Twelve reasons

[cammerfe]

Top 12 reasons to vote Democratic.
When your friends cannot explain why they voted for Democrats, give them this list. They can then pick their reasons from this "TOP 12"...

1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

6. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

8. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or gopher.

11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE".

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

STOLEN FROM YELLOW BULLET

KS

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Your first fact has no basis in real life. Not only does it not make any sense, it doesn't even mean anything.

Oil does not work like that. State taxes are obviously subjective.

The subsequent 11 point are obviously just straw man attacks, not anything dealing with facts.

 

[cammerfe]

Let's see---

December 4 to December 12. It took you that long to come up with THAT as a rejoinder?

Please see #12.

KS

 

[shagdrum]

Mr Wiggl3s, do you not realize comic exaggeration when you see it?

Also, how are taxes "subjective" and how is that relevant to the point being raised? Are you contesting the notion that government makes more off a gallon of gas then oil companies?

What other "straw men" are in there? Is it simply the exaggeration that makes it a straw man or the more basic notion being alluding to in each statement that is the "straw man"? This is important because the former is simply a cheap excuse to dismiss while the latter is a very legitimate point.

Can you provide some sort of proof of these "straw men" of which you speak?

 

[cammerfe]

Yammer--full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

Shag, you're complicating a simple snark by demanding that the 'big words' actually be meaningful. That diatribe wasn't supposed to be meaningful, but to overwhelm by its plethora of syllables.

KS

 

[Don Pfau]

Some very good points. But I don't vote Republican because they have in the past and continue to give big tax breaks to the rich 1,000,000.00 a year or more. There are CEO's who made billions betting against American institutions and part of their earnings came from bail out money. Some paid less than 15% in Income Tax and Social Security combined. Plus they get all kinds of benefits that they pay no taxes on. Company jet used for personal use, Cars, 1,000,000.00 dollar parties that are even tax deductible to the Company. The poor and middle class have to pay almost 15% in Social Security alone on every dollar they earn and then Income Tax on top of that. Yes, the employer is paying half, but trust me it is deducted from how much your employer is willing to pay you. It is just cleverly disguised hoping you don't notice. During the debt ceiling negotiation the Democrats were willing to give up over 3 Billion Dollars of those give aways if the Republicans would allow taxes to go up on those who made over 1,000,000.00 a year and eliminate some corporate tax loop holes for companies, like the oil companies, who had record profits in a recession when oil demand was down. The Republicans took the stand of "no new taxes for the rich" and walked. And have done this repeatedly. So with default measures all they have came up with is 1 billion dollars in spending reductions. And they want to blame the Democrats?? They claim Obama is trying to start a class war and they are wrong, it is Bush who started the class war. Obama is trying to even it back out. I AM NOT A DEMOCRATIC. Almost every thing else I agree with the Republicans. But I do not believe in Reagan's trickle down theory, and, personally, if you make less than a million dollars a year and you believe it, then congratulations, they have successfully sold you beans and convinced you its gold. We will never get out of debt when one party wants to give it away and the other party's' main concern is to protect the rich at all cost and they cant compromise. I think we need a credible third party.

 

[shagdrum]

Some very good points. But I don't vote Republican because they have in the past and continue to give big tax breaks to the rich 1,000,000.00 a year or more.

Can we get past the Marxist exploitation narrative? The ONLY reason it is still around is because it serves as a rhetorical rationalization for easy (and wrong) answers. It is based on economic assumptions that have been discredited for over a century.

Keep in mind, the talking point you are espousing here essentially defines $1,000,000 a year as $250,000 a year.

It is a disingenuous talking point because it ignores the fact that the rich pay an unfairly large portion of taxes as is. So even a flat tax rate cut will give a larger portion to higher income earners.

Look at the ENTIRE economy and how it all fits together. Not simply the inconsequential, abstract statistics highlighted by demagogues who only play off economic ignorance to better themselves at your expense.

There are CEO's who made billions betting against American institutions and part of their earnings came from bail out money.

"betting against American institutions"...examples?

Corporatism is wrong and current corporate culture promotes that. But it is DEMOCRATS and LIBERAL PRINCIPLES that enable that, not conservative, free market principles.

Some paid less than 15% in Income Tax and Social Security combined.

WRONG.

The 15% figure comes from the capital gains tax. Social security would be in addition to that. There may be a very small portion of people who's effective tax rate is that low, but it is hardly the problem it is made out to be. Warren Buffet is an exception to the rule. VERY few people have their entire income from capital gains.

The only people paying less then 15% in income tax and SS are those with little to no income (specifically, retired individuals).

Plus they get all kinds of benefits that they pay no taxes on.

Such as...what?

Company jet used for personal use, Cars, 1,000,000.00 dollar parties that are even tax deductible to the Company

.

I see. So you know better how to run a company then the CEO's?

