...but in the real world, where houses cost MILLIONS, in some of our larger cities, $700,000 may NOT be enough. That figure may not account for savings, investments, education, etc.


Are you saying that everybody is entitled to whatever arbitrary system of morality that they think is "right?" Scary idea...

Sure. People are FREE to make whatever value or assessment of morality they choose. If you think that's scary you might be a fascist.

[Palin Rider]

No. It's not enough because 'just about anybody' is a very simple way of categorizing people. In your mamby-pamby land, sure...but in the real world, where houses cost MILLIONS, in some of our larger cities, $700,000 may NOT be enough. That figure may not account for savings, investments, education, etc.
Yes, houses cost millions even (and especially) where I live, which is exactly why people carry mortgages. And take out student loans for their kids' educations. Savings and investments, of course, are not expenses by definition.

But I'll continue to humor you: if $700K/year isn't enough, as you claim, how much do you believe IS enough?



Sure. People are FREE to make whatever value or assessment of morality they choose. If you think that's scary you might be a fascist.

I strongly doubt you actually believe the above. According to you, it's a perfectly valid assessment of morality to decide that, for example, anyone with Thai heritage should be killed.

[darin]

There is no set-value-judgment on what is 'enough' money. To think so is anti-freedom...which is what I am NOT about.

I absolutely believe that. If somebody makes the value-judgment all non-muslims should die, they are welcome to that belief. If they threaten me or harm me or my family, they'd learn my value-judgment of THEIR actions.

FREEDOM....man...FREEDOM.

[Palin Rider]

There is no set-value-judgment on what is 'enough' money. To think so is anti-freedom...which is what I am NOT about.

I absolutely believe that. If somebody makes the value-judgment all non-muslims should die, they are welcome to that belief. If they threaten me or harm me or my family, they'd learn my value-judgment of THEIR actions.

FREEDOM....man...FREEDOM.

The type of freedom you're talking about applies to hermits on islands. We, OTOH, live in a society. By agreeing to remain there, we surrender at least a tiny bit of that freedom.

[Missileman]

The type of freedom you're talking about applies to hermits on islands. We, OTOH, live in a society. By agreeing to remain there, we surrender at least a tiny bit of that freedom.

Why draw the line at 700,000...why not draw it at 70,000 and confiscate every cent over that line for everyone in the US? Then we can send all that cash to DC and let fucktards like Pelosi and Reid figure out how best to spend it. In your case, let's make it everything over 7,000, because I think that's all you need to spend.

[Palin Rider]

Why draw the line at 700,000...why not draw it at 70,000 and confiscate every cent over that line for everyone in the US? Then we can send all that cash to DC and let fucktards like Pelosi and Reid figure out how best to spend it. In your case, let's make it everything over 7,000, because I think that's all you need to spend.

You're probably aware that there are disadvantages to a 100% tax bracket. So am I, and of course I don't advocate one.

As for my own finances, I know I could figure out how to get by on 7K somehow, but I'd honestly rather not.

[SassyLady]

Sure, just not on 1-4 people's personal stuff, and not without lots of planning and effort.

Where's the paranoia coming from, sweetie? Do you consider me a "traitor to my class" like they did with FDR?


So does everyone else who buys and sells products.


You're just proving my point, hon. You can jack up tax rates in the highest brackets and we'll STILL figure out how to make plenty more.

Now just pour yourself a nice glass of your wine, sit back, relax, and let the real people discuss the issues.
:coffee:



Wow....must have put a bug up your nose didn't I.....you can stow the patronizing attitude and grow up a little and perhaps we'll let you sit at the kitchen table and discuss the issues with the rest of us adults....but I don't drink wine so you'll have to settle for water or tea.

PS....I don't think you are a traitor, just inexperienced.


Why draw the line at 700,000...why not draw it at 70,000 and confiscate every cent over that line for everyone in the US? Then we can send all that cash to DC and let fucktards like Pelosi and Reid figure out how best to spend it. In your case, let's make it everything over 7,000, because I think that's all you need to spend.

:clap::clap::clap:

[Palin Rider]

Wow....must have put a bug up your nose didn't I.....you can stow the patronizing attitude and grow up a little and perhaps we'll let you sit at the kitchen table and discuss the issues with the rest of us adults....but I don't drink wine so you'll have to settle for water or tea.You claim that you're a real person, accuse me of not being one, and then expect me not to object?

Why, how dare I? Who does this uppity PR think he is?


How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!


PS....I don't think you are a traitor, just inexperienced.
Care to tell me what you think I'm inexperienced with? Without specifics, it's hard to say whether you're correct.

[SassyLady]

You claim that you're a real person, accuse me of not being one, and then expect me not to object?

Why, how dare I? Who does this uppity PR think he is?




Care to tell me what you think I'm inexperienced with? Without specifics, it's hard to say whether you're correct.

PR - I've never said anything about being a "real" person....how is that relevant to the discussion?

Oh....and that's real cutesy .... changing my name to "EgoPrincess".....and you want me to point out where you are inexperienced? Try staying on point without resorting to juvenile innuendos like changing someone's screen name and then I might think you are mature enough to have some life experience.

[Partisan]

UOTE=Palin Rider;440330]When people invented currency, it was to create something that everyone agreed would have a standard value (eliminating the frustration of a barter system). A dollar is supposed to be worth the same to me as it’s worth to Noir or to Warren Buffet.

I don't think everyone agreed to a "standard" value. Value is intrinsic and cannot be agreed upon by 'everyone'. A dollar is worth the same to you or Warran Buffet. That is a fact.


That’s how the system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, there are some things it fails to take into account. The most significant thing is: the worth of a dollar depends on the number of dollars you already have. Let’s consider a few examples.

Not true. When you take you dollar and purchase an item, the value of your dollar is the same value as Warren's dollar.


Suppose you’re broke and homeless (through no fault of your own; let’s ignore the politics for the moment), and you haven’t eaten in a few days. A stranger walking by gives you ten bucks. That ten bucks is going to be extremely valuable to you. It will help you survive one more day and give you enough energy to try to improve your situation.

that has nothing to do with 'value'. You might appreciate that dollar more, but the dollar's inherent value is unchanged.



People have understood this psychological effect for well over a century now, and as a result, governments began instituting progressive tax systems to account for it. As long as these systems know where the “point of diminishing returns” is for the value of money, they make perfect sense.

Again, not true. Progressive tax has nothing to do with the value of money. It has everything to do with who controls the money. Most governments have determined that it is unwise for a small percentage of a nation to control 99% of the nation's wealth. Progressive tax seeks to redistribute that wealth and give the 'control' back to the goverment, instead of a few rich people. The ultimate goal is to give power to more people, however, it has also given governments great powers.


Let’s look at the modern U.S. as an example. Can anyone in this country spend more than $700,000 per year without intentionally wasting money? Almost certainly not. It takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and planning to spend $700,000. If your portfolio rakes in an additional $5 million, how valuable to you is it, really?

This is nonsense. And again, goes back to your misunderstanding of value vs. appreciation. Most 10 year old's are happy with a few bucks for their weekly allowance, say even those orange county snobby 10 year old's who get a hundred bucks a week. That would make any 10 year old very happy. Why? Because their needs and desires are less.

$700K a year is nothing and is not a waste. You are putting your value on the worth of the dollar. That $700K probably employs many people who are not complaining they have a job.


This scenario shows us something else about the world’s wealthiest people that most of the rest of the world has no clue about. The truly wealthy don’t pursue money. To them, money is nothing beyond a way of keeping score when they want to compete with one another. They certainly don’t use it to shop. In fact, most of them aren’t very interested in acquiring more things to own. They prefer to find more things (and people) to control, instead. This viewpoint actually makes a great deal of sense, by the way. When you own things, someone else can destroy them, steal them, or use them against you. On the other hand, when you control things, you get all the benefits with far fewer headaches.

Stupid. Seriously stupid. Do you get an allowance from your mommy?


So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting. There’s no need for it: as I’ve just shown you, this money is rarely put back into the economy. The richest Americans will still be able to play the same games, just with lower scores.


You haven't shown anything. The wealthy do in fact put money back into the economy. By purchasing and employing. Think about some rich person who buys a yacht. How many people are employed to build that yacht?

Answer me this:

What would the government do with the same money that the rich person spent to have that yacht built?

[Palin Rider]

PR - I've never said anything about being a "real" person....how is that relevant to the discussion?
I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.


Try staying on point without resorting to juvenile innuendos like changing someone's screen name and then I might think you are mature enough to have some life experience.
Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.


I don't think everyone agreed to a "standard" value. Value is intrinsic and cannot be agreed upon by 'everyone'. A dollar is worth the same to you or Warran Buffet. That is a fact.

Are you aware that the third sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous two?


that has nothing to do with 'value'. You might appreciate that dollar more, but the dollar's inherent value is unchanged.
Then you need to explain how you're defining "inherent value."


Again, not true. Progressive tax has nothing to do with the value of money. It has everything to do with who controls the money. Most governments have determined that it is unwise for a small percentage of a nation to control 99% of the nation's wealth. Progressive tax seeks to redistribute that wealth and give the 'control' back to the goverment, instead of a few rich people. The ultimate goal is to give power to more people, however, it has also given governments great powers.
So are you for or against a system of progressive taxation?



Stupid. Seriously stupid. Do you get an allowance from your mommy?
Are you a troll? I don't deal with trolls.


You haven't shown anything. The wealthy do in fact put money back into the economy. By purchasing and employing.
I never claimed otherwise.


What would the government do with the same money that the rich person spent to have that yacht built?

Meaningless question. The "same money" never gets tracked as it goes through the treasury - it's all lumped together.

I'll give you a pass for now, but learn some manners before we talk more.

[SassyLady]

I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.


Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.

I stand corrected .... I did say that if you couldn't figure out how to spend the money to step back and let "real" people show you how. I apologize if I offended you by implying you were not a real person. {{{{{{hugs PR}}}}}}

Must have been the fleeting feeling of power that I felt when I thought about how I could spend that $700K!!! :slap:

[Palin Rider]

I stand corrected .... I did say that if you couldn't figure out how to spend the money to step back and let "real" people show you how. I apologize if I offended you by implying you were not a real person. {{{{{{hugs PR}}}}}}

Must have been the fleeting feeling of power that I felt when I thought about how I could spend that $700K!!! :slap:

Apology accepted. :huddle:

[SassyLady]

Apology accepted. :huddle:

OK....now back to the main story ... I still disagree with placing the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy....just because they are wealthy.

[Missileman]

OK....now back to the main story ... I still disagree with placing the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy....just because they are wealthy.

Some people are of the mindset that DC should grab up and spend all the money they want. I don't understand how they think that way. To them, cutting spending is an option of last resort when it should be the first option.

[Dante]

So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting.

huh?

Oh I get it.

[Partisan]

I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.


Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.



Are you aware that the third sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous two?


Then you need to explain how you're defining "inherent value."


So are you for or against a system of progressive taxation?



Are you a troll? I don't deal with trolls.


I never claimed otherwise.



Meaningless question. The "same money" never gets tracked as it goes through the treasury - it's all lumped together.

I'll give you a pass for now, but learn some manners before we talk more.

Funny, you questioning whether I am a troll, when you didn't address a thing from my post. Do you really not understand 'inherent value'? Get some education and then you will understand it. It is really quite simple for most folks, but you need an education to understand it.

Taxation: is that all you have to say? Whether I am for or against it? You couldn't address my points?

Troll? Ah, yes, the internet term for those that do not debate, and only parrot others words. I give you a full answer, and you question if I am a troll.

I think you need to look in the mirror.

[Palin Rider]

Funny, you questioning whether I am a troll, when you didn't address a thing from my post. Do you really not understand 'inherent value'? Get some education and then you will understand it. It is really quite simple for most folks, but you need an education to understand it.

Taxation: is that all you have to say? Whether I am for or against it? You couldn't address my points?

Troll? Ah, yes, the internet term for those that do not debate, and only parrot others words. I give you a full answer, and you question if I am a troll.

I think you need to look in the mirror.

Thanks for playing, troll. Gaffer will give you your booby prize.
:talk2hand:


OK....now back to the main story ... I still disagree with placing the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy....just because they are wealthy.

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

[SassyLady]

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

A true flat tax, of say, 10% on all income, no exceptions. Imagine the money saved right off the bat.....No need to file tax returns and the IRS could be virtually dismanned.

Yes, the wealthy would be putting in the majority of the money, however, it would not be a discriminatory, or unfair, taxation.

[Missileman]

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.

[Palin Rider]

But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.

Everyone is equally in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases, regardless of tax rates or tax brackets.


A true flat tax, of say, 10% on all income, no exceptions. Imagine the money saved right off the bat.....No need to file tax returns and the IRS could be virtually dismanned.

Yes, the wealthy would be putting in the majority of the money, however, it would not be a discriminatory, or unfair, taxation.

I see no reason that the lowest 80% of incomes should be paying taxes at all.

Of course, this would mean higher rates on the other 20% to make the plan revenue-neutral.

[Dante]

I showed you your quote. Don't try to deny it.


Sure, as long as you agree that people who either (a) aren't as successful, or (b) don't agree with your world view are nontheless REAL.



Are you aware that the third sentence is a direct contradiction of the previous two?


Then you need to explain how you're defining "inherent value."


So are you for or against a system of progressive taxation?



Are you a troll? I don't deal with trolls.


I never claimed otherwise.



Meaningless question. The "same money" never gets tracked as it goes through the treasury - it's all lumped together.

I'll give you a pass for now, but learn some manners before we talk more.

yet again, they replied and do not answer you. :poke:


But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.

When extremely wealthy people who try to avoid as much taxes as they can line up behind the flat tax idea -- the smell is rotten enough to keep anyone with a sense of smell away.

[Palin Rider]

yet again, they replied and do not answer you. :poke:

I never worry about the obvious trolls. Eventually they get bored when everyone ignores them and they're reduced to just patting one another on the back.

[SassyLady]

I see no reason that the lowest 80% of incomes should be paying taxes at all.

