or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clinton to go "scorched earth" - Page 6

post #201 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Please read link before spouting BS - it has percentage of income and percentages of tax paid.

top 10% earn 40.9% of income, pay 54.7% of taxes. Top 1% earns 18% of the income and pays 38% of the tax. That is actual tax paid vs actual income, straight from the government.

It is right there in the link I posted that you didn't bother to read.

If your numbers are correct (and I didn't care to do the math fro the link), you know what that tells me?

That excluding the top 1%, the 90th to 99th percentile earn 22.9% of the income, and pay 16.7% of the tax!!!!!

I don't think your numbers can possibly be right.

And of course the top 1% are the business owners, paying the most corporate income tax.
post #202 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If your numbers are correct (and I didn't care to do the math fro the link), you know what that tells me?

That excluding the top 1%, the 90th to 99th percentile earn 22.9% of the income, and pay 16.7% of the tax!!!!!

I don't think your numbers can possibly be right.

And of course the top 1% are the business owners, paying the most corporate income tax.

Oops, pulled the number out of the wrong column.

top 1% 18.1% of income, 27.6% of all federal taxes
top 10% 40.9% of income, 54.7% of tax

so 91-99 percentile people: 22.8% of income, 27.1% of tax
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #203 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

...so 91-99 percentile people: 22.8% of income, 27.1% of tax

That really doesn't sound too unfair to me... does it sound unfair to you? It's not really a huge gap.
post #204 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That really doesn't sound too unfair to me... does it sound unfair to you? It's not really a huge gap.

I wasn't saying anything about fair/unfair - I think it is fine. Here is a recap:

1. SDW posted numbers showing that rich people pay most of the tax
2. franksagent says "that is BS, you got the numbers from suspect sources", and posted a lot of unrelated graphs and stuff
3. I say, no he is right, here are the numbers straight from the government

I was not passing any judgment, other than "franskagent was wrong, and tried to win an argument by posting as much unrelated data as he could find"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #205 of 255
Absent a developed philsophy, it all seems rather subjective and arbitrary, does it not?

For example, I think the tax the rich side of this debate is correct - so here is a proposal that is truely in accord with those values:

Marginal tax Rate <40,000 a year 0%
Marginal tax Rate >40K > 60K 60%
Maginal tax Ragt >60K < 80K 80%
Maginal tax Rate > 80K 95%

Now this is fair - anyone making near the average or below has no taxes. Others who are privilaged and has so much more than the average American has to pay their fair share. If you don't agree you don't want the rich to pay their fair share.
post #206 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Absent a developed philsophy, it all seems rather subjective and arbitrary, does it not?

It actually has a devoloped philsophy -

1. The Republicans get to lower tax rates by 5% once per decade or so, to get votes
2. The Democrats get to raise tax rates by 5% once per decade or so, to get votes

But you can't really change the tax rates dramatically - lower them too much and our debt becomes a problem, raise them too much and the rich people leave the country and/or step up efforts to avoid taxes. Your proposed tax rates would reduce government income - the only time they were that high was WWII, and then the world outside the US was so crap that it effectively trapped the rich people here as a captive tax base.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #207 of 255
[sarcasm]No wonder there are no rich people living in the UK[/sarcasm]

If some of the privileged rich want to leave the US when taxes are raised, let them. Their roles in the US, including their tax bracket position, will be replaced by someone who wants to stay. The only thing that would affect revenue is not migration of people, but migration of trade. Personally, I'm of the economic philosophy that increasing the typical household income while reducing the income of the super-rich, while keeping inflation in check, would be a huge stimulus for the economy. The trick would be managing inflation.
post #208 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Absent a developed philsophy, it all seems rather subjective and arbitrary, does it not?

Yes. But no more so than your proposal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Now this is fair

That's an interesting word ("fair"). One (seemingly applicable) definition of that word is:

"marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism"

It's a reasonable argument that as soon as you establish a tax rate (%-wise) that is different based on any criteria (e.g., someone's income), you've stopped being "fair" by definition.

The only truly "fair" plan is one where everyone pays exactly the same rate. Anything else seems rather subjective and arbitrary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

If you don't agree you don't want the rich to pay their fair share.

Untrue. If someone agrees with your plan it means they want the "rich" (anyone making more than $40K a year?!?!) to pay more than their fair share. It also means they want to set our nation on a course towards poverty for everyone.