During the debt ceiling negotiation the Democrats were willing to give up over 3 Billion Dollars of those give aways if the Republicans would...

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

You BELIEVED that?!

Name ONE TIME that Democrats have actually debated in good faith on debt.

They didn't when they promised Reagan they would cut spending if he raised taxes.

They didn't when Bush (41) agreed to a similar deal and they used his agreement to that deal as a weapon against him in the next election.

Republicans had EVERY reason not to trust the Democrats in the debt debates and Tthe Obama Administration's only furthered that; specifically, moving the goalposts as a deal is close to finalized, rejecting attempts to increase tax revenue agreed to by Republicans and initially proposed by Obama's own debt commission, and demonizing Republicans as "economic terrorists".

Also, define "tax loophole" in a manner that is not subjective. What is the difference between a "tax loophole" and a tax break?

The Republicans took the stand of "no new taxes for the rich" and walked.

...or you could view it that they were the only ones not trying to avoid economic reality. Outside of Marxism there is NO economic theory that views tax rate increases as anything other then stifling to the economy.

Reality is not optional.

Do you actually believe that the economy is static and can be understood in simplistic accounting measures; that tax rate increases actually lead to tax revenue increase? Show me where an increase in the income tax rate or capital gains tax rate has NOT been followed by a decrease in the actual revenue from those taxes. Inversely, a decrease in the income tax rate HAS resulted in increased revenue under Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush (43). A decrease in the capital gains rate gave us an increase in revenue under Clinton (leading to a surplus).

So with default measures all they have came up with is 1 billion dollars in spending reductions.

Based on flawed, biased assumptions in methodology; specifically they assume a static economy in those calculations. Unsurprisingly CBO estimates are laughably wrong.

Obama is trying to even it back out.

Even it back out?!

When was it more "even"?

What measures are he taking that will actually "even" things?

I AM NOT A DEMOCRATIC.

Yet you buy into all the economically ignorant and intellectually bankrupt talking points they put out. You really should research the origin of those talking points. The basics of them have been around longer then you have been alive and have lead to countless policy failures.

Also, pick up a book or two on economics. It couldn't hurt.

But I do not believe in Reagan's trickle down theory, and, personally, if you make less than a million dollars a year and you believe it, then congratulations, they have successfully sold you beans and convinced you its gold.

Yes, economic reality is simply a right-wing conspiracy. Can we get beyond these naive talking points

I think we need a credible third party.

Without a unique and substantive worldview for a party for form around, most any third party will simply become an echo of one of the two parties, likely the Democrat party due to it's mastery of appealing to emotions over reason.

 

[Don Pfau]

only WRONG.

The 15% figure comes from the capital gains tax. Social security would be in addition to that. There may be a very small portion of people who's effective tax rate is that low, but it is hardly the problem it is made out to be. Warren Buffet is an exception to the rule. VERY few people have their entire income from capital gains..

YOUR WRONG. On that 15% they still find deductions that more than make up for the Social Security they only have to pay on the first 100,000 dollars. So it's true some pay less than 15% total for SS and income. Plus all the tax free give aways they get. In what kind of society is it alright for the poor to pay a higher tax rate then the richest ??? I do not have the time now to cover point for point with you but will later as I see many other mistakes. PS Warren Buffet said he couldn't understand why his secretary paid a higher tax rate then he does and he wasn't even including SS.

 

[Don Pfau]

First you claim my opinions are based on emotion not fact and you start by calling it a Marxist exploitation narrative which is non factual and purely emotional. And again you are wrong on the tax burden because you're not including Social Security which they have been spending in the general budget for ages. They like to pick and choose facts in their favor. The rich have been getting richer and the poor and middle class have been getting poorer so I guess we have to lower their tax rates some more? This also addresses the lie about how the US is on the verge of socialism. A flat tax would not be most cost effective without a standard deduction. If someone on minimum wage pays tax on every dollar made but doesn't make enough to live then the government has to give him food stamps etc. It would cost more in tax dollars to help the poor than they paid in taxes so at least give them enough of a deduction to live on. I would then be fine with getting rid of food stamps, HUD, etc. etc. I already addressed the 15% Total tax rate. The vast majority claim capital gains but few all. Its a fact like vacuum fills a void you create a low tax category and they will find ways for there income to fit into that category. Thats enough for now. I'll pick back up on the tax free perks for CEO even though I included many.

 

[shagdrum]

in what kind of society is it alright for the poor to pay a higher tax rate then the richest ???

In what society is that happening?

It isn't here in America.

Cherry picking the claims of, essentially, ONE individual and saying it defines the effective tax rates of an entire economic class is foolish and intellectually dishonest.

FIRST, there is no way to verify Buffet's claims, let alone justify expanding those claims to an entire class of people.

In fact, Buffet's claims are very likely disingenuous half-truths at best.