Of course, this would mean higher rates on the other 20% to make the plan revenue-neutral.

So you think they should get a free ride? Why? Do they not benefit from the services paid for by the taxes? Why should they be expected to pay a lesser percentage of their earned income?

[Palin Rider]

So you think they should get a free ride? Why? Do they not benefit from the services paid for by the taxes? Why should they be expected to pay a lesser percentage of their earned income?

No one ever gets a free ride from taxes! :laugh:

There's sales taxes, property taxes, estate taxes... (Come on, everybody sing with me!) Income isn't the only taxable thing out there.

Also, the US went for quite some time levying income tax only on the top incomes. Is there a reason (besides some fallacy of "fairness") that it can't do so again?

[SassyLady]

No one ever gets a free ride from taxes! :laugh:

There's sales taxes, property taxes, estate taxes... (Come on, everybody sing with me!) Income isn't the only taxable thing out there.



Yep...sales tax ... is there a sliding scale for the poor vs rich on this one? Nope! But I would venture that the rich are putting more money back into the economy and the tax base than the bottom 20%

How about property tax .... only if you own property...which most of the bottom 20% don't.

Estate taxes? Gotta have an estate for this to happen....how many of the bottom 20% have an estate?

See, the wealthy are already paying more taxes right off the bat.


Also, the US went for quite some time levying income tax only on the top incomes. Is there a reason (besides some fallacy of "fairness") that it can't do so again?

Well, tell me the reason they originally quit doing it in the first place and I'll discuss it with you.

[Mr. P]

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?
The Fair Tax

But at least under a flat tax system, the wealthy person is in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases rather than just having it taken away.A Flat tax is not fair and NOT the same as The Fair Tax.


Everyone is equally in control of how much tax he pays based on his purchases, regardless of tax rates or tax brackets. Simply NOT so under the current tax systems. Unless yer only referring to sales tax..which makes the OP even more bizarre.

[Palin Rider]

Yep...sales tax ... is there a sliding scale for the poor vs rich on this one? Nope! But I would venture that the rich are putting more money back into the economy and the tax base than the bottom 20%

How about property tax .... only if you own property...which most of the bottom 20% don't.

Estate taxes? Gotta have an estate for this to happen....how many of the bottom 20% have an estate?

See, the wealthy are already paying more taxes right off the bat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that they shouldn't be paying more.


Well, tell me the reason they originally quit doing it in the first place and I'll discuss it with you.

They didn't turn it off like a light switch. They kept pushing up the rate and/or lowering the bottom threshold in an effort to pay for little things like the two World Wars - until by 1950 the threshold was so low that just about everyone was paying income tax.


Simply NOT so under the current tax systems. Unless yer only referring to sales tax..which makes the OP even more bizarre.

I don't believe we're talking about the same thing here. When I used the term "in control," I was referring to how we control what we purchase and how much of it. Not that we control the tax rates themselves. My apologies if that was confusing.

[SassyLady]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that they shouldn't be paying more.

No, you are not wrong. I do not believe the wealthy should be forced to pay more than their fair share. They earned it just like the bottom 20% and I believe everyone needs to pay to support our infrastructure ......an equal percentage.....which, on income and profit, means the wealthy will be paying more anyway ... just not a larger percentage than anyone else.

As for the other taxes .... yes, they are paying more because they own more ... and that is as it should be. Sales tax is the same for everyone; property taxes is a percentage of value; and the estate tax just pisses me off right now. It jumped 10% and the exclusion amount went from $3.5 million to $1 million. 2011 is not a good year to die.

And yes, I do have a problem with a sliding tax scale on income and profit.




So, I gather from what you've been saying that you are a proponent of income redistribution?

[Solar]

Same as above: what do you call "wasteful?"

Not to mention the ridiculous amount of money owed to China. The poor and middle class can't pay for that: they're broke already. So if the money doesn't come from the rich, where else is it going to come from, hm?

You just admitted there is obviously wasteful spending going on, if we have to borrow from China.

Lets start with bailouts, had we let the market do what it does best, there would have been no ned for a bailout, but using the auto industry as an example, that was strictly to support the Unions.
Let the Unions collapse under their own weight and let the industry find it's own fix.

Look at Ca. it is about to collapse under it's own weight from pensions alone.
This is pure waste.

[Palin Rider]

No, you are not wrong. I do not believe the wealthy should be forced to pay more than their fair share. They earned it just like the bottom 20% and I believe everyone needs to pay to support our infrastructure ......an equal percentage.....which, on income and profit, means the wealthy will be paying more anyway ... just not a larger percentage than anyone else.

As for the other taxes .... yes, they are paying more because they own more ... and that is as it should be. Sales tax is the same for everyone; property taxes is a percentage of value; and the estate tax just pisses me off right now. It jumped 10% and the exclusion amount went from $3.5 million to $1 million. 2011 is not a good year to die.

And yes, I do have a problem with a sliding tax scale on income and profit.




So, I gather from what you've been saying that you are a proponent of income redistribution?

Certainly not of absolute income redistribution. However, I think that your beliefs, because they lead to a system of extremely lopsided wealth distribution, create an unhealthy economic situation.

IMO, a balance somewhere around Pareto's rule is better for a nation's economic well being.


You just admitted there is obviously wasteful spending going on, if we have to borrow from China.

I never said there wasn't. The issue is that, for any spending, there's going to be controversy over whether it's wasteful or not.


Lets start with bailouts, had we let the market do what it does best, there would have been no ned for a bailout, but using the auto industry as an example, that was strictly to support the Unions.
Let the Unions collapse under their own weight and let the industry find it's own fix.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong here, just that it's now a done deal, and that we need to figure out what to do going forward.


Look at Ca. it is about to collapse under it's own weight from pensions alone.
This is pure waste.
Same as above.

[SassyLady]

Certainly not of absolute income redistribution. However, I think that your beliefs, because they lead to a system of extremely lopsided wealth distribution, create an unhealthy economic situation.

IMO, a balance somewhere around Pareto's rule is better for a nation's economic well being.

So, you advocate mediocrity? Punish those who are highly successful by making them pay for those who aren't. Let the top 20% support the remaining 80%?

[Mr. P]

I don't believe we're talking about the same thing here. When I used the term "in control," I was referring to how we control what we purchase and how much of it. Not that we control the tax rates themselves. My apologies if that was confusing.
Well, ya sure can tap dance. Do you wanna tax the shit outta the rich or not? I think it's clear but maybe you could explain.

[SassyLady]

Well, ya sure can tap dance. Do you wanna tax the shit outta the rich or not? I think it's clear but maybe you could explain.

Well, I did get the impression that PR doesn't want the lowest 20% paying any taxes whatsoever, and therefore, the top 20% need to pick up the slack.

[Palin Rider]

So, you advocate mediocrity? Punish those who are highly successful by making them pay for those who aren't. Let the top 20% support the remaining 80%?

All of which, of course, is an exaggeration.

The whole point of having an optimum distribution of wealth is so that the economy can grow with a minimum of problems. This situation, as it turns out, benefits the highly successful in the long run. It's only the myopic ones who complain about the immediate impact.


Well, ya sure can tap dance. Do you wanna tax the shit outta the rich or not? I think it's clear but maybe you could explain.

I believe that whatever someone makes above 200K per year should be taxed higher than it is now.

And that anything above 1 million per year should be taxed at a rate higher than that.

Nothing like the 90% they had in the 40s. Just enough to pay for getting rid of income tax for those making less than 200K.

Any more questions?

[Mr. P]

I believe that whatever someone makes above 200K per year should be taxed higher than it is now.

And that anything above 1 million per year should be taxed at a rate higher than that.

Nothing like the 90% they had in the 40s. Just enough to pay for getting rid of income tax for those making less than 200K.

Any more questions? Yeah, why?

[SassyLady]

All of which, of course, is an exaggeration.

The whole point of having an optimum distribution of wealth is so that the economy can grow with a minimum of problems. This situation, as it turns out, benefits the highly successful in the long run. It's only the myopic ones who complain about the immediate impact.

Well, call me Mr. Magoo then.


I believe that whatever someone makes above 200K per year should be taxed higher than it is now.

And that anything above 1 million per year should be taxed at a rate higher than that.

Nothing like the 90% they had in the 40s. Just enough to pay for getting rid of income tax for those making less than 200K.

Any more questions?

So, you think the new poverty level is $200,000? You want to eliminate all taxes for those making less than $200K?

[Mr. P]

So, you think the new poverty level is $200,000? You want to eliminate all taxes for those making less than $200K?
Tis what he said.. I want some of that shit he's smokin.

[Solar]

IMO, a balance somewhere around Pareto's rule is better for a nation's economic well being.



I never said there wasn't. The issue is that, for any spending, there's going to be controversy over whether it's wasteful or not.



I'm not saying you're right or wrong here, just that it's now a done deal, and that we need to figure out what to do going forward.


Same as above.

Your OP tends to differ with you on that.
You advocate higher taxes, yet when pressed on the issue of waste, you merely call it controversial.

How is it possible to go into debt, if you weren't wasting money, or simply living beyond your means?
We are all being overtaxed, and there is waste in every dollar taxed, it's that simple!

[Palin Rider]

Yeah, why?

1. Because it will improve the economy.
2. We've been able to do it before, and it worked.
3. Why not? :)


Well, call me Mr. Magoo then.
I'll take that as a concession.


So, you think the new poverty level is $200,000? You want to eliminate all taxes for those making less than $200K?

Why should "poverty" be a requirement for eliminating income (not all) taxes?


Your OP tends to differ with you on that.
You advocate higher taxes, yet when pressed on the issue of waste, you merely call it controversial.

I'm not saying that waste isn't real. It is. All I'm saying is this:
How are you going to get most of Congress - let alone most of the American people - to agree among themselves about which specific items in the budget are indeed wasteful?

And even if the budget were perfectly efficient today, the total taxes brought in would still have to go up in order to pay off the existing debt.

[Solar]

I'm not saying that waste isn't real. It is. All I'm saying is this:
How are you going to get most of Congress - let alone most of the American people - to agree among themselves about which specific items in the budget are indeed wasteful?

And even if the budget were perfectly efficient today, the total taxes brought in would still have to go up in order to pay off the existing debt.

Again, you slide past the real issue of over taxation, with the remedy of forcing one particular group to pay more.

Truth is, if you continue to tax the producers of the Nation at an ever increasing rate, they will simply take their ball and leave.
Then who will bail out the Country, where will the jobs come from...Gov?

[red states rule]

Regardless of how the money is to be spent, it can be spent without wasting any of it. You just want people to think being wealthy is a horrible thing and it's not, really. Wealthy people keep others gainfully employed, buy and use products (that they pay taxes on), keeping people gainfully employed.

I could puchase the home that is for sale next door, refurbish it and put it up for sale .... spent my money wisely and am now getting a profit on it. Not a bad move at all.

How about you give the $700k back and I'll made it grow in a short period of time with very little effort becuase you want to complain about how hard it will be to spend it all....so, back away and let real people show you how it's done!

It is the rich that pay for the left's handouts to the "poor". IRS numbers show the top 1% earn about 19% of the wealth but pay about 40% of all Federal income taxes

When you add in state and local taxes, social security taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and all the other taxes out there - the so called "rich" fork over about 60% of their income to the government

and the libs are demanding MORE

It is the rich folks who keep the economy from coming to a complete stop and sinking further despite Obama's best efforts to make it so

[red states rule]

All of which, of course, is an exaggeration.

The whole point of having an optimum distribution of wealth is so that the economy can grow with a minimum of problems. This situation, as it turns out, benefits the highly successful in the long run. It's only the myopic ones who complain about the immediate impact.



I believe that whatever someone makes above 200K per year should be taxed higher than it is now.

And that anything above 1 million per year should be taxed at a rate higher than that.

Nothing like the 90% they had in the 40s. Just enough to pay for getting rid of income tax for those making less than 200K.

Any more questions?

You do know the top 1% already pay 40% of all federal income taxes now

and the top 25% pay about 85%

and the top 50% pay about 97%

Seems to me they are paying too MUCH in taxes and need a tax cut

[Mr. P]

1. Because it will improve the economy.
2. We've been able to do it before, and it worked.
3. Why not? :)


Why not? "Atlas Shrugged". Check it out it's happening even now. And so much more but I'm not here to educate you.

[Dante]

Well, ya sure can tap dance. Do you wanna tax the shit outta the rich or not? I think it's clear but maybe you could explain.

sure. Why not, if they can afford it. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

Not unduly so, they still pay out the same percentage of their income as everyone else would. However, the problem is that the income tax is still punishing success, flat or progressive

[Palin Rider]

Again, you slide past the real issue of over taxation, with the remedy of forcing one particular group to pay more.

Truth is, if you continue to tax the producers of the Nation at an ever increasing rate, they will simply take their ball and leave.
Then who will bail out the Country, where will the jobs come from...Gov?

The only way they'll "take their ball and leave" is if some other country can offer a better chance to make more money AND still levy lower taxes. It's nothing more than a cost-benefit analysis for the producers of a nation.

I'm not aware of any other spot in the world that offers a more business-friendly climate than the US. China and other places have cheaper labor, but they also have MANY other conditions that make doing business there less attractive.

[Palin Rider]

Not unduly so, they still pay out the same percentage of their income as everyone else would. However, the problem is that the income tax is still punishing success, flat or progressive

I'm curious as to why you think of taxation as a "punishment." It implies that those of us who somehow behave well should not pay taxes.

And if you get rid of all income tax, how would you replace the revenue?

[Palin Rider]

Why not? "Atlas Shrugged". Check it out it's happening even now. And so much more but I'm not here to educate you.

Obviously not. However, I'll be polite and refrain from speculating on what you are here for...

[Mr. P]

Obviously not. However, I'll be polite and refrain from speculating on what you are here for...
A wise choice.

[Solar]

The only way they'll "take their ball and leave" is if some other country can offer a better chance to make more money AND still levy lower taxes. It's nothing more than a cost-benefit analysis for the producers of a nation.