A progressive income tax is a tax on productivity. Remember that.
post #209 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

The only truly "fair" plan is one where everyone pays exactly the same rate. Anything else seems rather subjective and arbitrary.

If everyone had exactly the same amount of decision-making power, both corporate and political, based on their income level, and also, if the cost of an individual's necessities were also proportionate to their income, then this would be true. Unfortunately, both of those conditionals are false. A "fair" plan is therefore one which accounts for balance of power and cost of living.
post #210 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If everyone had exactly the same amount of decision-making power, both corporate and political, based on their income level,

Everyone does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

and also, if the cost of an individual's necessities were also proportionate to their income,

So your problem is that as someone's income goes up, the proportion of their income that goes to basic necessities goes down (therefore enabling them to purchase non-necessity goods and services) and so this should be stopped? This sounds like you want everyone relegated to a basic sustenance level of living. No thanks. You're welcome to live that way voluntarily if you wish. I won't force you. You don't force me. Deal?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

A "fair" plan is therefore one which accounts for balance of power and cost of living.

I guess we'll have to know what your definition of "fair" is since it doesn't align with the one I posted.
post #211 of 255
sslarson, that whooshing sound was Max's sarcasm whipping right over your head.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #212 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

sslarson, that whooshing sound was Max's sarcasm whipping right over your head.

Doh!

Sorry Max. I don't know folks enough around here to know where you would stand and just assumed you were serious (because, sadly, I've seen people post such nonsense seriously).
post #213 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Everyone does.



Wow... just wow. Could you please explain how the janitor can vote himself a raise and vote against a raise for the CEO? If you suggest he has the right to vote with his legs and go to another company, then you're really ignorant about people's basic need to put food on the table and pay the rent. A CEO can quit for a year or so to search for a better position or get another degree. A janitor cannot.

Quote:
So your problem is that as someone's income goes up, the proportion of their income that goes to basic necessities goes down (therefore enabling them to purchase non-necessity goods and services) and so this should be stopped? This sounds like you want everyone relegated to a basic sustenance level of living. No thanks. You're welcome to live that way voluntarily if you wish. I won't force you. You don't force me. Deal?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that a CEO won't have to suffer on the same level if they have to buy a Bronco instead of a Hummer one year compared to the suffering of a janitor who is evicted from his apartment on skid row. And you've got to admit that purchase of luxury goods and services doesn't contribute to the economy percentage-wise as much as purchase of staple goods and services. $1,000,000 worth of rice supports far more people in the economy than $1,000,000 worth of Ferarris.
Quote:
I guess we'll have to know what your definition of "fair" is since it doesn't align with the one I posted.

I guess so.
post #214 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Absent a developed philsophy, it all seems rather subjective and arbitrary, does it not?

For example, I think the tax the rich side of this debate is correct - so here is a proposal that is truely in accord with those values:

Marginal tax Rate <40,000 a year 0%
Marginal tax Rate >40K > 60K 60%
Maginal tax Ragt >60K < 80K 80%
Maginal tax Rate > 80K 95%

Now this is fair - anyone making near the average or below has no taxes. Others who are privilaged and has so much more than the average American has to pay their fair share. If you don't agree you don't want the rich to pay their fair share.

Uh....

No...

You see, you are literally punishing people (severely) for earning what amounts to more than average...

There is a principle here in our tax system that the ease of making money is linearly proportional to
income... that is it is easier for someone who already earns 100 K a year to earn or save 5% more than it is for someone earning 8K a year... This relative benefit of living in an economic system controlled by people (with their incumbent flaws) should be somewhat controlled for when providing funding for the very entity that does the controlling...


That is my personal philosophy on why the progressive income tax makes perfect sense...

And regardless, my parents, who earn 10X what I do, pay an effective tax rate lower than i do... and live a quality of life much much better than i do...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #215 of 255
nevermind
post #216 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

[sarcasm]No wonder there are no rich people living in the UK[/sarcasm]

England is a really bad example - they don't tax worldwide income so a rich person can live in England and pay not tax at all (you have to declare England as your permanent and primary home before worldwide income is taxed). That is why all the rich Russian mobsters moved there, it is a tax haven.