The 15% tax rate talking point is based on nothing but conjecture.

SECOND, empirical evidence (as opposed to conjecture) actually show that the rich pay a larger portion of taxes as a percentage of income and as a percentage of tax revenue then the middle class or the poor. As that last link echoed:

First, the 41 percent top tax rate he ascribed to his fellow workers appears to be a marginal rather than an average rate. That is, it’s the tax on an additional dollar of income rather than total tax measured as a percentage of total income. A single worker’s earnings must approach $500,000 before his combined income and payroll tax hits even 35 percent and the effective tax rate never tops 38 percent. For a married couple, total earnings have to near $1 million to hit those levels. Those are still very high rates, well above Buffett’s 17.4 percent, but they’re not as high as he asserted.

More importantly, because of progressive tax brackets and the many exclusions, exemptions, deductions, and tax credits, typical taxpayers actually pay effective tax rates well below the levels Buffett cites. And high-income taxpayers usually pay a higher effective rate than he does. The average household in the middle 20 percent of the income distribution (income between about $34,000 and $65,000) will pay combined income and payroll taxes equal to 12.0 percent of total income this year, compared with 19.6 percent for those in the top 20 percent (income over about $104,000) and 20.2 percent for those in the top 1 percent (income over roughly $533,000).

Warren Buffett may be right when he says that high-income taxpayers could pay more, especially given the extremely rapid rate of income growth at the top of the distribution. And he’s certainly correct when he says that the low tax rate on investment income cuts his tax bill well below that of many Americans. But he’s off base when he suggests that all high-income taxpayers pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than their middle-income coworkers.​

Of course, another way to look at things is actual percentage of tax revenue the various income classes paid...

In 2009...

• the top 0.1% earned 7.80% of income, had an average tax rate of 24.28% and paid 17.11% of income taxes
• the top 1% earned 16.93% of income, had an average tax rate of 24.01% and paid 36.73% of income taxes
• the top 5% earned 31.72% of income, had an average tax rate of 20.46% and paid 58.66% of income taxes
• the top 10% earned 43.19% of income, had an average tax rate of 18.05% and paid 70.47% of income taxes
• the top 25% earned 65.81% of income, had an average tax rate of 14.68% and paid 87.30% of income taxes
• the top 50% earned 86.52% of income, had an average tax rate of 12.50% and paid 97.75% of income taxes
• one had to have an income of $667,899 (in constant dollars) to be in the top 0.1% of income earners
• one had to have an income of $160,311 (in constant dollars) to be in the top 1% of income earners

A few more facts to consider...

• In 1980, the top income tax rate was 70% and the top 1% of income earners paid about 19% of income taxes. With that tax rate cut in half, the percentage of income taxes paid by that group has doubled (more then doubled in most years).
• When the capital gains rate was raised to 28% in 1986, the Congressional Budget Office projected an increase in tax revenue. Capital gains tax revenue fell.
• Contrary to government estimates, capital gains rate cuts in 1978, 1997 and 2003 were all followed by an increase in capital gains tax revenue.

There is one big truth that can be taken away from all this; THE ECONOMY IS NOT STATIC. Every government estimate of tax rate changes assumes a static economy and every government estimate is embarrassingly wrong. They cannot be relied upon.

A corollary from that point is that there is no correlation between tax rates and tax revenue. Just because one goes up does not mean that the other goes up and vice versa. More often throughout history, increases in various taxes (specifically various corporate and income taxes) are followed by revenue decreases while tax decreases are followed by revenue increases. This is because it is human nature for people to try and avoid paying taxes. The estimates always fail to account for human action.

Ignorant and dishonest politicians and journalists avoid the distinction between tax rates and tax revenue by simply talking about taxes. All the Democrat talking points and proposals in the debt debate assumed a static economy and, therefore, were simply chasing unicorns. Economic reality was only observed by the Right side of the political aisle.

 

[shagdrum]

First you claim my opinions are based on emotion not fact and you start by calling it a Marxist exploitation narrative which is non factual and purely emotional.

Do you know what that exploitation narrative is? You can't honestly dismiss something you don't understand.

And again you are wrong on the tax burden because you're not including Social Security which they have been spending in the general budget for ages.

Can you show that your point about SS is anything more then a red herring here?

Do you know why SS is only on the 1st $100,000?

Also, if you are including SS here, it looks like you are cherry picking and comparing apples and oranges...

They like to pick and choose facts in their favor.

Actually, you seem to be doing that but don't seen to really know the facts. Just the talking points.

The rich have been getting richer and the poor and middle class have been getting poorer

:lol:

The whole rich getting richer/ poor getting poorer lie is the classic Marxist exploitation argument.

As he originally put it, the rich business owners (the Bourgeoisie) exploit laborers (the Proletariat) to get richer at their expense. Various attempts to change this throughout history have lead a very static class structure of most in abject poverty with a very small aristocracy living in comparative luxury.