I'm not aware of any other spot in the world that offers a more business-friendly climate than the US. China and other places have cheaper labor, but they also have MANY other conditions that make doing business there less attractive.

Are you serious, did you even stop and think before you posted?

Look around, where has our manufacturing base gone to?
And care to guess the reasons as to why?

Here's a hint, Unions and taxes....
oops, just gave it away.

[Palin Rider]

Look around, where has our manufacturing base gone to?
And care to guess the reasons as to why?

Here's a hint, Unions and taxes....
oops, just gave it away.

Wrong and wrong. Big business wants you to THINK they've "gone," but legally, they haven't.

All that migration is a result of lobbying *cough*-bribes-*cough* to relax classifications on what can be called an import. If Congress had insisted on reasonable import laws, all that extra profit from moving factories to Shanghai would vanish.

Please tell me you're not so naive that you actually trust them to move the factories back if their taxes spontaneously went down.

[red states rule]

The only way they'll "take their ball and leave" is if some other country can offer a better chance to make more money AND still levy lower taxes. It's nothing more than a cost-benefit analysis for the producers of a nation.

I'm not aware of any other spot in the world that offers a more business-friendly climate than the US. China and other places have cheaper labor, but they also have MANY other conditions that make doing business there less attractive.

"Rich" people are leaving states that raise taxes and want to punish success

libs in MD are seeing their tax revenue DECREASE after RAISING taxes




Maryland should change it’s state motto from Fatti Maschii Parole Femine ¹ to “we hate rich people, please don’t leave.”

The Wall Street Journal reports in an op-ed titled Maryland’s Mobile Millionaires that soaking the rich, instead of creating revenue for states, actually loses revenue (emphasis added):

We reported in May that after passing a millionaire surtax nearly one-third of Maryland’s millionaires had gone missing, thus contributing to a decline in state revenues. The politicians in Annapolis had said they’d collect $106 million by raising its income tax rate on millionaire households to 6.25% from 4.75%. In cities like Baltimore and Bethesda, which apply add-on income taxes, the top tax rate with the surcharge now reaches as high as 9.3%—fifth highest in the nation. Liberals said this was based on incomplete data and that rich Marylanders hadn’t fled the state.

Well, the state comptroller’s office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

One-in-eight millionaires who filed a Maryland tax return in 2007 filed no return in 2008. Some died, but the others presumably changed their state of residence. (Hint to the class warfare crowd: A lot of rich people have two homes.)

http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/03/12/rich-marylanders-strongly-flee-the-state-while-gently-saying-goodbye-to-high-taxes/

[Partisan]

Thanks for playing, troll. Gaffer will give you your booby prize.
:talk2hand:



Even a flat tax system still places the majority of the tax burden on the wealthy because of their wealth. What kind of a system are you advocating?

when you lose the debate...stop debating and only toss ad homs

[Palin Rider]

when you lose the debate...stop debating and only toss ad homs

:trolls:

[Palin Rider]

"Rich" people are leaving states that raise taxes and want to punish success

libs in MD are seeing their tax revenue DECREASE after RAISING taxes

Anyone can move from one US state to another very easily. Moving to another country is considerably harder.

[Solar]

Wrong and wrong. Big business wants you to THINK they've "gone," but legally, they haven't.

All that migration is a result of lobbying *cough*-bribes-*cough* to relax classifications on what can be called an import. If Congress had insisted on reasonable import laws, all that extra profit from moving factories to Shanghai would vanish.

Please tell me you're not so naive that you actually trust them to move the factories back if their taxes spontaneously went down.

This is just too easy!:slap:

Y literally contradicted yourself in the last sentence.
Either they left or they didn't, which is it?

And since you claim I'm wrong, then prove it, back it up with facts!

[Palin Rider]

This is just too easy!:slap:

Y literally contradicted yourself in the last sentence.
Either they left or they didn't, which is it?

Pardon me; I'll rephrase the last sentence.

"Please tell me you're not so naive that you actually trust them to move the jobs back if their taxes spontaneously went down."

As I'm sure you know, the corporations themselves didn't move their HQs overseas, nor did most of the execs move overseas.

Better now?

[DragonStryk72]

The only way they'll "take their ball and leave" is if some other country can offer a better chance to make more money AND still levy lower taxes. It's nothing more than a cost-benefit analysis for the producers of a nation.

I'm not aware of any other spot in the world that offers a more business-friendly climate than the US. China and other places have cheaper labor, but they also have MANY other conditions that make doing business there less attractive.

Right, like how we have the 2nd highest such taxes in the world? Yeah, that leaves a lot of playground for the rich to run through. That's part of why so much production has moved to China. Then you have the American labor unions, more than a simple inconvenience. See, we've gotten to a point where it is cheaper and easier to produce items on the other side of the globe, and ship around the curvature of the Earth, than it is to produce the item 1 block from the store it would be sold in here.

[DragonStryk72]

Pardon me; I'll rephrase the last sentence.

"Please tell me you're not so naive that you actually trust them to move the jobs back if their taxes spontaneously went down."

As I'm sure you know, the corporations themselves didn't move their HQs overseas, nor did most of the execs move overseas.

Better now?


No, here's the formula= corporations will produce a good wherever it is cheapest and easiest to do so, and that isn't here anymore.

[SassyLady]

Wrong and wrong. Big business wants you to THINK they've "gone," but legally, they haven't.

All that migration is a result of lobbying *cough*-bribes-*cough* to relax classifications on what can be called an import. If Congress had insisted on reasonable import laws, all that extra profit from moving factories to Shanghai would vanish.

Please tell me you're not so naive that you actually trust them to move the factories back if their taxes spontaneously went down.

It's not just cheap labor, or taxing ... it's all the regulations that are being imposed. Compliance with regulations has become one of the largest overhead items.

[SassyLady]

I'm curious as to why you think of taxation as a "punishment." It implies that those of us who somehow behave well should not pay taxes.

And if you get rid of all income tax, how would you replace the revenue?

It isn't a punishment if it is imposed equally. However, if the percentages are larger for those who make more money (in an attempt to level the playing field) it will eliminate incentive to succeed.

Not raising the tax rates is not eliminating revenue. Reduction in spending would be the first step. Eliminating the IRS would save billions. Eliminating pork would save billions.

So, instead of raising taxes ..... let's cut out some of the stupid research projects we currently fund and handouts to other countries for a start.

[Solar]

Right, like how we have the 2nd highest such taxes in the world? Yeah, that leaves a lot of playground for the rich to run through. That's part of why so much production has moved to China. Then you have the American labor unions, more than a simple inconvenience. See, we've gotten to a point where it is cheaper and easier to produce items on the other side of the globe, and ship around the curvature of the Earth, than it is to produce the item 1 block from the store it would be sold in here.

Is it me, or does he suffer a severe disconnect from reality?

I've debated with thousands of libs over the years, but I'm torn between stupid, and mentally challenged, where he is concerned.

[red states rule]

It isn't a punishment if it is imposed equally. However, if the percentages are larger for those who make more money (in an attempt to level the playing field) it will eliminate incentive to succeed.

Not raising the tax rates is not eliminating revenue. Reduction in spending would be the first step. Eliminating the IRS would save billions. Eliminating pork would save billions.

So, instead of raising taxes ..... let's cut out some of the stupid research projects we currently fund and handouts to other countries for a start.

When taxes are cut revenues increase - it is a fact

Economic activity more then pay for the "lost revenue" from tax cuts

[Palin Rider]

No, here's the formula= corporations will produce a good wherever it is cheapest and easiest to do so, and that isn't here anymore.

Exactly - because now they're allowed to pretend that the imports they produce aren't really imports.

[Palin Rider]

It isn't a punishment if it is imposed equally. However, if the percentages are larger for those who make more money (in an attempt to level the playing field) it will eliminate incentive to succeed.

Not raising the tax rates is not eliminating revenue. Reduction in spending would be the first step. Eliminating the IRS would save billions. Eliminating pork would save billions.

So, instead of raising taxes ..... let's cut out some of the stupid research projects we currently fund and handouts to other countries for a start.

A few billion here and there isn't nearly enough to take care of the debt to China, MSKP.

[red states rule]

So taxes need to be increased eh?




In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The 2007 numbers show that the top 1 percent’s income and tax shares reached all-time highs for the third year in a row. That is likely to reverse direction when data from recessionary 2008 is published a year from now.

For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates. (Note that in the case of capital gains and dividends, in most cases the income has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here.)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[Missileman]

A few billion here and there isn't nearly enough to take care of the debt to China, MSKP.

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't worry about paying our bills until we have enough to pay the entire debt?

[red states rule]

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't worry about paying our bills until we have enough to pay the entire debt?

Amazing how debt is no longer an issue with those people who were pissed about the ebt Bush piled up

Obama now holds the record as adding the most debt while President - and he has 2 years to go

[Palin Rider]

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't worry about paying our bills until we have enough to pay the entire debt?

Just to clarify, by "we" do you mean us personally, or the government?

Either way, of course, that's not what I'm suggesting, but it's hard to elaborate without knowing what you meant in the first place.

[red states rule]

Just to clarify, by "we" do you mean us personally, or the government?

Either way, of course, that's not what I'm suggesting, but it's hard to elaborate without knowing what you meant in the first place.

It is even harder to counter facts - which is your biggest weakness

[Missileman]

Just to clarify, by "we" do you mean us personally, or the government?

Either way, of course, that's not what I'm suggesting, but it's hard to elaborate without knowing what you meant in the first place.

You seemed to be suggesting that a few billion here or there are a trifle that we shouldn't even try to save because it would only make a small dent in our debt.

[DragonStryk72]

A few billion here and there isn't nearly enough to take care of the debt to China, MSKP.

but it's enough to lessen the interest rates, and get us started on that path. We also have two wars on that we don't need to be in, frankly, and christ knows we could use that money to pay down the debt.

[red states rule]

Who pays the taxes?




It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years. Robert Siegel talks to Roberton Williams, who's been crunching the numbers at the Tax Policy Institute in Washington. According to Williams, millions escape filing because their incomes are too low or they're eligible for deductions, credits and exemptions.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

[Palin Rider]

You seemed to be suggesting that a few billion here or there are a trifle that we shouldn't even try to save because it would only make a small dent in our debt.

Not at all. What I am suggesting - and now saying explicitly - is that in addition to saving a few billion here or there wherever we reasonably can, we must also aggressively pay down the debt.

This will be impossible to do without raising taxes.

[red states rule]

Not at all. What I am suggesting - and now saying explicitly - is that in addition to saving a few billion here or there wherever we reasonably can, we must also aggressively pay down the debt.

This will be impossible to do without raising taxes.

Back to raising taxes again?

You are a one trick pony son

[Palin Rider]

but it's enough to lessen the interest rates, and get us started on that path. We also have two wars on that we don't need to be in, frankly, and christ knows we could use that money to pay down the debt.

Paying down debt lessens the amount of interest paid, of course, but how exactly does it lessen the interest rates?

[red states rule]

Paying down debt lessens the amount of interest paid, of course, but how exactly does it lessen the interest rates?

Eh, Obama has spent more in his 2 years then Bush did in both wars and Katrinia COMBINED (and was in six years)

And yea, a tax increase is just the economy needs right now you economic genius

[Missileman]

Not at all. What I am suggesting - and now saying explicitly - is that in addition to saving a few billion here or there wherever we reasonably can, we must also aggressively pay down the debt.

This will be impossible to do without raising taxes.

Actually, you can pay down the debt with decreased spending, and increased revenues by growth of the economy, neither of which involves raising taxes.

Yours is the same ass-backwards logic that has ruined the business at the casino I work at. The bean-counters are convinced that a higher hold percentage (tax rate) will result in more revenue except that it discourages customers from coming in the door just as a higher tax rate discourages consumer investment and spending. I would much rather take 5% of a million than 10% of a hundred thousand.

DC needs to cut the budget to bare-bones and lower taxes to get the economy started.

[red states rule]

Actually, you can pay down the debt with decreased spending, and increased revenues by growth of the economy, neither of which involves raising taxes.

Yours is the same ass-backwards logic that has ruined the business at the casino I work at. The bean-counters are convinced that a higher hold percentage (tax rate) will result in more revenue except that it discourages customers from coming in the door just as a higher tax rate discourages consumer investment and spending. I would much rather take 5% of a million than 10% of a hundred thousand.

DC needs to cut the budget to bare-bones and lower taxes to get the economy started.

There are some like PR who think the redistribution of wealth is a fool proof scheme that ig the government takes cash from the rich and hand it to the poor that everyone will enjoy a great quality of life.

It has never worked anywhere it has been tried

and it never will

[Palin Rider]

Actually, you can pay down the debt with decreased spending, and increased revenues by growth of the economy, neither of which involves raising taxes.

Yours is the same ass-backwards logic that has ruined the business at the casino I work at. The bean-counters are convinced that a higher hold percentage (tax rate) will result in more revenue except that it discourages customers from coming in the door just as a higher tax rate discourages consumer investment and spending. I would much rather take 5% of a million than 10% of a hundred thousand.

DC needs to cut the budget to bare-bones and lower taxes to get the economy started.

You can't apply private business logic to a country. Gamblers at a casino can play at the one next door with zero effort. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, and even Donald Trump are not going to pull all their business interests out of the US just because the highest income tax bracket goes up.

And what kind of numbers do you believe make up a "bare-bones" federal budget? How much is left over for paying down debt after the expenses that can't be cut? How much can taxes be lowered?

[red states rule]

You can't apply private business logic to a country. Gamblers at a casino can play at the one next door with zero effort. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, and even Donald Trump are not going to pull all their business interests out of the US just because the highest income tax bracket goes up.

And what kind of numbers do you believe make up a "bare-bones" federal budget? How much is left over for paying down debt after the expenses that can't be cut? How much can taxes be lowered?