The highest marginal tax rate in the world is 63.1% in denmark, The UK is only slightly higher than the US even for in-country income (40% vs 34%). Denmark is having a lot of trouble with that tax rate:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...h_commitme.cfm
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #217 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Uh....

No...

You see, you are literally punishing people (severely) for earning what amounts to more than average...

There is a principle here in our tax system that the ease of making money is linearly proportional to
income... that is it is easier for someone who already earns 100 K a year to earn or save 5% more than it is for someone earning 8K a year... This relative benefit of living in an economic system controlled by people (with their incumbent flaws) should be somewhat controlled for when providing funding for the very entity that does the controlling...


That is my personal philosophy on why the progressive income tax makes perfect sense...

And regardless, my parents, who earn 10X what I do, pay an effective tax rate lower than i do... and live a quality of life much much better than i do...

Seems fair to me...although I'm beginning to suspect you are one of those folks who make more than 40K a year and want to keep your unfair portion portion of the wealth.

You don't get taxed on earnings up to slightly more than the average (the majority). The minority who are capable of paying more have to pay increasing amounts of progressive rates until they reach 80K.

If you make 79,999K, you wouldl pay (12K+16K)=28K.

So people making 80K would really make 52K...which is still 1/4 more than those who earn the average (40K or so is the average).

Anyone earning more than 80K would have to pay most of it in taxes. These folks who want a lot more (like your folks) need to be informed that this is a democracy and the majority says that the minority who are well off are just being greedy. Rich people like your folks think they can exploit the working class and skate on paying for all the services. We are making sure they have a little more left over the average. What more do they want? What makes them so special?

This way, most housing, education, and other privleges would be no much more than average - no matter how much money you make.

And, besides, we could have a negative income tax as well. That way most people would make no less than 30K a year. That way all the money taxed from the top 40% could go to the bottm 40%. Inequality would largely be a thing of the past. People on would not have to work as hard, or if they wanted to it would not be as attractive so the work week could be reduced to 4 days.
post #218 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Absent a developed philsophy, it all seems rather subjective and arbitrary, does it not?

For example, I think the tax the rich side of this debate is correct - so here is a proposal that is truely in accord with those values:

Marginal tax Rate <40,000 a year 0%
Marginal tax Rate >40K > 60K 60%
Maginal tax Ragt >60K < 80K 80%
Maginal tax Rate > 80K 95%

Now this is fair - anyone making near the average or below has no taxes. Others who are privilaged and has so much more than the average American has to pay their fair share. If you don't agree you don't want the rich to pay their fair share.

WOW.

That is one of the biggest strawmen I've seen in my life. Congratulations!

You must have needed blueprints and subcontractors to build something that size!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #219 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Seems fair to me...although I'm beginning to suspect you are one of those folks who make more than 40K a year and want to keep your unfair portion portion of the wealth.

You don't get taxed on earnings up to slightly more than the average (the majority). The minority who are capable of paying more have to pay increasing amounts of progressive rates until they reach 80K.

If you make 79,999K, you wouldl pay (12K+16K)=28K.

So people making 80K would really make 52K...which is still 1/4 more than those who earn the average (40K or so is the average).

Anyone earning more than 80K would have to pay most of it in taxes. These folks who want a lot more (like your folks) need to be informed that this is a democracy and the majority says that the minority who are well off are just being greedy. Rich people like your folks think they can exploit the working class and skate on paying for all the services. We are making sure they have a little more left over the average. What more do they want? What makes them so special?

This way, most housing, education, and other privleges would be no much more than average - no matter how much money you make.

And, besides, we could have a negative income tax as well. That way most people would make no less than 30K a year. That way all the money taxed from the top 40% could go to the bottm 40%. Inequality would largely be a thing of the past. People on would not have to work as hard, or if they wanted to it would not be as attractive so the work week could be reduced to 4 days.

It's funny that you mock negative taxes, as Milton Friedman, the conservative economics hero, was in favor of them... but then again compared to most conservatives he was actually rational...

Similar statements of support for the progressive income tax come from the whole gambit of historical economists, including that darling of laisez-faire Adam Smith...

What modern conservative thinkers don't realize is that laisez-faire economics was born out of suppression of the underclass and middle in the feudal and early post-feudal era; progressive income tax was a natural extension at limiting the barriers to economic self-fulfillment...