There are a number of economic assumptions behind this narrative that have since been proven false (labor theory of value, zero-sum fallacy). The point is, the talking point you are espousing here is derived from that initial Marxist tale.

The truth is that under a generally capitalist economy, the rich get richer while the poor get richer at a slower rate. This is what gave rise to the middle class and the inarguable increase in prosperity and living standard for ALL. This is also what has given rise to a huge number of dishonest arguments and strategies to keep that exploitation narrative going; redefining "poverty" in more broad terms, co-opting Freud and expanding on the notion of a "false consciousness", Potemkin villages and dishonest elites buying into the illusion they created, biased statistical studies mistaking static categories for reality and even the rejection of objective truth and reason with the rise of postmodernism and cultural Marxism.

This also addresses the lie about how the US is on the verge of socialism.

A misleading Marxist talking point proves we are not on the verge of socialism? How does that work?

More broadly, what does and does not define socialism? Do you know or are you simply spouting simplistic talking points you don't understand?

Especially with Cultural Marxism, the point is essentially to deceive people into accepting socialism incrementally without them knowing it.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America​

A flat tax would not be most cost effective without a standard deduction.

While there may need to be some adjustment around the margins, a flat tax is much preferable and more consistent with justice and the rule of law then a progressive tax. There are a number of problems with a progressive tax, not the least of which is that it makes government abnormally dependent on the rich for tax revenue. This means that government will be exceedingly crippled in a recession.

Frankly, some sort of sales tax would be better because it would encourage savings (the only real basis of economic growth).

If someone on minimum wage pays tax on every dollar made but doesn't make enough to live then the government has to give him food stamps etc.

Minimum wage puts more people on food stamps and can encourage unemployment.

It would cost more in tax dollars to help the poor than they paid in taxes so at least give them enough of a deduction to live on.

The poor already pay no income taxes.

I would then be fine with getting rid of food stamps, HUD, etc. etc. I already addressed the 15% Total tax rate.

No. You have yet to provide any evidence of this mysterious 15% tax rate you talk about.

The vast majority claim capital gains but few all

And you know this because...

How do they "hide" those capital gains? If some means of tax avoidance is legal, is it still "hiding"?

You do realize that with lower tax rates, there is less incentive for tax avoidance. The FACTS I already cited demonstrate that.

I'll pick back up on the tax free perks for CEO even though I included many.

How about, instead of simply making baseless assertions, your provide facts and logical proof. You have yet to offer any logical argument or actual facts.

Just because something is a talking point does not make it a fact.

 

[Don Pfau]

You are so Tiring in that you ignore the FACTS. Your Vocabulary looks smart but you seem to have no common sense. The poor and middle class pay SS on every dollar they earn. Some rich pay less than 15% total SS and income tax. FACT FACT FACT. So some rich pay a lower tax rate than the poor (TIRING) So it is right here that the RICH PAY A LOWER TAX RATE THAN THE POOR. So ITS NOT APPLES AND ORANGES. ITS DOLLARS AND DOLLARS. You made the comment about the poor burdened rich people are paying so much more than there share of the tax burden. Again it does not include SS and that money is being spent in the general fund. This is why I commented about the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are getting poorer. You took it out of context. Even though its a FACT FACT FACT (TIRING). I said it because under your philosophy I was explaining we would have to keep reducing the top tax rate because they would be paying a even higher percentage. Bush lowered the top tax rates to a rate lower than it has been in over 50 year and the economy has been worse than any other time over that said 50 years. Reagan economics do not work. Is was the deregulation and economic policy's started by Reagan that lead to economy's collapse in 2008. Sure there was others who helped. A sales tax burdens the poor. It would work if again some how there is a standard deduction for the minimal cost of living. Maybe cut everyone a check for that deduction. Again the comment the US is on the verge or Socialism. If we were the rich wouldn't be getting richer especially in a bad economy.(TIRING) Again The poor who work pay taxes and at a higher rate than some rich people. (AGAIN TIRING) I'm not really sympathetic if you do not work. And everyone can do something. Do you know what bothers me the most about you intellectual types. Explain to me how you can think or justify that any one persons work could ever be worth 1,000 times more than any other persons work. Or explain to me why the goal wouldn't be compensation primarily based on there contribution to society. You asked earlier if I thought I could do a better job than the CEO's. Well the answer is absolutely much better than some and not near as good as others. But they almost all got paid more than they were worth. Again enough for now you really are TIRING.

 

[Don Pfau]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:You BELIEVED that?!