Hope i do not hurt your feelings PR, but companies do not pay taxes. WE pay them. it is all figured into the cost of their goods and services. They also will reduce overhead (ie employees) to offset any increased costs

That is why companies are NOT hiring. they see the current administartion is hostile toward business and they are sitting on the sidelins hoping the Novemebr election will give them the relief they need to start hiring again

[Agnapostate]

There are some like PR who think the redistribution of wealth is a fool proof scheme that ig the government takes cash from the rich and hand it to the poor that everyone will enjoy a great quality of life.

It has never worked anywhere it has been tried

and it never will

Wealth redistribution is a necessary facet of the capitalist economy. Interventionist policies sustain macroeconomic stability in various ways, and on this specific front, as neatly summarized in Clemens and Heinemann's On the Effects of Redistribution on Growth and Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking (http://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf5/275.html), "If the presence of risk goes along with less entrepreneurial activity and subsequently lower growth, a natural question to ask is to what extent an appropriately designed public tax-transfer-scheme might stimulate firm ownership, if private markets for pooling individual risks are not available due to credit market imperfections or moral hazard problems. These considerations draw from an argument first brought forward by Varian (1980), Eaton and Rosen (1980) and Sinn (1996). The authors point out that redistributive taxation — being effective ex post — acts as a social insurance, thereby providing incentives to already increase risk-taking from an ex ante point of view."

[red states rule]

Wealth redistribution is a necessary facet of the capitalist economy. Interventionist policies sustain macroeconomic stability in various ways, and on this specific front, as neatly summarized in Clemens and Heinemann's On the Effects of Redistribution on Growth and Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking (http://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf5/275.html), "If the presence of risk goes along with less entrepreneurial activity and subsequently lower growth, a natural question to ask is to what extent an appropriately designed public tax-transfer-scheme might stimulate firm ownership, if private markets for pooling individual risks are not available due to credit market imperfections or moral hazard problems. These considerations draw from an argument first brought forward by Varian (1980), Eaton and Rosen (1980) and Sinn (1996). The authors point out that redistributive taxation — being effective ex post — acts as a social insurance, thereby providing incentives to already increase risk-taking from an ex ante point of view."

It helps create dependence which keeps some voting Democrat even though they never get out of the cycle of dependency

[Agnapostate]

It helps create dependence which keeps some voting Democrat even though they never get out of the cycle of dependency

Another untrue statement. As documented by Shaikh in Who pays for the "welfare" in the welfare state? A multicountry study (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_2_70/ai_107489502/), "In the United States from 1952 to 1997, the average net social wage ratio in the United States is a mere -0.33 percent. Thus during the entire postwar period, United States labor paid for its own social benefits. Indeed, in the boom years of the postwar period, from 1950 to 1972, the United States net social wage was negative, which meant that wage and salary earners paid out more in taxes than they received. Rather than dragging down the rest of the economy in this interval, United States workers actually subsidized it. It is only after the unemployment rate rises when the boom runs out in the early 1970s that the net social wage ratio turns positive. But this is because increased numbers of the unemployed and the poor led to increased benefit payments, while at the same time their decreased incomes reduced the taxes they pay."

[SassyLady]

A few billion here and there isn't nearly enough to take care of the debt to China, MSKP.

And you honestly think putting a higher tax on people making over $250K will? Seriously???????????????

[Missileman]

You can't apply private business logic to a country. Gamblers at a casino can play at the one next door with zero effort. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, and even Donald Trump are not going to pull all their business interests out of the US just because the highest income tax bracket goes up.

They don't have to move...all they have to do is shut down everything and live off what they already have.


And what kind of numbers do you believe make up a "bare-bones" federal budget?
I have no idea, but I'd sure like to see one. There needs to be a limit on federal spending. They need to make the budget based on revenues, not try to tax their way to what they've budgeted.


How much is left over for paying down debt after the expenses that can't be cut? How much can taxes be lowered?

You're still thinking backwards...the question is "how much will revenue increase by growing our economy?"

[red states rule]

And you honestly think putting a higher tax on people making over $250K will? Seriously???????????????

Mayor Bloomberg gets it. He undertands you can only tax people so much




Let us now praise New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has learned a few things about tax rates and incentives.

New York state and city revenues are falling amid the collapse of Wall Street, and state lawmakers in Albany are considering income tax hikes for households earning between $250,000 and $1 million, who already pay 6.85% to the state. Meanwhile, the New York Post reports that City Council Speaker Christine Quinn wants to increase the city's top tax rate of 3.68% for households earning as little as $297,000 (to 4.25%); those earning $532,000 to $1.2 million would pay 4.45%; and above that 4.65%.

But late last week Mayor Bloomberg was channelling these columns when he said that raising taxes on high earners could drive them from the city. "One percent of the households that file in this city pay something like 50% of the taxes," explained the Mayor. "In the city, that's something like 40,000 people. If a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral. The question is what's fair. If 1% are paying 50% of the taxes, you want to make it even more?"

This is a different argument than Hizzoner made in 2003, when he called New York City a "luxury product" and said people would gladly pay more to live there. But that was when the federal government was cutting tax rates, and Wall Street was set to boom. Now the financial industry -- which has provided about 20% of city and state revenues -- will emerge from recession smaller than before, and grand bonuses may not return for years.

New York's combined state-local tax rate of 10.5% is already well above New Jersey (8.97%), Pennsylvania (6.98%), Connecticut (5%), or Florida (0%). Which is to say that Mr. Bloomberg is right that New York's upper middle class has plenty of options if the politicians give them another reason to move.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500384765617949.html

[Agnapostate]

Where's your response to me, dead states? Ready to admit that you're a loser again?

[Alias.258]

Where's your response to me, dead states? Ready to admit that you're a loser again?

Nobody wants to even try to debate a topic with you because you resort to personal attacks. Like this one. I recall you saying to me that you only attacked people when they attacked you. From what i can tell Red States never once attacked you in his post on this thread. So what exactly was your justification this time?

[Agnapostate]

Nobody wants to even try to debate a topic with you because you resort to personal attacks. Like this one. I recall you saying to me that you only attacked people when they attacked you. From what i can tell Red States never once attacked you in his post on this thread. So what exactly was your justification this time?

Since dead states is too ignorant and feeble-minded (being a sad little sheep that just regurgitates what Glenn Beck tells him), he did not respond. He could not respond. Since his general mode of engagement is personal attacks and other forms of inane stupidity, and since he's preemptively engaged me in that way many times before, I chose to reciprocate. I see general patterns. For example, the general pattern I see with you is the hit-and-run attack, ignoring the behavior of others to focus on my post (acting as though it's the first in the thread), and then scampering away when I methodically respond to your allegations.

[Solar]

Since dead states is too ignorant and feeble-minded (being a sad little sheep that just regurgitates what Glenn Beck tells him), he did not respond. He could not respond. Since his general mode of engagement is personal attacks and other forms of inane stupidity, and since he's preemptively engaged me in that way many times before, I chose to reciprocate. I see general patterns. For example, the general pattern I see with you is the hit-and-run attack, ignoring the behavior of others to focus on my post (acting as though it's the first in the thread), and then scampering away when I methodically respond to your allegations.

Why was Agnaprostate banned?

[jimnyc]

Why was Agnaprostate banned?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441587#post441587

[Solar]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29093-NAACP-launches-coalition-watchdog-site-to-%E2%80%98monitor%E2%80%99-Tea-Party-%E2%80%98racists%E2%80%99&p=441587#post441587


WOW!!!
Did he go off the deep end, or what?

A well deserved boot in the ass.

[Palin Rider]

They don't have to move...all they have to do is shut down everything and live off what they already have.
First, I didn't say they would have to move. Second, why would they "shut everything down" if it's still profitable despite a higher income tax rate in the top bracket? Hate to say this, but your statement above makes absolutely no sense.


I have no idea, but I'd sure like to see one. There needs to be a limit on federal spending. They need to make the budget based on revenues, not try to tax their way to what they've budgeted.

You can't deal with wars and natural disasters based on revenues.


You're still thinking backwards...the question is "how much will revenue increase by growing our economy?"
And you're ignoring the fact that there are many ways to grow an economy without cutting taxes.

[Missileman]

First, I didn't say they would have to move. Second, why would they "shut everything down" if it's still profitable despite a higher income tax rate in the top bracket? Hate to say this, but your statement above makes absolutely no sense.

At a certain point, the profit margin will be so small as to make it not worth the effort.



You can't deal with wars and natural disasters based on revenues.

What percentage of the last 10 years budgets have been spent on wars and disasters?



And you're ignoring the fact that there are many ways to grow an economy without cutting taxes.

You've missed the boat again...a booming economy will provide more revenue than higher taxes on a select few Americans.

[red states rule]

First, I didn't say they would have to move. Second, why would they "shut everything down" if it's still profitable despite a higher income tax rate in the top bracket? Hate to say this, but your statement above makes absolutely no sense.


You can't deal with wars and natural disasters based on revenues.


And you're ignoring the fact that there are many ways to grow an economy without cutting taxes.

Please explain why revenues to the government increase when taxes are cut?

[Palin Rider]

At a certain point, the profit margin will be so small as to make it not worth the effort.
"At a certain point," such as 90+%, that's indeed true. You're forgetting that our current tax rates leave a lot of room for flexibility, however.


What percentage of the last 10 years budgets have been spent on wars and disasters?
Whatever the percentages were, they don't matter, because they have absolutely no relationship to what the percentage will be next year.


You've missed the boat again...a booming economy will provide more revenue than higher taxes on a select few Americans.
Not missing the boat at all. Keeping the government's credit high by keeping debt down is essential to getting the economy to boom again.

[Missileman]

Keeping the government's credit high by keeping debt down is essential to getting the economy to boom again.

Taking money from those in the position to start/expand business which will grow the economy and giving it to beaurocrats who blow it on such "successful" endeavors as the trillion dollar non-stimulating stimulus, or bank-bailouts isn't going to keep the debt down or help the economy. The government is not capable of helping the economy except by staying the hell out of the way and fostering business growth through lower taxes. Keeping the debt down is something easily accomplished through cuts in spending.

The federal government has proven themselves fiscally irresponsible over and over and over again. I sure as hell don't think giving them more money to be irresponsible with is a viable solution.

[Palin Rider]

Taking money from those in the position to start/expand business which will grow the economy and giving it to beaurocrats who blow it on such "successful" endeavors as the trillion dollar non-stimulating stimulus, or bank-bailouts isn't going to keep the debt down or help the economy. The government is not capable of helping the economy except by staying the hell out of the way and fostering business growth through lower taxes. Keeping the debt down is something easily accomplished through cuts in spending.
You keep asserting this, but then admit that you can't come up with numbers that demonstrate how.

This is not enough to sell your argument to any rational person.


The federal government has proven themselves fiscally irresponsible over and over and over again. I sure as hell don't think giving them more money to be irresponsible with is a viable solution.
How is it irresponsible to pay down the national debt?

[Pagan]

>> snip <<

How is it irresponsible to pay down the national debt?

To put it bluntly we don't have the infrastructure for it, it's went overseas. We now depend on the likes of our enemy for our manufacturing and rapidly our food also.

What defines a third world country?

1. Raw material shipped out to be returned as manufactured goods
2. Professional jobs are exported overseas while service industry jobs are the norm locally
3. Continually borrowing to support living beyond their means

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[Palin Rider]

To put it bluntly we don't have the infrastructure for it, it's went overseas. We now depend on the likes of our enemy for our manufacturing and rapidly our food also.

What defines a third world country?

1. Raw material shipped out to be returned as manufactured goods
2. Professional jobs are exported overseas while service industry jobs are the norm locally
3. Continually borrowing to support living beyond their means

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Manufacturing isn't completely gone; many (but far from all) of the lost jobs stem from better technology and automation. But the continual borrowing you listed in item (3) can definitely come down. A lot. That's what this thread is all about.

[Missileman]

You keep asserting this, but then admit that you can't come up with numbers that demonstrate how.

Demonstrate what? That lowering taxes results in economic growth? It's a time-tested FACT!





How is it irresponsible to pay down the national debt?

They aren't paying down debt, they're spending like there's no tomorrow. Give them more money and all they'll do is spend more. Why do you think they're licking they're chops hoping to wind up with a single-payer healthcare system?

[Kathianne]

Why lowering tax rates, especially during recession, leads to more collection of taxes. NY as example from the Manhattan Institute:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_20.htm


...In the last five years, New York City's economy has boomed and private sector employment has hit record levels. What, if anything, did lower taxes have to do with these achievements? And what are the implications for future tax policy?

Using an econometric model, NYC-STAMP, we reach these conclusions:

Reductions in the City's personal income, sales, business and property taxes have generated more than 80,000 new jobs since 1997, or about one of every four gained by the City during that period;
More than 6,500 new jobs will be generated by tax cuts that were included in the City's fiscal 2002 budget but are still awaiting the state Legislature's approval;
Nearly 15,000 more jobs could be added to New York's employment base by eliminating what's left of the personal income tax surcharge first adopted by the City a decade ago;
Thanks to these additional jobs, New York City's job growth rate exceeded the national average—the first time that has happened during an economic expansion since 1950.
The NYC-STAMP model also can be used to predict the consequences of reversing tax cuts.

Undoing the recently enacted cut in the income tax surcharge would reduce employment growth by over 6,300 jobs;
Full restoration of the former 12.5 percent personal income tax surcharge would result in the destruction of nearly 25,000 jobs;
Restoring both of the Dinkins-era surcharges would cost the City nearly 37,000 jobs.
The lesson for the City is clear: tax cuts create jobs, tax increases kill jobs.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Edmund J. McMahon is a senior fellow for Tax and Budgetary Studies, at the Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute. Mr. McMahon studies the tax and spending policies of New York City and New York State and issues recommendations on how these policies can be reformed to increase economic growth.

AUTHOR’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study presents the findings of a tax model commissioned by the Manhattan Institute and adapted by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, Mass., from its State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP). The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Professor David G. Tuerck, Executive Director of BHI and Chairman of the Economics Department at Suffolk University, in preparing this report...

[Pagan]

Manufacturing isn't completely gone; many (but far from all) of the lost jobs stem from better technology and automation. But the continual borrowing you listed in item (3) can definitely come down. A lot. That's what this thread is all about.