You cannot have a healthy economy if those that benefit the most from it put just as much proportionately back into it as those that benefit the least.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #220 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post



Wow... just wow. Could you please explain how the janitor can vote himself a raise and vote against a raise for the CEO?

Um, it's called voting Democrat. It's really that simple. That is the populist worker's paradise that we're hearing at stump speech after stump speech from HRC and BHO. "Vote for us, we'll give you a mandatory raise, and we'll also go after those CEOs that don't deserve what they make." There is your explanation, and it is one of the core values of the Democratic left in this country. The same old tired class warfare schtick we've heard for years. "Hope" indeed.


Quote:
a CEO won't have to suffer on the same level if ...

So we're back to this. The Jimmy Carter "spread the misery equally" thing. There are actually reasons that some people are either CEOs or janitors. Life is not a pure lottery. Oh, and BTW... we as a nation do a LOT ALREADY for the janitor.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #221 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

It's funny that you mock negative taxes, as Milton Friedman, the conservative economics hero, was in favor of them... but then again compared to most conservatives he was actually rational...

Similar statements of support for the progressive income tax come from the whole gambit of historical economists, including that darling of laisez-faire Adam Smith...

What modern conservative thinkers don't realize is that laisez-faire economics was born out of suppression of the underclass and middle in the feudal and early post-feudal era; progressive income tax was a natural extension at limiting the barriers to economic self-fulfillment...

You cannot have a healthy economy if those that benefit the most from it put just as much proportionately back into it as those that benefit the least.

Mocking?

You misunderstand, this proposal mocks laissez-faire - you've won the argument to tax the well off. Friedman's proposal was to replace all forms of welfare with a negative income tax, both saving money and empowering the power to spend the money in what they feel are their best interests.

That is not what I am proposing - I am proposing that the well off pay their fair share, irrespective of welfare. I am proposing true justice, which is to make the upper 40% pay for the lower 40%, while leaving the average alone.

This is true redistribution and near income equality - not the fake proposals of current politicians that talk big, but effectively penalize both middle incomes and upper incomes while failing to truly redistribute it (well, unless you think the poor need midnight basketball programs and NPR).

It's clear that you oppose it because you are a faking your liberalism - apparently you have other objectives. Or perhaps you make more than 40K and are trying to deny social justice?

Why are you evading the issue - either you are for equality and social justice or your faking it.

Well?
post #222 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Or perhaps you make more than 40K and are trying to deny social justice?

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #223 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Um, it's called voting Democrat. It's really that simple. That is the populist worker's paradise that we're hearing at stump speech after stump speech from HRC and BHO. "Vote for us, we'll give you a mandatory raise, and we'll also go after those CEOs that don't deserve what they make." There is your explanation, and it is one of the core values of the Democratic left in this country. The same old tired class warfare schtick we've heard for years. "Hope" indeed.

So we're back to this. The Jimmy Carter "spread the misery equally" thing. There are actually reasons that some people are either CEOs or janitors. Life is not a pure lottery. Oh, and BTW... we as a nation do a LOT ALREADY for the janitor.

To paraphrase HL Mencken, if a politician found he had cannibals in his constituency, he promise them missionaries for dinner.
post #224 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Mocking?

You misunderstand, this proposal mocks laissez-faire - you've won the argument to tax the well off. Friedman's proposal was to replace all forms of welfare with a negative income tax, both saving money and empowering the power to spend the money in what they feel are their best interests.

That is not what I am proposing - I am proposing that the well off pay their fair share, irrespective of welfare. I am proposing true justice, which is to make the upper 40% pay for the lower 40%, while leaving the average alone.

This is true redistribution and near income equality - not the fake proposals of current politicians that talk big, but effectively penalize both middle incomes and upper incomes while failing to truly redistribute it (well, unless you think the poor need midnight basketball programs and NPR).

It's clear that you oppose it because you are a faking your liberalism - apparently you have other objectives. Or perhaps you make more than 40K and are trying to deny social justice?

Why are you evading the issue - either you are for equality and social justice or your faking it.

Well?

What is this thing that the upper 40% are paying for for the lower 40%?

What does justice have to do with anything?

How is this at all a redistribution?

Liberalism isn't equated with idiocy, but conservatism is... let's see, that makes you a ... conservative...