This was your reply to my saying the republicans walked out of the debt ceiling talks after the democrats offered up over 3 billion in spending cuts if the republicans would allow the taxes on those who made over 1 million dollars a year and eliminate some of the tax loop holes for companies like the oil company who had record profits during a recession when demand was down. Yes I believe it. It came out of Boehners mouth. They didnt say. We could work it out. They didnt say they couldn't give us assurances of the spending cut. They didnt say we said yes after the spending cut. He said we walked out because raising taxes was out of the question. THEY WALKED OUT. (TIRING)

 

[Don Pfau]

Actually this is you all over. And I do not care if the rich paid 99% of the tax burden if the working poor are paying a higher rate. Gee I wonder who could take the time and money to make graphs showing how the rich are getting the short end. I've watched C-Span in debates and someone for some thing would get up there with all these fancy graphs and charts and statistics and you would swear thats got to be the best thing going. Then someone opposed would get up there with the same thing but you would think it was the worst thing ever. So it is all meaningless unless you know almost all the facts. Common sense can go a long way. An example, why would Warren Buffet lie. Just because you found some graphs doesn't make it a fact. I think you could use so common sense.

 

[cammerfe]

Shag, you'll get no-where trying to talk to the blank density of a brick wall.

KS

 

[shagdrum]

You are so Tiring in that you ignore the FACTS

What FACTS am I "ignoring"?

You have not provided ANY "facts".

ALL you have provided are talking points.

Again, talking points ARE NOT facts.

Can you not grasp that?

The poor and middle class pay SS on every dollar they earn. Some rich pay less than 15% total SS and income tax. FACT FACT FACT.

If it is a "fact" then you could find evidence to back it up. You have none.

But you have demonstrated a profound naivete of income vs. capital gains taxes as well as the difference between opinion and fact.

So ITS NOT APPLES AND ORANGES.

Denying an inference is not disproving it.

If you are going to compare income tax rates, you compare income tax rates. You don't compare income tax rates of one class with income tax rate plus SS of another class.

You made the comment about the poor burdened rich people are paying so much more than there share of the tax burden.

So now you are creating straw men by inserting phrases like "poor burdened rich people" which is not what I was arguing.

Mistaking a positive argument for a normative argument is misrepresentation.

This is why I commented about the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are getting poorer.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the "rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are getting poorer".

Are you arguing that SS makes people poorer? That sounds like an argument against SS.

You took it out of context. Even though its a FACT FACT FACT (TIRING).

Shouting that something is a "fact" does not make it so. Raising your voice does not change the truth.

I said it because under your philosophy I was explaining we would have to keep reducing the top tax rate because they would be paying a even higher percentage.

What "philosophy" is that? If you have shown anything so far, it is an utter ignorance of philosophy.

Also, what do you mean that, "we would have to keep reducing the top tax rate because they would be paying a even higher percentage."

In response to anything I was talkin about, that doesn't make any sense. Are you talking about a "philosophy" that you don't understand again?

Bush lowered the top tax rates to a rate lower than it has been in over 50 year and the economy has been worse than any other time over that said 50 years.

Actually, tax rates were marginally lower under Reagan.

How is an economic boom "worse than any other time over...50 years"?

Unless you are trying to pin the housing bust on the tax rate drop. But for that to be anything more then a baseless assertion, you are going to have to explain causation. HOW did dropping the tax rate lead to the housing bust?

Hint; taxes had nothing to do with the housing bust.

Reagan economics do not work.

Reagan's economic policies did not create an economic boom that created the wealth necessary for the venture capital that allowed for the tech bubble in the 1990's?

You really should step away from the kool-aid and do a little research of your own. You are letting demagogues in the media do your thinking for you.

Is was the deregulation and economic policy's started by Reagan that lead to economy's collapse in 2008.

What deregulation?

SPECIFICS.

What rules were changed and how, specifically, did they lead to the housing bust?

Again the comment the US is on the verge or Socialism. If we were the rich wouldn't be getting richer especially in a bad economy.

The only one who said the US is on the verge of socialism is you.

So, people aren't supposed to try and get richer in a bad economy? How do you propose we turn the economy around then?

Again The poor who work pay taxes and at a higher rate than some rich people.

again with that claim.

The poor PAY NO INCOME TAX. It is IMPOSSIBLE for them to pay more then the income earning rich who actually pay income tax.

I'm not really sympathetic if you do not work.

Oh, so you are not a very radical liberal.

You just mindlessly buy into EVERY SINGLE LIE they put out and don't seem to be willing to reconsider when confronted with facts and economic reality.

Do you know what bothers me the most about you intellectual types. Explain to me how you can think or justify that any one persons work could ever be worth 1,000 times more than any other persons work.

Can you say "loaded question"?

Tell me this; how can the result of natural processes be considered "unjust"?

The fact is that it is impersonal forces in the market that determine that; typically rewarding productivity and meeting (and creating) consumer demand.

Or explain to me why the goal wouldn't be compensation primarily based on there contribution to society.

That has been tried and it has FAILED every time.