There's a giant sucking sound and the flow is still going overseas. It's redistribution of not wealth but misery on a global scale, we're dropping out standard of living to raise the standard of living overseas.

[Palin Rider]

Demonstrate what? That lowering taxes results in economic growth? It's a time-tested FACT!
Why do you think I suggested eliminating income tax for anyone making less than $200K per year? :poke:



They aren't paying down debt, they're spending like there's no tomorrow. Give them more money and all they'll do is spend more.

Not if the people insist on clamping down on the debt ceiling.

[Mr. P]

Why do you think I suggested eliminating income tax for anyone making less than $200K per year? :poke:


Cuz yer a fool that doesn't know the remaining 10% of income tax payers can't and won't float this boat alone.:slap:

[red states rule]

Cuz yer a fool that doesn't know the remaining 10% of income tax payers can't and won't float this boat alone.:slap:

You are correct on that one


This graph shows the percentage of household income paid in federal taxes (payroll, income, etc.) by each income quintile

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2010/06/CBOGraph2200-thumb-410x328.png


and this one shows the total of all federal taxes paid by each quintile, compared to income

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2010/06/CBOGraph2202-thumb-410x328.png


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026634.php

[Missileman]

Not if the people insist on clamping down on the debt ceiling.

The people insisted that they NOT pass healthcare reform.

[Pagan]

Why do you think I suggested eliminating income tax for anyone making less than $200K per year? :poke:

Not if the people insist on clamping down on the debt ceiling.

eliminating income tax only for anyone making less than $200k isn't the answer, we need to eliminate income tax itself and just go with a sales tax. That is the fairest form of tax there is, everyone pays their fair share.

But that's only a bandaid on a sucking chest wound, we must cut spending by at least 50%. Which a good start would be to dissolve ALL retirement for politicians, it was never meant to be a career, it's a Civic Duty. Letting them establish it as a career with retirement has only served to create a ruling class Aristocracy where us Plebs work for them.

[Palin Rider]

Cuz yer a fool that doesn't know the remaining 10% of income tax payers can't and won't float this boat alone.:slap:

I :trolls:

[Palin Rider]

The people insisted that they NOT pass healthcare reform.

Clearly not enough of them.

[Palin Rider]

You are correct on that one


This graph shows the percentage of household income paid in federal taxes (payroll, income, etc.) by each income quintile

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2010/06/CBOGraph2200-thumb-410x328.png


and this one shows the total of all federal taxes paid by each quintile, compared to income

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2010/06/CBOGraph2202-thumb-410x328.png


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026634.php

As usual, you throw up stats that have nothing to do with the point under discussion.

That the highest quintile pays the most taxes is not proof that they can't afford more.

[Palin Rider]

eliminating income tax only for anyone making less than $200k isn't the answer, we need to eliminate income tax itself and just go with a sales tax. That is the fairest form of tax there is, everyone pays their fair share.

But that's only a bandaid on a sucking chest wound, we must cut spending by at least 50%. Which a good start would be to dissolve ALL retirement for politicians, it was never meant to be a career, it's a Civic Duty. Letting them establish it as a career with retirement has only served to create a ruling class Aristocracy where us Plebs work for them.

There's definitely a ruling class aristocracy, but the politicians aren't it. They're just the direct employees.

But that would be just a drop in the bucket for 50% of $1.6 trillion? Where should the rest of the cuts go?

[Pagan]

There's definitely a ruling class aristocracy, but the politicians aren't it. They're just the direct employees.

In a sense yes, but the Aristocracy in history has always been owned by those behind the curtain.


But that would be just a drop in the bucket for 50% of $1.6 trillion? Where should the rest of the cuts go?

There's lots of room, the first on the hit list would be Obamacare aka National Romneycare. Then just go down the list of the massive pork passed like 'Dubya's TARP, audit all programs like the Department of Education, cut the payroll of Federal Employee's, audit Medicare, Medicaid, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I would also pull a good majority of our troops out of Asia and Europe. I'm tired of paying for their defense. Then there's the zillions we pump out for foreign aid.

Cutting spending by 50% would not be hard at all.

Oh also no Federal contracts to corps who are NOT American Corps or who outsource it offshore.

[Mr. P]

Why do you think I suggested eliminating income tax for anyone making less than $200K per year? :poke:




Cuz yer a fool that doesn't know the remaining 10% of income tax payers can't and won't float this boat alone.:slap:


I :trolls:
So, cuz YOU can't defend nor explain your position of saddling a small percentage of the population with ALL the financial burden of the Country in the form of income taxes I'm a Troll?

Yer a MORON! Or an uneducated kid.
It's obvious from your posts you have no clue at all about even basic economics.

[DragonStryk72]

Paying down debt lessens the amount of interest paid, of course, but how exactly does it lessen the interest rates?

Which is bigger, 10% of 500, or 10% of 450? As well, when you're dealing in interest, you can get your rates lowered by showing you, you know, pay your debts. Banks and such are funny like that.

[DragonStryk72]

As usual, you throw up stats that have nothing to do with the point under discussion.

That the highest quintile pays the most taxes is not proof that they can't afford more.

But they won't really pay the tax anyhow. Oh, on paper they will, sure, but do you really think Wal-Mart isn't going to take those things into account when setting prices to mitigate the new tax on their income.

Yeah, thanks, I don't need my goods and services raised. Maybe we could try spending responsibly for a change of pace.

[red states rule]

As usual, you throw up stats that have nothing to do with the point under discussion.

That the highest quintile pays the most taxes is not proof that they can't afford more.

It has everything to do with the discussion. The top producers are paying the huge majority of taxes already

Who decided they can afford to pay more? You as you sit in your ivory tower and look down on them?

Polls show a majority of voters OPPOSE any tax increase on anyone? Voters support spending and tax cuts to get the economy moving forward

[Gaffer]

Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
The people insisted that they NOT pass healthcare reform.

palin rider
Clearly not enough of them.

A majority of people didn't want the health care bill. Makes no difference if its 51% or a 100%. The people were ignored. Now it's payback time.

[Palin Rider]

But they won't really pay the tax anyhow. Oh, on paper they will, sure, but do you really think Wal-Mart isn't going to take those things into account when setting prices to mitigate the new tax on their income.

Yeah, thanks, I don't need my goods and services raised. Maybe we could try spending responsibly for a change of pace.

First, how did Wal-Mart get into this? This entire thread has been about personal income taxes, not business taxes.

Second, this theory is totally wrong anyway. Product and service providers can't just arbitrarily raise their prices without losing business.

[Palin Rider]

So, cuz YOU can't defend nor explain your position of saddling a small percentage of the population with ALL the financial burden of the Country in the form of income taxes I'm a Troll? You expect me to defend my position to a gray-haired toddler who does nothing but name-call?

Forget it. You don't deserve my respect or anyone else's.

[Missileman]

First, how did Wal-Mart get into this? This entire thread has been about personal income taxes, not business taxes.

Second, this theory is totally wrong anyway. Product and service providers can't just arbitrarily raise their prices without losing business.

The point, that went right over your head, is that when the government increases the costs to businesses, (many of the wealthy that are being targeted for this tax increase own those businesses), those costs will eventually wind up being paid by the consumers through higher prices.

The idiots in DC don't understand that basic principle and apparently they aren't alone. What do YOU suggest a company is supposed to do to stay in business if their profit margin is cut by new taxes or mandates like healthcare?

[Palin Rider]

The point, that went right over your head, is that when the government increases the costs to businesses, (many of the wealthy that are being targeted for this tax increase own those businesses), those costs will eventually wind up being paid by the consumers through higher prices.
Which I already demonstrated is wrong, so why are you repeating it?


The idiots in DC don't understand that basic principle and apparently they aren't alone. What do YOU suggest a company is supposed to do to stay in business if their profit margin is cut by new taxes or mandates like healthcare?
I'm sure they'll be creative enough to find SOMETHING that's still profitable to sell. That's what free enterprise does. :poke:

[Mr. P]

You expect me to defend my position to a gray-haired toddler who does nothing but name-call?

Forget it. You don't deserve my respect or anyone else's.
Actually no, I don't expect you to defend an undefendable position. It'd be fun to see ya try though.

[SassyLady]

Which I already demonstrated is wrong, so why are you repeating it?


I'm sure they'll be creative enough to find SOMETHING that's still profitable to sell. That's what free enterprise does. :poke:

It's no longer free enterprise, PR, when the government is taxing and regulating as heavily as it is now.

[Palin Rider]

It's no longer free enterprise, PR, when the government is taxing and regulating as heavily as it is now.

I'm disappointed, KP: that's an empty platitude worthy of a garden-variety Congressional candidate. You can do a lot better. :(

[SassyLady]

I'm disappointed, KP: that's an empty platitude worthy of a garden-variety Congressional candidate. You can do a lot better. :(

Well, PR, the truth is what it is no matter who says it. Trying to shame the speaker is just another progressive liberal tactic used when they know they are losing the debate.

I know I can do better but when I'm bored from debating with people who use circular logic I have a tendency to slack off.

Find another topic and perhaps we can have a more lively debate.

[Missileman]

Which I already demonstrated is wrong, so why are you repeating it?

Really? In which post did you provide evidence that rising costs to consumers aren't linked in any way to rising costs to manufacturers?



I'm sure they'll be creative enough to find SOMETHING that's still profitable to sell. That's what free enterprise does. :poke:

They CAN and WILL continue to make a profit by raising prices...are you unaware of how stupid you sound arguing otherwise?

[Agnapostate]

eliminating income tax only for anyone making less than $200k isn't the answer, we need to eliminate income tax itself and just go with a sales tax. That is the fairest form of tax there is, everyone pays their fair share.

That's incorrect. The diminishing marginal utility of higher income means that progressive taxation is the mechanism that ensures an equitable tax burden. When you take a microeconomics course and learn this, you might also learn that this doctrine of a forward shift in tax incidence exactly proportional to increased taxes on producers requires complete elasticity of supply, which is certainly not present.

Of course, the entire doctrine of an inverse relationship between government and capitalism promoted in this thread is completely wrong. From the welfare state's utility in maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class to the role of Keynesian demand management to the development of internationally competitive industries under protective tariffs and quotas, capitalism and the state are mutually supportive.

The problem is that the rightist membership here is not actually interested in sound economics so much as preservation of their moral views, though those are themselves based on inaccurate premises.

[Palin Rider]

Well, PR, the truth is what it is no matter who says it. Trying to shame the speaker is just another progressive liberal tactic used when they know they are losing the debate.

I know I can do better but when I'm bored from debating with people who use circular logic I have a tendency to slack off.

Making an empty point and using it to declare victory isn't just slacking off, it's GWB-level bullshit. (Not to mention that you never demonstrate any specific use of circular logic on my part.)

There's plenty of room left for debate on this topic, but if you're bored with it, just be honest, say so, and leave it at that.

[Palin Rider]

Really? In which post did you provide evidence that rising costs to consumers aren't linked in any way to rising costs to manufacturers?
No need to prove that. Manufacturers cannot raise prices beyond what the traffic will allow, or they simply won't have any buyers for their products. To claim otherwise shows a total lack of economic knowledge.

[Kathianne]

No need to prove that. Manufacturers cannot raise prices beyond what the traffic will allow, or they simply won't have any buyers for their products. To claim otherwise shows a total lack of economic knowledge.

Is there a cap with most products? Sure, especially discretionary buying. However, milk, clothing, etc? Nope, there comes times that you got to pay.

[Palin Rider]

Is there a cap with most products? Sure, especially discretionary buying. However, milk, clothing, etc? Nope, there comes times that you got to pay.

There's a de facto cap on prices with basic necessities, too. Above that level, people will turn to bartering and/or the black market. Happens frequently in much of the world.

[Missileman]

There's a de facto cap on prices with basic necessities, too. Above that level, people will turn to bartering and/or the black market. Happens frequently in much of the world.

Look at the price of cigarettes for example...the prices have gone up 400-500% over the last 20 years. Where else do you suppose all the money to pay the law suits has come from? Based on your posts, it sounds like you believe in the same magic money trees that the Dems in DC think they're gonna pay all the bills with.

[DragonStryk72]

Why do you think I suggested eliminating income tax for anyone making less than $200K per year? :poke:




Not if the people insist on clamping down on the debt ceiling.

So if a person makes 200k, they should be personally punished? Even if a raise puts them just over the line, thus actually having them make less than what they made before the raise?

The people do keep saying we need to get out of debt. The government just spends more money, and finds a way to do a "mission accomplished" on whatever program it was, regardless of actual results

[Palin Rider]

So if a person makes 200k, they should be personally punished? Even if a raise puts them just over the line, thus actually having them make less than what they made before the raise?
That's not how progressive taxation works.

The first tax bracket would apply to all the income ABOVE 200k (and for the sake of argument, let's say below 400k). The next bracket applies to the income in the next range (between 400k and 600k, for example), and so on.

And no, it's not punishment, any more than any other tax is a punishment. Even more obviously, it's not personal.


The people do keep saying we need to get out of debt. The government just spends more money, and finds a way to do a "mission accomplished" on whatever program it was, regardless of actual results
That's because not enough people are saying it.

[Palin Rider]

Look at the price of cigarettes for example...the prices have gone up 400-500% over the last 20 years. Where else do you suppose all the money to pay the law suits has come from? Based on your posts, it sounds like you believe in the same magic money trees that the Dems in DC think they're gonna pay all the bills with.

Nope: you're clearly the one who believes in magic money trees, since you think that manufacturers can arbitrarily raise prices as high as they please.

[Palin Rider]

Of course, the entire doctrine of an inverse relationship between government and capitalism promoted in this thread is completely wrong. From the welfare state's utility in maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class to the role of Keynesian demand management to the development of internationally competitive industries under protective tariffs and quotas, capitalism and the state are mutually supportive.

Or to put it less grandiloquently, capitalist markets thrive the most in countries with a healthy level of socialism.

Ironic, but true.