Regardless, your little thought experiment doesn't prove anything except the fact that you believe your only way of winning this argument is appealing to an emotional attachment to wealth rather than an intellectual debate about the issue at hand -- in typical conservative fashion.

There are two things you have guessed incorrectly about me... I bet you cannot figure out either of them...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #225 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

What is this thing that the upper 40% are paying for for the lower 40%?

How is this at all a redistribution?

Liberalism isn't equated with idiocy, but conservatism is... let's see, that makes you a ... conservative...

You tax the upper incomes and redistribute those taxe proceeds to the lower classes. The net effect is to bring up annual income for the lowest 40%, paid by the rich 40%.

THAT is redistribution.
post #226 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

You tax the upper incomes and redistribute those taxe proceeds to the lower classes. The net effect is to bring up annual income for the lowest 40%, paid by the rich 40%.

THAT is redistribution.

you have to add a redistribution proposal on top of your taxation scheme for that to be true... there is nothing intrinsic to your scheme which makes it redistributive...

sorry?

this has certainly been entertaining, but alas, i grow tired of your ham fisted attempt at making a point... good night, and good luck... you will need it if you really want to use this scheme as an argument...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #227 of 255
I think I am starting to see Max's point. All people tend to want the government to "tax those other people" - there are a lot of $80K/year Democrats going "tax those people that earn more than $80K/year more".

If you move the line down to $40K, so that the people suggesting the extra taxes then start to feel some of the pain, all of a sudden its "wait a minute, that is out of bounds!". Hardeehar - I think I am talking about you here (since no doubt you will be earning $80K or more once you graduate)

I really like that negative tax idea - you could replace social security, welfare, etc - everything with a negative tax that ensures that people earn at least $18K/year or something. It would really cut down on government paperwork, no doubt - you would have to really be careful not to deincentivise work, though. You would still need socialized medicine, also.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #228 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think I am starting to see Max's point. All people tend to want the government to "tax those other people" - there are a lot of $80K/year Democrats going "tax those people that earn more than $80K/year more".

Well, then Max is wrong. In highly liberal areas and there are more than enough people pushing local and national policies that benefit people other than themselves, even if somewhat to their own disadvantage.
post #229 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Well, then Max is wrong. In highly liberal areas and there are more than enough people pushing local and national policies that benefit people other than themselves, even if somewhat to their own disadvantage.

Most of those people are still upper middle class, pushing for more taxes on the people who earn more than them, in my experience. I'll admit that there are some rich Democrats who are in favor of policies that would hurt them financially, but they are a very small number of people overall.

And you mix in a bunch of hypocrites, like:

Warren Buffett - (who owns a big insurance company, and pushes strongly for inheritance tax which is a big insurance subsidy, while bypassing inheritance tax by putting each of his kids in charge of a "foundation").

Ted Kennedy - who pushes for inheritance tax, while reportedly hiding most of his family fortune in trusts in Fiji.

etc.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #230 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Most of those people are still upper middle class, pushing for more taxes on the people who earn more than them, in my experience.

Not in mine. The rich people often tax themselves. I also originally put "affluent" in my post, but then I realized that there are more than enough non-affluent people involved. It's also doesn't just apply to taxes. Some element of self-sacrifice for the benefit of the community is actually a fundamental, defining feature of highly liberal american ideology, and it's very evident if you look at politics on the local level.

Incidentally, those areas also happen to be the nicest to live in for both poor and affluent people.
post #231 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Not in mine. The rich people often tax themselves. I also originally put "affluent" in my post, but then I realized that there are more than enough non-affluent people involved. It's also doesn't just apply to taxes. Some element of self-sacrifice for the benefit of the community is actually a fundamental, defining feature of highly liberal american ideology, and it's very evident if you look at politics on the local level.

Incidentally, those areas also happen to be the nicest to live in for both poor and affluent people.

There are plenty of Republicans doing community service as well, particularly through their churches. And I think it is more "nice areas produce liberals" rather than "liberals produce nice areas".

The bulk of democratic voters are voting for taxes on people richer than they are - there is no way around it, you can't argue your way out of that by pointing out the odd rich democrat voting for taxes on themselves (most democratic tax proposals say stuff like "people who earn over $300k/year" - you can't tell me that the bulk of democratic voters are in this tax bracket). The big mystery is not that, though, it is why poor people are Republicans at all.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #232 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Some element of self-sacrifice

What does self-sacrifice have to do with taxes?
post #233 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

And I think it is more "nice areas produce liberals" rather than "liberals produce nice areas".