It is impossible to rationally determine ones contribution to society and divide things accordingly. Like all pursuit of utopian delusions, it has lead to overwhelming misery, suffering and death (specifically, over 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone).

Are you actually so naive to think that humans can design a better system then the free market?!

Have you even thought about the limits to the human capacity for knowledge and the amount of knowledge it would take to design the system you are talking about?

In order to implement such a system, we would have to essentially be all-knowing; we would have to be God. We would also have to be able to act on that information inhumanly quickly.

That was tried in both Communist Russia and in Mao's China and they didn't turn out so well.

You really should read this.

You asked earlier if I thought I could do a better job than the CEO's. Well the answer is absolutely much better than some and not near as good as others. But they almost all got paid more than they were worth.

Do you not know how utterly naive and arrogant that makes you sound?!

There is a very particular skill set necessary to run those big companies and only an exceptionally few number of people on the planet have that capability.Of course, those people actually have an idea of how much they don't know, so you clearly aren't anywhere in their league.

But to think that YOU are in such a position as to determine what they are worth is, quite possibly, the most arrogant, ignorant statement I have read this year.

You don't own the company.

You don't know it's ins and outs. The ONLY people who are qualified to determine that are the people who own the company.

The ONLY people who have any right to determine the value of a CEO are those who own the company.

Or are you against private property rights?

This was your reply to my saying the republicans walked out of the debt ceiling...

I take it you are simply going to ignore the points I raised. Let me repeat them for you...

Name ONE TIME that Democrats have actually debated in good faith on debt.

They didn't when they promised Reagan they would cut spending if he raised taxes.

They didn't when Bush (41) agreed to a similar deal and they used his agreement to that deal as a weapon against him in the next election.

Republicans had EVERY reason not to trust the Democrats in the debt debates and the Obama Administration's only furthered that; specifically, moving the goalposts as a deal is close to finalized, rejecting attempts to increase tax revenue agreed to by Republicans and initially proposed by Obama's own debt commission, and demonizing Republicans as "economic terrorists".

Also, define "tax loophole" in a manner that is not subjective. What is the difference between a "tax loophole" and a tax break?

While you may have missed these points on MSNBC, they were all made in the debate. The highlighted portions were done by President Obama and his surrogates! That first highlighted point is WHY the Republicans walked out.

Of course it is much easier to dismiss a group when you avoid the context of their actions. It allows you to attribute whatever motive you prefer to their actions.

...I do not care if the rich paid 99% of the tax burden if the working poor are paying a higher rate.

Actually, that would be the top 50% of income earners who pay about 97% of income taxes. That top 50% includes the middle class.

It is rather telling that you don't care about tax burdens though. Apparently fairness is irrelevant to you. What seems to matter are arguments that appeal to envy because they are emotionally gratifying. Whether they true or not is irrelevant, right?

Gee I wonder who could take the time and money to make graphs showing how the rich are getting the short end.

If you look at the link that chart comes from, it is from the Tax Policy Center. It is made up of the Urban Institute (which claims to be non-partisan) and the Brookings Institute (which is a Left leaning think tank).

So it is all meaningless unless you know almost all the facts. Common sense can go a long way.

Actually, all you need is to look at their methodology, have a little background in economics (a basic, econ 101 course should be sufficient) and then add in that "common sense" you talk about.

Any such study is only as good as the assumptions behind it and the logical theory they point back to. If you know basic economic theory and examine the assumptions in the methodology it is easy to determine if they are misleading or honestly attempting to find the truth.

An example, why would Warren Buffet lie.

People looking out for there own self interest is probably the most basic assumption behind EVERY economic theory.

From here:

Buffett Profits from Taxes He Supports

Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.

Buffett Profits from Government Spending

Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics.

If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.​

Whether Buffet is intentionally lying or is simply mistaken is irrelevant. The fact is that his broader point is wrong and, most likely, the point he raised about his own personal tax is a half-truth at best.

Do you really think Buffet sits down and does his own taxes? It is easy to pick out a number from the filings your accountant gave you and run with that as confirmation of your social views. It is much harder to understand how that number was arrived at and how it fits in with everything else.

Just because you found some graphs doesn't make it a fact. I think you could use so common sense.

So now, inconvenient facts are irrelevant?

That graph is simply a physical representation of IRS data with the assumptions behind the calculations spelled out in the bottom of the graph. If you want to honestly challenge it, you have all the information you need. If you want to simply ignore it, you dismiss it with a cheap excuse. It is telling which way you went...

The truth is that under a generally capitalist economy, the rich get richer while the poor get richer at a slower rate. This is what gave rise to the middle class and the inarguable increase in prosperity and living standard for ALL. This is also what has given rise to a huge number of dishonest arguments and strategies to keep that exploitation narrative going; redefining "poverty" in more broad terms, co-opting Freud and expanding on the notion of a "false consciousness", Potemkin villages and dishonest elites buying into the illusion they created, biased statistical studies mistaking static categories for reality and even the rejection of objective truth and reason with the rise of postmodernism and cultural Marxism.