[Missileman]

Nope: you're clearly the one who believes in magic money trees, since you think that manufacturers can arbitrarily raise prices as high as they please.

And you're obviously clouded reasoning concludes that companies can stay in business without making a profit. You crossed the line when you started taking a second hit AND drinking the bong water.

[Agnapostate]

Or to put it less grandiloquently, capitalist markets thrive the most in countries with a healthy level of socialism.

Ironic, but true.

It has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is the collective/workers' ownership and management of the means of production. The positive relationship between the state and capitalism is the antithesis of socialism.


And you're obviously clouded reasoning concludes that companies can stay in business without making a profit. You crossed the line when you started taking a second hit AND drinking the bong water.

Um, they can, in the short run. Capitalist firms are frequently characterized by short-run attributes that they lack in the long run. Hence the market structure of monopolistic competition, for example.

[Agnapostate]

Look at the price of cigarettes for example...the prices have gone up 400-500% over the last 20 years. Where else do you suppose all the money to pay the law suits has come from? Based on your posts, it sounds like you believe in the same magic money trees that the Dems in DC think they're gonna pay all the bills with.

Actually, cigarettes are technically considered a "necessity" because of the inelasticity of demand that characterizes their purchase.

[Agnapostate]

Let's review the concept of diminishing marginal utility for those unfamiliar with it. First, this is a quote from Ragan and Thomas's Principles of Economics textbook:


Declining marginal utility...is so common that economists have developed a name for it: the law of diminishing marginal utility. Formally, the law of diminishing marginal utility can be stated as follows: Beyond some point, the more units of a good consumed the less utility an additional unit provides. This law or hypothesis is the centerpiece of marginal utility theory.

This is a quote from Krugman and Wells's Economics textbook:


[I]t is a generally accepted proposition that marginal utility curves do slope downward; that is, that consumption of most goods and services is subject to diminishing marginal utility.

The basic idea behind the principle of diminishing marginal utility is that the additional satisfaction a consumer gets from one more unit of a good or service declines as the amount of that good or service rises. Or to put it slightly differently, the more of a good or service you consume, the closer you are to being satiated - that is, reaching a point at which an additional unit of the good adds nothing to your satisfaction.

PR, it might seem frustrating that the rightist members of this board that have commented on this thread cannot seem to grasp such an elementary economic principle. My belief is that this is because their actual interest is in preservation of a facet of their moral worldview about wealth and taxation, rather than advocacy of the most economically efficient policy. This attitude is summarized in the cognitive linguist George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics:


Dan Quayle, in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Republican convention, attacked the idea of progressive taxation, in which the rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor. His argument went like this: "Why," he asked, "should the best people be punished?" The line brought thunderous applause.

It should now be clear why, from the conservative worldview, the rich should be seen as "the best people." They are the model citizens, those who, through self-discipline and hard work, have achieved the American Dream. They have earned what they have and deserve to keep it. Because they are the best people - people whose investments create jobs and wealth for others - they should be rewarded. Taking money away is conceptualized as harm, financial harm; that is the metaphorical basis of seeing taxation as punishment. When the rich are taxed more than others for making a lot more money, they are, according to conservatives, being punished for being model citizens, for doing what, according to the American Dream, they are supposed to do.

Taxation of the rich is, to conservatives, punishment for doing what is right and succeeding at it. It is a violation of the Morality of Reward and Punishment. In the conservative worldview, the rich have earned their money and, according to the Morality of Reward and Punishment, deserve to keep it. Taxation - the forcible taking of their money from them against their will - is seen as unfair and immoral, a kind of theft. That makes the federal government a thief. Hence, a common conservative attitude toward the government: You can't trust it, since, like a thief, it's always trying to find ways to take your money.

This tendency is a facet of rightists' greater inclinations to analyze issues with emotional intuitions, as evidenced in Inbar et al.'s Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a794011402): "The uniquely human emotion of disgust is intimately connected to morality in many, perhaps all, cultures (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999b). We report two studies suggesting that a predisposition to feel disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with more conservative political attitudes, especially for issues related to the moral dimension of purity. In the first study, we document a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism in a broad sample of US adults. In Study 2 we show that while disgust sensitivity is associated with more conservative attitudes on a range of political issues, this relationship is strongest for purity-related issues—specifically, abortion and gay marriage."

Moreover, when political outlooks are understood as interconnected networks of policy views based on the same foundational moral axioms (which is why certain views tend to cluster together), it's understandable why their reactions to perceived "unfairness" would also be primarily guided by emotion.

[SassyLady]

Making an empty point and using it to declare victory isn't just slacking off, it's GWB-level bullshit. (Not to mention that you never demonstrate any specific use of circular logic on my part.)

There's plenty of room left for debate on this topic, but if you're bored with it, just be honest, say so, and leave it at that.

Not bored with the topic, just your debating tactics.

[red states rule]

Look at the price of cigarettes for example...the prices have gone up 400-500% over the last 20 years. Where else do you suppose all the money to pay the law suits has come from? Based on your posts, it sounds like you believe in the same magic money trees that the Dems in DC think they're gonna pay all the bills with.

and look at the increase in activity of online duty free smoke shops. The cost, even with shipping, is about 1/3 the retail cost. People are avoiding the insane taxes, thus less tax revenue for the federal, state, and local governments

As far as Clinton's shakedown of the tobacco companies, very ;little of the money has gone to smokers and to offset the health care costs

Libs look at the "rich" as a renewable money source

[fj1200]

So when we talk about cutting taxes for households making $100,000 or $200,000, I’m fine with that. It’s when people start talking about cutting taxes for those making $1,000,000 a year that I start objecting. There’s no need for it: as I’ve just shown you, this money is rarely put back into the economy.

I'll jump in all the way back to the beginning. While your treatise was a nice little college essay it's completely meaningless in the real world. Money is always put back into the economy, maybe it's not spent but it is invested and it's that investment which drives economic activity for all of the rest of us... and that is completely ignoring the economic benefits garnered when "the rich" do spend on luxury items; see Luxury Tax of 1989 for example of unintended consequences.

And while you are deciding for the rest of us who is entitled to keep the money that they earned you're also condemning the little people who you are likely so concerned about to a third world totalitarian fate. Thanks.

[Palin Rider]

I'll jump in all the way back to the beginning. While your treatise was a nice little college essay it's completely meaningless in the real world. Money is always put back into the economy, maybe it's not spent but it is invested and it's that investment which drives economic activity for all of the rest of us... and that is completely ignoring the economic benefits garnered when "the rich" do spend on luxury items; see Luxury Tax of 1989 for example of unintended consequences.
And taxation itself always puts money back into the economy as governments handle their own expenses, so your point goes nowhere.


And while you are deciding for the rest of us who is entitled to keep the money that they earned you're also condemning the little people who you are likely so concerned about to a third world totalitarian fate.
Talk about meaningless. You don't demonstrate anything with this besides your ability to make platitudes.

[Palin Rider]

Not bored with the topic, just your debating tactics.

Because you found out the hard way that you can't BS your way around them.

"You can't handle the truth!"
http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/you-cant-handle-the-truth-26393.jpg?1173111246

[Palin Rider]

Libs look at the "rich" as a renewable money source

So does everyone else who understands economics. The rich look at money as a renewable resource.

Out of the mouths of babes... :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

It has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is the collective/workers' ownership and management of the means of production. The positive relationship between the state and capitalism is the antithesis of socialism.
It can be, but in common practice it's equally valid to refer to "socialism" as the government's ownership and management of the means of production. (A mixture of worker and government ownership, of course, is not mutually exclusive.)

In this sense, a positive relationship between the state and capital markets requires that the state adopt a limited number of socialist controls on the market.

[fj1200]

And taxation itself always puts money back into the economy as governments handle their own expenses, so your point goes nowhere.

No. Government takes money away from the producers and doles it out inefficiently.


Talk about meaningless. You don't demonstrate anything with this besides your ability to make platitudes.

Well, the last part of my statement was just fun but you need to own up to the first part.

[Palin Rider]

No. Government takes money away from the producers and doles it out inefficiently.
Government is expected to spend money on certain things that individuals simply can't. So again, it makes no sense to call it "inefficient," because there's no yardstick to compare it against.


Well, the last part of my statement was just fun but you need to own up to the first part.
Are you talking about investment here? The wealthy, and those aspiring to be wealthy, will always invest in assets that generate income, no matter what the tax rates are.

True, we don't want the tax rates to be 99%, so that the investment slows down to a trickle and bottles up the economy. However, the bottom line is that reasonable changes in tax rates are not going to stop the rich from getting richer. Nothing short of a legal cap on how much a household is allowed to own can do that.

[DragonStryk72]

First, how did Wal-Mart get into this? This entire thread has been about personal income taxes, not business taxes.

Second, this theory is totally wrong anyway. Product and service providers can't just arbitrarily raise their prices without losing business.

Ahem, are there no persons that own Wal-Mart stock? Are there no persons getting paid who are personally taxed? You forget that the rich generally own controlling interests in businesses. That's why they have those incomes.

It isn't arbitrary, they raise a small amount across the board, and they can get around it. Since this gets done by all businesses pretty much, since the ones that don't soon see all their money going away to ever increasing taxes, we the poor consumers get stuck with the tab, with little we can legitimately do, unless you're about to join agna on the communist side of life.

[Palin Rider]

Ahem, are there no persons that own Wal-Mart stock? Are there no persons getting paid who are personally taxed? You forget that the rich generally own controlling interests in businesses. That's why they have those incomes.
"Ahem," not anymore. At least not since Enron. There are laws against controlling ownership for public companies, now.

The rich today own only tiny interests in large numbers of businesses. (And they use the income from those interests to buy more income-generating assets. Tax hikes won't stop that.)


It isn't arbitrary, they raise a small amount across the board, and they can get around it. Since this gets done by all businesses pretty much, since the ones that don't soon see all their money going away to ever increasing taxes, we the poor consumers get stuck with the tab, with little we can legitimately do, unless you're about to join agna on the communist side of life.
There's a great deal the poor consumers can legitimately do. Starting with not buying the products.

[Missileman]

Um, they can, in the short run. Capitalist firms are frequently characterized by short-run attributes that they lack in the long run. Hence the market structure of monopolistic competition, for example.

We're talking about long term.

[fj1200]

Government is expected to spend money on certain things that individuals simply can't. So again, it makes no sense to call it "inefficient," because there's no yardstick to compare it against.

You want to raise taxes which gives them extra spending power which means we're beyond basic government spending. There certainly is a yardstick; government spending is inefficient in comparison to the private sector. Not only is it more efficient but it does a far superior job of allocating resources.

You started this thread with a treatise of your unsubstantiated opinions and now you want a yardstick? :laugh:


Are you talking about investment here? The wealthy, and those aspiring to be wealthy, will always invest in assets that generate income, no matter what the tax rates are.

And? You're proposing to take away some of their investable capital.


True, we don't want the tax rates to be 99%, so that the investment slows down to a trickle and bottles up the economy. However, the bottom line is that reasonable changes in tax rates are not going to stop the rich from getting richer. Nothing short of a legal cap on how much a household is allowed to own can do that.

I would submit that the expectation of your "reasonable changes" that are already built it re: Bush tax cut expiration and HC reform, are causing the current malaise.

[red states rule]

Government is expected to spend money on certain things that individuals simply can't. So again, it makes no sense to call it "inefficient," because there's no yardstick to compare it against.


Are you talking about investment here? The wealthy, and those aspiring to be wealthy, will always invest in assets that generate income, no matter what the tax rates are.

True, we don't want the tax rates to be 99%, so that the investment slows down to a trickle and bottles up the economy. However, the bottom line is that reasonable changes in tax rates are not going to stop the rich from getting richer. Nothing short of a legal cap on how much a household is allowed to own can do that.

What investor would continue to risk when he/she knows the government will take a bigger portion of the profits?

The answer is they won't

That is why employers are not hiring, and why insurance compnaies are raising their rates and reducing coverage

All becuase of the additional cost of doing business thanks to the Dems

[Palin Rider]

You want to raise taxes which gives them extra spending power which means we're beyond basic government spending.

The supply siders took us beyond basic government spending in the 1980s, and again in later years. This has to be paid for at some point to prevent fiscal collapse.


There certainly is a yardstick; government spending is inefficient in comparison to the private sector.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Government and the private sector are not in any way comparable. The sooner you get that through your head, the happier you'll be.

I'll make this real simple-like for ya: private companies have to make money; government doesn't.


You started this thread with a treatise of your unsubstantiated opinions and now you want a yardstick? :laugh:
Lots of people with more expertise than I have share these opinions, kid. And there's all kinds of substantiation. Anything specific you want a source for? :slap:


I would submit that the expectation of your "reasonable changes" that are already built it re: Bush tax cut expiration and HC reform, are causing the current malaise.
And of course you can substantiate this, right? :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

What investor would continue to risk when he/she knows the government will take a bigger portion of the profits?

The answer is they won't

That is why employers are not hiring, and why insurance compnaies are raising their rates and reducing coverage

All becuase of the additional cost of doing business thanks to the Dems

:lol: That must be why you're not making any big moves in your multibillion dollar financial empire.

[Pagan]

That's incorrect. The diminishing marginal utility of higher income means that progressive taxation is the mechanism that ensures an equitable tax burden. When you take a microeconomics course and learn this, you might also learn that this doctrine of a forward shift in tax incidence exactly proportional to increased taxes on producers requires complete elasticity of supply, which is certainly not present.

Of course, the entire doctrine of an inverse relationship between government and capitalism promoted in this thread is completely wrong. From the welfare state's utility in maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class to the role of Keynesian demand management to the development of internationally competitive industries under protective tariffs and quotas, capitalism and the state are mutually supportive.

The problem is that the rightist membership here is not actually interested in sound economics so much as preservation of their moral views, though those are themselves based on inaccurate premises.

What? You still spewing your ignorate bullshit that you Parrot for the "Party"?

So tell us again how, how did you put it? "anarchism is purely a socialist idealogy"?