Yes, these inner-city blue bastions are usually crime free, prosperous, and examples of actualized potential... while consistently voting... liberal democrat.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #234 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Warren Buffett - (who owns a big insurance company, and pushes strongly for inheritance tax which is a big insurance subsidy, while bypassing inheritance tax by putting each of his kids in charge of a "foundation").

Oh, but I heard that Buffett told BHO that we need HIGHER capital gains taxes. Talk about tanking the economy... Obama is clueless with regards to economic matters. He has no experience in that area whatsoever.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #235 of 255
Not that I agree with you... but take a closer look at McCain's economic knowledge before you start shooting that gun around...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #236 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Not that I agree with you... but take a closer look at McCain's economic knowledge before you start shooting that gun around...

You see, this is where you screw up. I'm not a McCain supporter, nor will I leap to his defense.

Regardless of what McCain does or does not know, it does not diminish the fact that Obama is talking directly from the ancient tax-and-spend playbook from the Old Left. During a time of economic instability, the LAST THING we need is to stifle investment and people willing to take risks... and that is exactly what raising the cap gains tax will do. McCain, for what it is worth- which isn't much IMHO, has said that he'll make the Bush tax cut permanent. That is at least a little bright spot in an otherwise pathetic record of advocating conservative values.

Come to think of it... you say "not that I agree with you." Alrighty... tell me about Obama and his economic experience and plans if he's elected. Tell me how anything he wants is "new" and "hopeful," outside of the same... old... thing.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #237 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You see, this is where you screw up. I'm not a McCain supporter, nor will I leap to his defense.

Regardless of what McCain does or does not know, it does not diminish the fact that Obama is talking directly from the ancient tax-and-spend playbook from the Old Left. During a time of economic instability, the LAST THING we need is to stifle investment and people willing to take risks... and that is exactly what raising the cap gains tax will do. McCain, for what it is worth- which isn't much IMHO, has said that he'll make the Bush tax cut permanent. That is at least a little bright spot in an otherwise pathetic record of advocating conservative values.

Not really...

The capital gains tax never stopped anyone from seeking margins...

And regardless, it isn't the private investor that has anything to do with our economic woes... It rarely is...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #238 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

And I think it is more "nice areas produce liberals" rather than "liberals produce nice areas".

Maybe, but highly liberal areas are pretty notorious for attracting people from elsewhere.

And these kinds of policies most certainly do create nice areas. City funding and careful zoning are central to the quality of life where I live now and all similar places in the US I'm familiar with. It's part of why those become the two most contentious issues in local politics.
Quote:
The bulk of democratic voters are voting for taxes on people richer than they are

Maybe. I think the bulk of voters in general have complex, individual and malleable views since people tend not to spend a ton of time thinking about politics.
Quote:
most democratic tax proposals say stuff like "people who earn over $300k/year" - you can't tell me that the bulk of democratic voters are in this tax bracket.

I've never dealt with a local tax proposed like that. As you move up to state and national the influences are broader and the policies more sweeping, and policies like that are typically the product of analysis. It's pretty clear that when it comes to taxes, republican policies (and republican economics in general) are far more hardline ideologically driven, even reactionary. Still, tax initiatives should be judged on the analytical merits.
post #239 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Not that I agree with you... but take a closer look at McCain's economic knowledge before you start shooting that gun around...

Frankly, not one of the current Presidential front-runners has much (publicly disclosed*) sense on economic matters.

*I don't assume they are ignorant of the ill-effects their policy proposals will have, but I do assume that they are in the business of obtaining power (i.e., "getting elected") and they, like all people, respond to incentives and, in politics, the incentive is to tell voters what they want to hear and make them promises to "buy" their votes. Often these are at odds with sound economic principles.
post #240 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Still, tax initiatives should be judged on the analytical merits.

If they were, we'd be reducing taxes further, more broadly and more frequently. And we'd reduce taxes on the people who invest (sorry, that's the "rich") first (if we must chose who goes first).

But tax policy is a political animal.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Clinton to go "scorched earth"