You seem to be demonstrating that highlighted part very well.

The whole point of Cultural Marxism, political correctness (Herbert Marcuse's repressive tolerance), critical theory and postmodernism is to discredit objective, empirical truth, undermine culture and get people to see through the capitalist "false consciousness" and realize the underlying "truth" that capitalism is "immoral" and "unjust". It also serves to create a moving target with regards to Leftist ideology.

The way they end up going about this is to simply confuse the issue and dumb down the conversation to the point where they can re-frame the issues based on emotional appeals. Those ideas and strategies from the 1960's have taken on a life of their own to the point where they have been adopted by most of academia, Hollywood and the news media; often unknowingly.

This is why it is impossible to actually have a reasonable conversation with someone on the Left. Their understanding of history is based on partisan half-truths and lies. Often they don't even think of themselves as ideological. the idea of pragmatism itself has been redefined in partisan terms leaving journalists and politicians to mislead when they use the term. The result is that many are HIGHLY partisan and HIGHLY ideological without knowing it.

Shag, you'll get no-where trying to talk to the blank density of a brick wall.

KS

Teachable moment?

 

[shagdrum]

Here are some more facts from the Tax Policy Center:

Key points...

• The effective tax rate includes ALL reported taxes (including SS)
• the effective tax rate for ALL income earners is 18.1%
• The effective tax rate for the bottom 20% of income earners is -0.5%
• the effective tax rate for the top 1% is 27.4%
• the effective tax rate for the top 0.1% is 30.7%

The 15% talking point is a LIE.

The claim that the rich pay less then the poor in taxes is a LIE.

 

[Don Pfau]

My God are you arrogant. The lowest tax rate for the wealthy is 15% (FACT)(after tax deductions and loop holes). Did you get this part? So even with SS there are plenty of wealthy who pay a total rate of SS and income tax of less than 15% (OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNT they earned) read this carefully now. (AGAIN TIRING BECAUSE YOU KNOW THIS IS A COMMON KNOWLEDGE FACT THAT I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE). The working poor have to pay more in SS on every dollar they earn from the first dollar(NO DEDUCTIONS). You like to act stupid when you know the facts are against you and ask me to prove what is common knowledge.( SO VERY VERY TIRING). You keep bring up all kinds of crap out of context and I have to keep going over the basis of the whole thing, because you keep acting stupid about it.

 

[shagdrum]

The lowest tax rate for the wealthy is 15% (FACT)(after tax deductions and loop holes).

:lol:

Did you just see my last post?

The effective tax rate for the top 1% is 27.4%. That INCLUDES any and all deductions and "loop holes".

(AGAIN TIRING BECAUSE YOU KNOW THIS IS A COMMON KNOWLEDGE FACT THAT I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE).

"Common knowledge" does not equal "FACT" (let alone truth).

Just because a lot of media outlets spout the same talking point does not make the talking point true.

Have you ever heard of the Big Lie?

The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."​

While Hitler may have popularized the name for it, the technique predates him and is very symptomatic with the myth-building of group think. National media is DOMINATED by Leftist group think and myth-building. Unsurprisingly, these types of myths are echoed by the mainstream media and beltway culture without most of them even realizing it.

Don't let the media do your thinking for you.

The working poor have to pay more in SS on every dollar they earn from the first dollar(NO DEDUCTIONS).

If the working poor have no deductions then how do that have a negative effective tax rate (-0.5%) even after the payroll tax (including SS) is counted?

You do realize that your constantly shouting "TIRING" and "FACT" simply makes you look childish, right?

 

[Don Pfau]

No that does not incude deductions and loop holes. And I didnt say All paid that low I said some did and there shouldn't be any. Like I said before How can you justify a wealthy person paying a lower total tax rate on all income earner than some one on minimum wage? And you keep defending it and acting stupid about it. The Capital Gains tax rate is to low.

 

[Don Pfau]

You see were Mitt just released his tax return. He paid 16% on 60 million and thats his Taxable income not his actual income. I'd guarantee you he paid less than 15% on actual income. You should be ashamed.

 

[shagdrum]

No that does not incude deductions and loop holes.

And you know this because....

If it is based on actual IRS data (in other word, actual tax returns), then it does include deductions (loop holes are the same thing as deductions).

If you look at the link it cites it's source;

Source : Urban‐Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 0411‐1).​

An earlier version of that model can be found here (I couldn't find the most recent version on their website). The relevant portion reads:

The primary data source for the tax model is the 1999 Public Use File (PUF) produced by the Statistics of Income Division (SOI) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The PUF contains 132,108 individual records, sampled from the 127.1 million individual income tax returns filed for tax year 1999.​

However, that is an earlier model. At the original link, right under where it shows the source (the more current 0411-1 model), it says:

Notes : Data are for calendar year 2010.​

So the info in that chart is based on tax returns for 2010.