Damn I'm gonna piss myself laughing so hard ........... :lol::lol:

http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/applause.gif

[fj1200]

The supply siders took us beyond basic government spending in the 1980s, and again in later years. This has to be paid for at some point to prevent fiscal collapse.

You do realize that supply-siders weren't in control of Congress in the '80s don't you?


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Government and the private sector are not in any way comparable. The sooner you get that through your head, the happier you'll be.

Of course they're not; the private sector is accountable, government is not.


I'll make this real simple-like for ya: private companies have to make money; government doesn't.

Did you learn that in 6th grade civics?


Lots of people with more expertise than I have share these opinions, kid. And there's all kinds of substantiation. Anything specific you want a source for? :slap:

Substantiation for opinions? :laugh: Sure, let's have 'em.


And of course you can substantiate this, right? :laugh:

Sure, lots of people with expertise in real world economics and business. ;)

[Missileman]

:lol: That must be why you're not making any big moves in your multibillion dollar financial empire.

Ahh...the board's self-proclaimed economic Einstein is still maintaining that production costs are in no way related to consumer prices.

[Palin Rider]

You do realize that supply-siders weren't in control of Congress in the '80s don't you?



Of course they're not; the private sector is accountable, government is not.



Did you learn that in 6th grade civics?



Substantiation for opinions? :laugh: Sure, let's have 'em.



Sure, lots of people with expertise in real world economics and business. ;)

So you've got nothing. No refutations, and not even anything to back up your own opinions.

When you're out of ammo, don't run around with a plastic gun: you just look silly.

[fj1200]

So you've got nothing. No refutations, and not even anything to back up your own opinions.

When you're out of ammo, don't run around with a plastic gun: you just look silly.

:laugh: Apparently I've got the same nothing you've got and you're the one with a posit to prove. :laugh:

Geeze.

[Palin Rider]

:laugh: Apparently I've got the same nothing you've got and you're the one with a posit to prove. :laugh:

Geeze.

You really are a rep whore. Well, on a board like this, you can probably get away with a few rightwing buzz phrases, declaring victory, and get thanked by the partisan trolls.

Sad that you have nothing better to do, though.

[fj1200]

You really are a rep whore. Well, on a board like this, you can probably get away with a few rightwing buzz phrases, declaring victory, and get thanked by the partisan trolls.

Sad that you have nothing better to do, though.

You must be used to being wrong because I haven't received any thanks as of yet and I haven't declared victory... although I may if you don't come with anything other than leftwing "buzz phrases."

That last sentence is just stupid, but not surprising given your OP.

Now, can we get back to having a nice little debate? Let the substantiation begin.

[fj1200]

Let the substantiation begin.

Oh wait, I substantiated in my first post here. :cool:


In 1991, sales of luxury boats dropped 70 percent from 1990's level, while overall boat sales fell 18 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html

[Palin Rider]

Oh wait, I substantiated in my first post here. :cool:


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html

That's nice. Are you going to use it to make a point?

[Agnapostate]

It can be, but in common practice it's equally valid to refer to "socialism" as the government's ownership and management of the means of production. (A mixture of worker and government ownership, of course, is not mutually exclusive.)

The government ownership and management of the means of production is at odds with the collective/workers' ownership of the means of production, not only because it's never managed through republican mechanisms (no one runs for executive office on a platform of nationalization), but because it replicates the same hierarchical elitist structure that renders capitalism problematic to begin with.


In this sense, a positive relationship between the state and capital markets requires that the state adopt a limited number of socialist controls on the market.

There are always state controls on capitalist economic structure to minimize market failure and such, but they are not "socialist." Even the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) notes that, "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."


We're talking about long term.

"Long run" is an actual economic term, not a vague time measurement no different than "long term." The long run is the period sufficient for the quantities of all inputs to be altered.


What? You still spewing your ignorate bullshit that you Parrot for the "Party"?

So tell us again how, how did you put it? "anarchism is purely a socialist idealogy"?

Damn I'm gonna piss myself laughing so hard

Fuck off, troll; the piss is already coming out of your mouth, you demented little dipshit. Damn, are you sure you're not a broken bot? :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

[Missileman]

"Long run" is an actual economic term, not a vague time measurement no different than "long term." The long run is the period sufficient for the quantities of all inputs to be altered.


The point was that no one starts or runs a business with designs on losing money. When the costs of doing business go up, the company will shed employees, decrease wages, eliminate benefits, or raise prices to maintain a profit.

[Agnapostate]

The point was that no one starts or runs a business with designs on losing money. When the costs of doing business go up, the company will shed employees, decrease wages, eliminate benefits, or raise prices to maintain a profit.

At times. But the implication here has been one of perfect elasticity of supply, i.e. that firms will immediately raise prices proportional to higher taxes on their revenue. The fact that perfect or even moderately high elasticity does not exist for many products makes that untrue.

[Missileman]

At times. But the implication here has been one of perfect elasticity of supply, i.e. that firms will immediately raise prices proportional to higher taxes on their revenue. The fact that perfect or even moderately high elasticity does not exist for many products makes that untrue.

It will happen in more cases than not, and it might not happen immediately, but it will eventually.

[fj1200]

That's nice. Are you going to use it to make a point?

Victory is mine... :dance:


:laugh:

[Agnapostate]

It will happen in more cases than not, and it might not happen immediately, but it will eventually.

Apparently, I'll have to speak to someone who actually understands microeconomics. Do you know anyone like that?

[SassyLady]

At times. But the implication here has been one of perfect elasticity of supply, i.e. that firms will immediately raise prices proportional to higher taxes on their revenue. The fact that perfect or even moderately high elasticity does not exist for many products makes that untrue.

They may not do it "immediately" but it will eventually factor into their OH along with all other OH items which means that prices will go up eventually, unless something else decreases (i.e., layoffs, aging equipment not being replaced, etc.).

[SassyLady]

The point was that no one starts or runs a business with designs on losing money. When the costs of doing business go up, the company will shed employees, decrease wages, eliminate benefits, or raise prices to maintain a profit.

You mean like this....



Starbucks Corp said it plans to charge more for large-sized and labor-intensive because of surging prices for coffee and other commodities.
The world's biggest coffee chain, which expects to maintain or lower the price of certain espresso drinks and its "tall" 12-ounce brewed coffee, said it might raise the price of packaged coffee sold through grocery stores and other channels.
Starbucks declined to disclose the magnitude of price adjustments.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/22/starbucks-raise-prices-drinks/?test=latestnews

[Agnapostate]

They may not do it "immediately" but it will eventually factor into their OH along with all other OH items which means that prices will go up eventually, unless something else decreases (i.e., layoffs, aging equipment not being replaced, etc.).

If there's sufficient elasticity of supply, it will. The idea of existence of perfect elasticity of supply so that price increases are directly proportionate to tax revenues is absurd.

[SassyLady]

If there's sufficient elasticity of supply, it will. The idea of existence of perfect elasticity of supply so that price increases are directly proportionate to tax revenues is absurd.

So, Aggie, how do you think businesses will make up the difference in their profit margin if they don't increases their prices after the tax rates increase? Every company I've worked for have raised their prices when the minimum wage increases....why wouldn't they do it if taxes are raised?

[Agnapostate]

So, Aggie, how do you think businesses will make up the difference in their profit margin if they don't increases their prices after the tax rates increase?

Those are differences, skurty, that aren't proportionately responded to in cases other than infinitely elastic supply.


Every company I've worked for have raised their prices when the minimum wage increases....why wouldn't they do it if taxes are raised?

What's that, all two of them? What gives you the idea that I'm ever interested in your little anecdotes? Cite peer-reviewed empirical research from scholarly journals about estimates of future elasticity of supply in specific industries and the effects of tax increases on them.

[SassyLady]

Those are differences, skurty, that aren't proportionately responded to in cases other than infinitely elastic supply.

Give me an example of "infinitely elastic supply", pantsy.




What's that, all two of them?

Two what?



What gives you the idea that I'm ever interested in your little anecdotes?

I don't think you are interested in anything but hearing yourself rant and repeat the same old arguments over and over. And, when someone gets bored with you, you mistakenly think you've "crushed them like bugs".



Cite peer-reviewed empirical research from scholarly journals about estimates of future elasticity of supply in specific industries and the effects of tax increases on them.

I don't need to cite peer-reviewed empirical research from scholarly journals Aggie ... my little ancedotes are based upon empirical experience, and over 40 years of working in the capitalistic corporate world as well as having two successful businesses. So, unlike you, who relies on what is written in a book, by scholars no less (and not real world experience), I rely on my education and experience.

When you've actually got a few years under your belt making decisions for multi-million dollar businesses, (or even a one-person business) then you can chastise me about citing evidence...but until then, you can continue to quote your "theorectical" evidence and see how far that gets you in life.

Chow.

[Agnapostate]

Give me an example of "infinitely elastic supply", pantsy.

Infinitely elastic supply (a horizontal supply curve), would mean that there are changes in quantity supplied in response to small increases in price. Are there any industries like that?


Two what?

I don't think you are interested in anything but hearing yourself rant and repeat the same old arguments over and over. And, when someone gets bored with you, you mistakenly think you've "crushed them like bugs".

I don't need to cite peer-reviewed empirical research from scholarly journals Aggie ... my little ancedotes are based upon empirical experience, and over 40 years of working in the capitalistic corporate world as well as having two successful businesses. So, unlike you, who relies on what is written in a book, by scholars no less (and not real world experience), I rely on my education and experience.

When you've actually got a few years under your belt making decisions for multi-million dollar businesses, (or even a one-person business) then you can chastise me about citing evidence...but until then, you can continue to quote your "theorectical" evidence and see how far that gets you in life.

Chow.

And what has that gotten you? An inability to understand elementary microeconomics and write "ciao" correctly? For the record, I have 150 years of personal experience in the Office of Management and Budget. Oh wait, that's actually a made-up lie with little verifiability, much like your enthralling stories, but at least I got the point across. So, instead of telling us about how someone once bought ten cents of lemonade from you, how about referring to statistical analysis of large data sets so that we get an idea of how things generally work for everyone, mmkay? It's dismaying that people take pleasure in ignoring the fact that the heterogeneity of individual experiences and behaviors render attempts to extrapolate general inferences from incidents that may be isolated futile.

[SassyLady]

Infinitely elastic supply (a horizontal supply curve), would mean that there are changes in quantity supplied in response to small increases in price. Are there any industries like that?

You tell me...you are the one professing to have superior knowlege on the subject.



And what has that gotten you? An inability to understand elementary microeconomics and write "ciao" correctly? For the record, I have 150 years of personal experience in the Office of Management and Budget. Oh wait, that's actually a made-up lie with little verifiability, much like your enthralling stories, but at least I got the point across. So, instead of telling us about how someone once bought ten cents of lemonade from you, how about referring to statistical analysis of large data sets so that we get an idea of how things generally work for everyone, mmkay? It's dismaying that people take pleasure in ignoring the fact that the heterogeneity of individual experiences and behaviors render attempts to extrapolate general inferences from incidents that may be isolated futile.

Here's another ancedote for you .... if your mother told you her experience of childbirth....would you believe her or would you believe only what you read in a textbook? Would you discount her experience if it didn't fit in the statistical analysis of the masses?

When you say things like this Aggie, all you are doing is showing your immaturity because all you have to go on is what you've read. Children and scholars usually have no experience working in businesses so all they have is statistial analysis...and when that is all you can refer to, in all your arguments, it shows your immaturity.

Perhaps you should start a thread on something you actually have experienced yourself ... something that you haven't read in a book or online....that might actually be interesting.

Chow, agin!!! :laugh:

[Agnapostate]

You tell me...you are the one professing to have superior knowlege on the subject.

There are few to none, just as infinitely elastic demand is only present in the sale of some cereal crops such as wheat. It might help if you knew what elasticity was, which you apparently don't, given your "I know you are, but what am I?" routine. You might try a quick Wikipedia search, if it comes to that.


Here's another ancedote for you .... if your mother told you her experience of childbirth....would you believe her or would you believe only what you read in a textbook? Would you discount her experience if it didn't fit in the statistical analysis of the masses?

Uh, yeah. I'd say that it didn't fit in the statistical analysis of the masses, and is what we wise people call an exception to the rule, or if we'd referred to a good experience or phenomenon, a diamond in the rough. :slap:


When you say things like this Aggie, all you are doing is showing your immaturity because all you have to go on is what you've read. Children and scholars usually have no experience working in businesses so all they have is statistial analysis...and when that is all you can refer to, in all your arguments, it shows your immaturity.

Perhaps you should start a thread on something you actually have experienced yourself ... something that you haven't read in a book or online....that might actually be interesting.

Chow, agin!!! :laugh:

I dunno...maybe actually living in a place not packed with cracker-ass fucks like those of you that live in white-bread North Dakota gives me the opportunity to ruminate on the economic failings of capitalism? Apparently not. :dunno:

[SassyLady]

There are few to none, just as infinitely elastic demand is only present in the sale of some cereal crops such as wheat. It might help if you knew what elasticity was, which you apparently don't, given your "I know you are, but what am I?" routine. You might try a quick Wikipedia search, if it comes to that.



Uh, yeah. I'd say that it didn't fit in the statistical analysis of the masses, and is what we wise people call an exception to the rule, or if we'd referred to a good experience or phenomenon, a diamond in the rough. :slap:



I dunno...maybe actually living in a place not packed with cracker-ass fucks like those of you that live in white-bread North Dakota gives me the opportunity to ruminate on the economic failings of capitalism? Apparently not. :dunno:

Uh oh...someone is getting tired and cranky. Obviously you know nothing about me ... you are starting to use the same sentences over and over and methinks you need a nap.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else in this universe. You are the one wanting to prove something....and you have. You have proved, once again, why people get bored with you. You think you are superior and we indulge you for awhile, as we would any child, and then we watch your temper tantrums, watch you sulk for awhile, or get sent to your room and then you come back and start all over again. Typical of narcissism...so, now that you've thrown your tantrum you can go to your room for awhile.

North Dakota? See, you are not making any sense...