It includes those deductions you say it doesn't.

 

[shagdrum]

Funny you should mention Mitt as that is how I came by that chart you want to dismiss...

Romney’s taxes revealed!
By James Pethokoukis
***
A few initial thoughts:

1. So as it turns out, less than a third of Romney’s annual income is from carried interest, the performance fee that fund managers charge that is taxed at the preferential 15 percent capital gains tax rate.

2. Romney paid 16 percent of income in charitable giving the past two years. Wow, that is a lot. The studies I’ve seen put the annual figure for the average American in the 2-4 percent range.

3. Romney’s effective tax rate is around 15 percent. Even including payroll taxes, Romney pays a higher effective tax rate than 60 percent of Americans. Here are average effective tax rates in 2010 for various income groups (via the Tax Policy Center):

4. So given this release, the only reason to make a political issue out of Romney’s taxes is if you are trying to inspire antipathy toward wealthier Americans in general and Romney in particular just because they are wealthy. And even that route makes little sense. Romney’s taxes show just how progressive the U.S. tax system is, with “the rich” shouldering an incredible burden. Indeed, no advanced economy leans on upper-income households as much as America does.
​

 

[Don Pfau]

And Again I do not care what percentage of the tax burden the wealthy pay when some of them are paying a lower percentage of the total amount earned than the working poor. I thought I would GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO USE OUT OF CONTEXT AGAIN. And again by that philosophy (YOURS) we would have to keep lowering the tax rate of the wealthy. I was stating the flaw in your philosophy and AGAIN YOU USED IT OUT OF CONTEXT.

 

[shagdrum]

And I didnt say All paid that low I said some did and there shouldn't be any.

So we should make the perfect the enemy of the good; we should throw out what works for what we think "should be". Again, over 100 million people died in the last century in pursuit of what some thought "should be". Utopian delusions can be VERY dangerous.

You are not even considering the reasons why certain taxes are lower and whether or not the trade off in tax policy changes are worth it. You have to look at taxes as the incentive structure they are.

Like I said before How can you justify a wealthy person paying a lower total tax rate on all income earner than some one on minimum wage?

FIRST, I already pointed out it is a loaded question. It is like demanding a justification for why we have to breath air. Both are simply a fact of natural uncontrolled forces. Thinking that you can make nature more "just" in some cosmic sense is the height of hubris.

SECOND, You have YET to show that this is anything more then a hypothetical with no bearing on reality. I already showed that the lowest 20% of income earners (including those on minimum wage) pay a negative effective tax rate. EVERY income earner above that, pays a higher tax rate. NO EXCEPTIONS (not even Buffet).

If we can't agree on basic facts (and I am the only one providing any) then there is no basis for discussion.

Again...

The truth is that under a generally capitalist economy, the rich get richer while the poor get richer at a slower rate. This is what gave rise to the middle class and the inarguable increase in prosperity and living standard for ALL. This is also what has given rise to a huge number of dishonest arguments and strategies to keep that exploitation narrative going; redefining "poverty" in more broad terms, co-opting Freud and expanding on the notion of a "false consciousness", Potemkin villages and dishonest elites buying into the illusion they created, biased statistical studies mistaking static categories for reality and even the rejection of objective truth and reason with the rise of postmodernism and cultural Marxism.

The Capital Gains tax rate is to low.

Do you have any clue WHY the capital gains rate is too low? If so, I am all ears.

If not, then any assertion that it is too low is childish moral posturing, nothing more.

You have yet to make the case for it being to low. Assertions are worthless and so far that is ALL you have offered. If it is too low, make the argument.

And Again I do not care what percentage of the tax burden the wealthy pay when some of them are paying a lower percentage of the total amount earned than the working poor.

You have offered NO evidence that this is the case. You have offered NO facts that suggest that any in the top level of income earners are paying a lower percentage of total amount earned than the working poor.

On the other hand I HAVE offered evidence that shows your claim to be wrong. You have not given ANY logical counter to the claim. The best you can say is that it is "common knowledge" that my claims are wrong and yours are true. The term "group-think" comes to mind...

And again by that philosophy (YOURS) we would have to keep lowering the tax rate of the wealthy. I was stating the flaw in your philosophy and AGAIN YOU USED IT OUT OF CONTEXT.

Again, what philosophy?

You are making HUGE assumptions here and not even spelling them out. What philosophy are you talking about that claims, "we would have to keep lowering the tax rate of the wealthy"? I know of no such philosophy and am reasonably well read on the issue of economic and political philosophy.

If you are attributing a philosophy to me that I don't hold then that is highly disrespectful and dishonest and only further ensures we will be shouting past each other.

You need to be VERY clear on what "philosophy" you are talking about.