Oh, and why would I do a quick search of Wiki ... you are our resident expert ... as you keep reminding me... ughh.... why am I still conversing with you ...

Oh, that's right .. I'm trying to catch up with Noir on post counts. Thanks for the entertainment tonight Aggie ... you helped a lot.

PS - Chow, chow!!

[Agnapostate]

Uh oh...someone is getting tired and cranky. Obviously you know nothing about me ... you are starting to use the same sentences over and over and methinks you need a nap.

I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone else in this universe. You are the one wanting to prove something....and you have. You have proved, once again, why people get bored with you. You think you are superior and we indulge you for awhile, as we would any child, and then we watch your temper tantrums, watch you sulk for awhile, or get sent to your room and then you come back and start all over again. Typical of narcissism...so, now that you've thrown your tantrum you can go to your room for awhile.

North Dakota? See, you are not making any sense...

Oh, and why would I do a quick search of Wiki ... you are our resident expert ... as you keep reminding me... ughh.... why am I still conversing with you ...

Oh, that's right .. I'm trying to catch up with Noir on post counts. Thanks for the entertainment tonight Aggie ... you helped a lot.

PS - Chow, chow!!

Yeah, okay...and I guess on that note, I could chalk up your silly little games of evasion and perpetual non-response and non-argument to the gradual onset of senility, dementia, and an inability to regularly take your Aricept? What's this about me going to my room, and there being entertainment tonight? Is that a GILF offer? :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

If you both want to get off the hair-pulling and wiffle-ball-throwing for a second, it should be obvious that KP's argument is demonstrably untrue in any case.

All you have to do is look at any previous time when Congress raised taxes. Suppose, just for a simple example, they went up 5% in a given year.

Then look at the prices of all goods and services sold that year relative to the last one. Did they all go up 5%? I'd bet not.

Next?

[Missileman]

If you both want to get off the hair-pulling and wiffle-ball-throwing for a second, it should be obvious that KP's argument is demonstrably untrue in any case.

All you have to do is look at any previous time when Congress raised taxes. Suppose, just for a simple example, they went up 5% in a given year.

Then look at the prices of all goods and services sold that year relative to the last one. Did they all go up 5%? I'd bet not.

Next?

If a hike in taxes in no way effects prices, then you should be able to demonstrate(as you claim you can) that prices didn't go up at all or even went down.

While you're at it, post some links from any businesses that don't consider taxes part of the cost of production and don't account for the cost of production in their prices. Good Luck with that!

[Palin Rider]

If a hike in taxes in no way effects prices, then you should be able to demonstrate(as you claim you can) that prices didn't go up at all or even went down.
You initially made the point that it does, so you show us the statistics. That's what "personal responsibility" means.


While you're at it, post some links from any businesses that don't consider taxes part of the cost of production and don't account for the cost of production in their prices. Good Luck with that!

Even you know that wasn't the argument. Hell, probably RSR knows.

[Missileman]

You initially made the point that it does, so you show us the statistics. That's what "personal responsibility" means.

You posted that KPs post was "demonstrably untrue". Demonstrate it.




Even you know that wasn't the argument. Hell, probably RSR knows.

That the cost of production, including taxes, directly effects prices IS and HAS BEEN the argument...you are 3 weeks delinquent on your attention payment.

[Palin Rider]

You posted that KPs post was "demonstrably untrue". Demonstrate it.
Done. The premises and conclusion were all nicely laid out in post 217.


That the cost of production, including taxes, directly effects prices IS and HAS BEEN the argument...you are 3 weeks delinquent on your attention payment.

First, 217 proves that the correlation isn't perfect.
Second (as I've also been saying and you've been ignoring), plenty of other variables affect pricing.

[Missileman]

Done. The premises and conclusion were all nicely laid out in post 217.

The only thing 217 demonstrates is your opinion..."I bet not" doesn't remotely qualify as "demonstrated".




First, 217 proves that the correlation isn't perfect.
Second (as I've also been saying and you've been ignoring), plenty of other variables affect pricing.

Firstly, you haven't proven anything.

Secondly, all you've done is deny over and over again that companies will raise prices if their taxes(part of the cost of production) go up.

Your strongest argument in the thread is having pointed out a spelling error on my part...BFD!

[Mr. P]

This one is a waste of yer time Missleman..Big time troll but I question his/her level of intelligence to be even that. Opinion is fact? what's that tell you? Mental illness perhaps?

[red states rule]

The only way for the government to force people to equal or closer to equal materially is for it to treat people even more differently before the "law".

Which is what liberalsim is all about

[Palin Rider]

The only thing 217 demonstrates is your opinion..."I bet not" doesn't remotely qualify as "demonstrated".
You're actually going to tell me that, at any time tax rates went up, prices went up proportionately.

Show me when, I dare you. :laugh:



Secondly, all you've done is deny over and over again that companies will raise prices if their taxes(part of the cost of production) go up.
You need to learn how to read. I said companies will raise prices only as much as the market will allow. Basic econ, kiddo.

[Palin Rider]

This one is a waste of yer time Missleman..Big time troll but I question his/her level of intelligence to be even that. Opinion is fact? what's that tell you? Mental illness perhaps?

Still spewing your stale spam here? Great. "Yer" doing a fantastic job representing the intellectual superiority of the far, far right. :salute:

[Missileman]

You're actually going to tell me that, at any time tax rates went up, prices went up proportionately.

Show me when, I dare you. :laugh:



You need to learn how to read. I said companies will raise prices only as much as the market will allow. Basic econ, kiddo.

Where did I say proportionally? But, if a company's taxes go up $1,000,000, they will raise the price of their product to recoup that million, any argument to the contrary is based in naivety.

And if the costs of production go up for all companies, and all companies raise their prices accordingly, just what is the consumer to do other than pony up or go without?

[Sweetchuck]

Where did I say proportionally? But, if a company's taxes go up $1,000,000, they will raise the price of their product to recoup that million, any argument to the contrary is based in naivety.

And if the costs of production go up for all companies, and all companies raise their prices accordingly, just what is the consumer to do other than pony up or go without?

Here's the thing though, if government spending goes up, so do taxes. There is no competition for government, we have what we have and there is no incentive for the government to operate efficiently.

If taxes go up for a company, chances are that their domestic competitors taxes are going up also. Same for raw materials. Union costs are another story and you have to consider the impact of artificially high union and tax costs on the global scale.

[Missileman]

Here's the thing though, if government spending goes up, so do taxes. There is no competition for government, we have what we have and there is no incentive for the government to operate efficiently.
If taxes go up for a company, chances are that their domestic competitors taxes are going up also. Same for raw materials. Union costs are another story and you have to consider the impact of artificially high union and tax costs on the global scale.

All the more reason to restrict the amount of money the idiots in DC can play with.

All I'm saying is that in the end, if they increase taxes on the wealthy, those who coincidently own and operate businesses, it will be the consumer who winds up paying that $700 billion over the next 10 years through higher prices.

[Palin Rider]

Where did I say proportionally? But, if a company's taxes go up $1,000,000, they will raise the price of their product to recoup that million, any argument to the contrary is based in naivety.

And if the costs of production go up for all companies, and all companies raise their prices accordingly, just what is the consumer to do other than pony up or go without?

"Going without" is the same as saying "what the market will allow."

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, there are other alternatives, including bartering and the black market. Bottom line (literally) is that it's not ALWAYS possible for businesses to make up for tax increases just by raising prices.

[red states rule]

"Going without" is the same as saying "what the market will allow."

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, there are other alternatives, including bartering and the black market. Bottom line (literally) is that it's not ALWAYS possible for businesses to make up for tax increases just by raising prices.

Sure there are alternatives

They lay people off, move to where the cost of doing business is cheaper, or close up

[Palin Rider]

Sure there are alternatives

They lay people off, move to where the cost of doing business is cheaper, or close up

If you can't produce something at a price that the market is willing to pay for, you don't get to stay in business. That's capitalism.

[Mr. P]

If you can't produce something at a price that the market is willing to pay for, you don't get to stay in business. That's capitalism.
Exactly why so many jobs are being moved out of the USA.

[Palin Rider]

Exactly why so many jobs are being moved out of the USA.

And exactly why US workers need to learn how to do things that can't be done by any third-world idiot for pennies a day.

[Missileman]

"Going without" is the same as saying "what the market will allow."

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, there are other alternatives, including bartering and the black market. Bottom line (literally) is that it's not ALWAYS possible for businesses to make up for tax increases just by raising prices.

No, they'll close their doors and put even more people out of work.

[Palin Rider]

No, they'll close their doors and put even more people out of work.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nobody ever said business was EASY.

If billionaires need an income tax-free environment to make their businesses profitable, they're obviously not running viable businesses.

[Missileman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nobody ever said business was EASY.

If billionaires need an income tax-free environment to make their businesses profitable, they're obviously not running viable businesses.

Who said anything about tax-free? And the truth STILL stands that ultimately, the consumers will pay for any increases DC puts on the wealthy.

[Palin Rider]

Who said anything about tax-free? And the truth STILL stands that ultimately, the consumers will pay for any increases DC puts on the wealthy.

If by "pay" you mean that they could decide to go without some things rather than pay a higher price for them, I agree. Of course, this scenario means that the wealthy lose, too.

[Mr. P]

And exactly why US workers need to learn how to do things that can't be done by any third-world idiot for pennies a day.
What things would you suggest?

[Palin Rider]

What things would you suggest?

First of all, the Industrial Age is over. This is the Information Age. Which means that if you can't come up with new (or at least better) ideas to sell in the marketplace, you're just plain hosed. As badly as if you were a quadriplegic in the 1850s.

"Job security" is an Industrial Age concept in any case. Hell, some people plan to be self-employed their entire careers now.

[Sweetchuck]

First of all, the Industrial Age is over. This is the Information Age. Which means that if you can't come up with new (or at least better) ideas to sell in the marketplace, you're just plain hosed. As badly as if you were a quadriplegic in the 1850s.

"Job security" is an Industrial Age concept in any case. Hell, some people plan to be self-employed their entire careers now.

You mean people have to learn how to "earn their keep"?

What a fucking concept. The trend is to remove what we once worked hard to earn and hand out to people who perform rudimentary tasks.

[Mr. P]

First of all, the Industrial Age is over. This is the Information Age. Which means that if you can't come up with new (or at least better) ideas to sell in the marketplace, you're just plain hosed. As badly as if you were a quadriplegic in the 1850s.

"Job security" is an Industrial Age concept in any case. Hell, some people plan to be self-employed their entire careers now.
Can you address the question instead of stating the obvious.

[Palin Rider]

Can you address the question instead of stating the obvious.

I did. If you don't like the way I addressed it, it's yer own dangblasted problem.

[SassyLady]

I did. If you don't like the way I addressed it, it's yer own dangblasted problem.

I don't think you answered the question ... he asked you to name what "things" you would suggest we learn....all you said is what we are not doing.

You made a vague reference about the Information Age, something about the Industrial Age...but, guess what ... you didn't tell us specifically what "things" YOU think we need to learn.

[Palin Rider]

I don't think you answered the question ... he asked you to name what "things" you would suggest we learn....all you said is what we are not doing.

You made a vague reference about the Information Age, something about the Industrial Age...but, guess what ... you didn't tell us specifically what "things" YOU think we need to learn.

Weren't you bored? :laugh:

Fine, let me be more explicit. American workers need to come up with new (or better) ideas on their own. They can either sell these ideas directly or use them in the service of clients. That's one of the main consequences of the Information Age.

As to what exactly those ideas are, guess what. The jobs and business models of tomorrow (by definition) don't exist today. They will involve intellect and creativity, but no physical labor to speak of.

[SassyLady]

Weren't you bored? :laugh:

Fine, let me be more explicit. American workers need to come up with new (or better) ideas on their own. They can either sell these ideas directly or use them in the service of clients. That's one of the main consequences of the Information Age.

As to what exactly those ideas are, guess what. The jobs and business models of tomorrow (by definition) don't exist today. They will involve intellect and creativity, but no physical labor to speak of.

What can I say ... Mr. P excites me! :coffee:

American workers need to come up with new ideas on their own? Wow ...that's an entirely new concept that I don't think anyone but you has thought of.

What new and innovative thing is your company doing to stay ahead PR?

[Palin Rider]

What can I say ... Mr. P excites me! :coffee:

Oooh! Kinky! Have you got a banjo fetish, too? :laugh:


American workers need to come up with new ideas on their own? Wow ...that's an entirely new concept that I don't think anyone but you has thought of.
Did I say it was original to me? It just happens to be the answer to Mr. P's silly question.


What new and innovative thing is your company doing to stay ahead PR?
That would be "things," actually. They're all specific to my industry, and most likely wouldn't interest you or anyone else here.

But, for anyone who genuinely wants to know and talk with me about my business, I'm perfectly happy to have that conversation via PM.

[Mr. P]

Oooh! Kinky! Have you got a banjo fetish, too? :laugh:


Did I say it was original to me? It just happens to be the answer to Mr. P's silly question.


That would be "things," actually. They're all specific to my industry, and most likely wouldn't interest you or anyone else here.

But, for anyone who genuinely wants to know and talk with me about my business, I'm perfectly happy to have that conversation via PM.
LMAO!!! You are such a tap dancing baffoon. You said American workers need to learn new "things" that can't be done for pennies a day somewhere else..or something to that affect. I asked YOU what "things" you had in mind or would suggest and as of yet you haven't answered..just danced.

[Palin Rider]

LMAO!!! You are such a tap dancing baffoon. You said American workers need to learn new "things" that can't be done for pennies a day somewhere else..or something to that affect. I asked YOU what "things" you had in mind or would suggest and as of yet you haven't answered..just danced.

That's because people have to choose those things for themselves. If you weren't such a stupid jackass, you'd have picked up on that fact by now.

[Mr. P]

That's because people have to choose those things for themselves. If you weren't such a stupid jackass, you'd have picked up on that fact by now.
You made the statement of "things" Americans should do for less than pennies a day as though you had the answers or even suggestions ..you don't..who's the real jackass? :laugh: