| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2012 07:20:05 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Middle people? What is that? |
He's talking about me being central in the political spectrum. I'm neither strongly liberal nor strongly conservative. I was joking because Jezebel is hardly the magazine many middle of the road people are going to be reading, but I think it would fit in just fine here. You'd probably LOVE it! ;) |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 07:20:33 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
People are just jealous that it seems to be I'll find some happiness in whomever is elected. 77% Obama, 69% Romney. I can't lose! |
Well duh. If one of them were an atheist lesbian then those numbers would spike. ;) |
I totally read about that in Jezebel! :D |
You've mentioned that twice. What the heck is Jezebel?
ETA: Ok just googled it. The things you middle people read. Sheesh. |
Middle people? What is that? |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An inheritance tax is a good method of declumping the money and making sure it recirculates through the economy. |
This is the craziest thing I have ever heard you say. |
Being in the middle, I tend to seem crazy to everybody at some point... :) |
Middle as in the middle of nowhere? :P
ETA: Too slow. Although I like mine better. :P |
|
|
|
|
08/24/2012 07:31:26 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The problem with Shannon and James' argument is that if the graphs overlap in a way that supports your position you point it out. If they do not you just say there is a delayed effect (eg. Bush's tax cuts caused the recession). So many other things are going on in the economy that I doubt the correlation is anything above mild in either direction. |
How about considering the merit of the points with other evidence rather than discounting the validity of all graphs? |
Fine. My beef is that even the smart people talk about the economy like it is a one or two knob machine. The reality, in my mind, is it has a dozen knobs and each may change its effect depending on the position of the other knobs. |
Sadly, unless the tax process is very much different in the USA than it is in Canada, most poor or average schmucks really do have only one or two knobs to play with.
It is only the rich and the corporate elite that have the wherewithal to either know or pay someone who knows about taking advantage of the available loopholes.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/24/2012 07:32:25 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Middle people? What is that? |
In some circles they are called mules since they carry most of the load.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 10:55:30 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would actually be more in favor of a "death tax" with teeth than an increase in capital gains tax. I think it would accomplish the same thing (recirculated stuck money) while avoding all those other arguments about discouraging investing. |
The truth is, the estate and gift taxes only make up about 1% of the total tax revenues. Even if you double them, it's a drop in the bucket.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Companies are not locating themselves in the US in order to escape corporate taxes regardless of the rate. As long as those legal loopholes exist, they'll do it whether the rate is 35% or 5%. |
So, you're saying unless it is 0%, they will try to find other locations that have 0%? So, you're defending the current tax code that allows GE to pay effectively negative taxes, while shipping jobs overseas, yet still remaining in the graces of the current administration?
I'm willing to hear a sound alternative to Romney's plan of how to fix this. But from what I read on Obama's website, I see nothing remotely touching on this subject. He just uses class warfare and rhetoric to get the middle and lower class citizens excited about punishing the wealthy - because obviously they aren't paying their fair share.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Middle people? What is that? |
In some circles they are called mules since they carry most of the load.
Ray |
Using words like "carry most of the load" is so ambiguous. What exactly are you meaning? What load? Are you suggesting that the middle class pays most of the taxes? Not in the US, as we commonly refer to the middle class as the top 50-25% earners (roughly $30k-$65k / yr):
(Oh, and before saying that the top 10% to 5% are paying less than the top 25% to 10%, remember you're comparing 15% of the population to 5%. Just wanted to raise awareness of the decreasing scale on that graph.)
So, based on the numbers, the top 10% of earners are paying 70% of the federal income tax revenue.
More reading is available here: //www.nomoreclasswarfare.com/ They seem to prefer real data to rhetoric... so even if their cause is "right-leaning", it shouldn't make a difference, the data is from the IRS.
Message edited by author 2012-08-25 11:09:21. |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 12:25:46 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
But from what I read on Obama's website, I see nothing remotely touching on this subject. |
That's because you're ignorant. |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 01:08:42 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
So, based on the numbers, the top 10% of earners are paying 70% of the federal income tax revenue. |
Your chart only shows taxes, not income. As the wealth of the top 10% grows disproportionately, they can be paying most of the taxes and still not be paying their fair share of a progressive tax structure. During the "golden years" from WWII through the 1970's, the top 10% made less than a third of the money. Now it's more like 50% while the difference in financial wealth has grown even faster. The top 10% now controls over 83% of the country's wealth, so paying 70% of the taxes isn't very impressive. |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 04:27:13 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
But from what I read on Obama's website, I see nothing remotely touching on this subject. |
That's because you're ignorant. |
Wow, no need for name calling. Keep in mind, you didn't link me to Obama's website, and the article you linked was from 2009.
But, to summarize, Romney and Obama both seem to have thoughts on this same topic.
Currently: overseas income made by US companies is not taxed by the US as long as it remains overseas but is taxed by the US when brought back into the US. Overseas income is however taxed by the country that the income is earned.
Obama: US companies cannot deduct investments made overseas from their taxes unless they pay taxes on the overseas income. plus must pay tax on income brought back to US.
Romney: overseas income made by US companies will be subject to a territorial tax system, which allows money earned in other countries to be brought back into the US without secondary taxation.
Obamas plan just seems to further complicate our over complicated tax system, while further ensuring that the money stays offshore (plus, even an optimistic outlook on the plan shows it brings in only $20B more a year, that's 1.7% of our current deficit). Romneys plan actually gives businesses the ability to bring money back into the US without penalties, to invest in the US. Obama is just further punishing companies for being globalized. Don't we WANT the globalized companies to be US companies? The whole point of view seems so backwards to me.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
So, based on the numbers, the top 10% of earners are paying 70% of the federal income tax revenue. |
Your chart only shows taxes, not income. As the wealth of the top 10% grows disproportionately, they can be paying most of the taxes and still not be paying their fair share of a progressive tax structure. During the "golden years" from WWII through the 1970's, the top 10% made less than a third of the money. Now it's more like 50% while the difference in financial wealth has grown even faster. The top 10% now controls over 83% of the country's wealth, so paying 70% of the taxes isn't very impressive. |
If you would have looked at the link, you would see that they address that. Your argument that the progressive system doesn't work is simply not true according to the numbers:
But lets just get down to the nitty gritty. What do you think would be fair? Should the top 1% pay an effective rate of 50%? What would be fair in your mind?
Lets just make it simple. The economy collapsed, and as a result, we took a major cut in our income tax revenues. We're both looking for ways to balance the budget. We need to be completely realistic - nothing is a short-term answer! Even raising the effective rate on the top 5% of earners by 50% (which is an effective average tax rate of ~30%) will only bring in $279B more... our current deficit per year is $1,213B! Hey, at least that idea would get us below the trillion mark! But it's not an answer. My numbers don't even take into account the arguably negative impact on the economy from the loss of $279B from the economy, to be gobbled up by our inefficient government.
The ONLY way to truly fix this is to cut our spending and grow the economy. You have to take a long term view. It cannot be turned around by closing loopholes or raising tax rates on corporations and high earning individuals. The numbers don't lie. Which is why I am frustrated when so many politicians do not use numbers... only rhetoric. |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 09:08:25 PM · #334 |
| I do have a question - we always talk about the need to "grow the economy" or "create more jobs" - just how much more stuff do we need to make? I would contend we have more than enough stuff now, and we import a helluva lot of that stuff to begin with. And how do you create more jobs without making more stuff? |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 09:12:10 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Wow, no need for name calling. |
That's not name calling. It's the proper dictionary term for lack of knowledge. Obama's position is also on his website with a date of July 16, 2012, so you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Obama is just further punishing companies for being globalized. |
More [not knowing what you're talking about]. Obama is only asking companies to pay the difference between what they would have already owed as a U.S. company and what they paid in foreign taxes. What that doesn't do is REWARD companies that ship jobs overseas by giving them a lower tax rate for doing so. "The United States is the last major economic power to tax the profits of locally headquartered companies if that income is earned abroad."
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Your argument that the progressive system doesn't work is simply not true according to the numbers |
Your numbers barely represent a FLAT tax, let alone significantly progressive. In 2005, the top 1% earned 21.8% of the income and paid 23.1.% of taxes while the bottom 50% earned 3.07% of the money and paid 3.0% taxes.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Should the top 1% pay an effective rate of 50%? What would be fair in your mind? |
It's a tax on income, so the percentage of taxes they owe should be at least in line with the percent of the money they make. A good start would be to treat capital gains and dividends as regular income (as Reagan did). At no point from 1950 to the mid-1980's did the top 1% make more than 8% of the income. By 2007, they took home 24%, yet their effective tax rate has gone DOWN. The last time that happened was right before the Great Depression. What's actually occurring is Ayn Rand in reverse: rather than an upper class supposedly refusing to support the lazy, the lower classes will eventually be unable to support the tax burden shifted down to them from above.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
The ONLY way to truly fix this is to cut our spending and grow the economy. |
Those two statements are incompatible. Cutting spending does not grow the economy. It has the opposite effect. |
|
|
|
08/25/2012 10:05:06 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
At no point from 1950 to the mid-1980's did the top 1% make more than 8% of the income. By 2007, they took home 24%, yet their effective tax rate has gone DOWN. The last time that happened was right before the Great Depression. What's actually occurring is Ayn Rand in reverse: rather than an upper class supposedly refusing to support the lazy, the lower classes will eventually be unable to support the tax burden shifted down to them from above. |
Haunted by his muse ...
 |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 04:42:59 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do have a question - we always talk about the need to "grow the economy" or "create more jobs" - just how much more stuff do we need to make? I would contend we have more than enough stuff now, and we import a helluva lot of that stuff to begin with. And how do you create more jobs without making more stuff? |
Well, during the last great depression, we made stuff. We made rural electrification, public buildings like schools and national parks, and improved roadways. It was mostly make work to keep poor people from starving/rioting. They even went so far as to hire artists and photographers. One of the problems with a market economy is that it places a reduced value on the infrastructure that underpins the economy because "we the people" provide it at no direct cost, yet it wears out from time to time. May be we could fix that stuff up? |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 08:01:48 AM · #338 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do have a question - we always talk about the need to "grow the economy" or "create more jobs" - just how much more stuff do we need to make? I would contend we have more than enough stuff now, and we import a helluva lot of that stuff to begin with. And how do you create more jobs without making more stuff? |
I highly recommend you listen to/read this interview with David Suzuki, author of The Legacy: an elder's vision for our sustainable future.
Originally posted by show transcript:
SUZUKI: At the beginning of the agricultural revolution it's estimated that there were about ten million of us on the entire planet. Agriculture heralded a huge shift because we could now grow our food dependably and in only 8,000 years, we increased to another order of magnitude to 100 million people. And in just over 1,800 years, we increased to a billion people. And then in less than 200 years we reached six point nine billion people in 2010. So if you were to plot that on a piece of graph paper, the curve is essentially leaping straight off the page in the last pencil width of time. Nothing can go straight up off the page indefinitely. There's got to be limits, and I fear, that we're going to have some major problems of a big human die-off.
CURWOOD: So, yes, what is the problem of population? What are the consequences that you are concerned about?
SUZUKI: Well, of course it's not just a function of number. It's the amount of stuff that we exploit out of the biosphere, per person. So, if we in North American want to compare ourselves to China or India, you've got to multiply our populations by at least 20, to get our equivalent impact as Chinese or Indians. If you want to compare us to Bangladesh or Somalia, you've got to multiply by at least 60.
And when you look at it that way, then it's clear that it's the industrialized world because of our hyper-consumption. We are consuming over 80 percent of the planet's resources even though we're only 20 percent of the world's population. We are the major predator on the planet.
CURWOOD: Let's talk about the economy. In your book, you quote a couple of economists and retail analysts. One of them is Victor Lebow. You quote him as saying, "Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life. The measure of social status, of social acceptance, of prestige is now to be found in our consumptive patterns." And he goes on to say that, "The greater the pressure upon the individual to conform to safe and accepted social standards, the more he does tend to express his aspirations and his individuality in terms of what he wears, drives, eats, his home, his car, his pattern of food serving, his hobbies."
SUZUKI: Isn't that incredible? This is Victor Lebow who is an industrialist. And what happened was we all came through the terrible depression after the stock market crashed in 1929. What got us out of the depression was World War II, and by the middle of the war, the American economy was blazing, white hot, pumping out guns and tanks and planes and weapons. And of course, it was clear by the mid-1940s that the Allies were going to win the war, and people began to say, 'well, what the heck do we do in peace time?'
And the president of the United States established the council of economic advisors to the president and said, 'how do we make that transition?' And the answer came back - consumption. And Victor Lebow's statement is just the plainest statement that you can get. We've got to make consumption an American way of life. Get people to buy stuff use it up, throw it away, and buy more stuff. And once you introduce the concept of disposability, use something once and throw it away, you've got a perfect system, because you never run out of a market. |
|
|
|
|
08/26/2012 11:17:00 AM · #339 |
Well, this time there were shovel ready jobs, which by Obama's own words, there were none. But a heck of a lot of money changed hands. ?
|
|
|
|
08/26/2012 12:13:40 PM · #340 |
And once you introduce the concept of disposability, use something once and throw it away, you've got a perfect system, because you never run out of a market.
Wow. If that isn't the truth. It's sad how much that is true. When I was growing up, we had one (1) toaster for the entirety of my at home life. It worked just fine even after my brother cut off the cord to use elsewhere, then reattached it with electrical tape. Since leaving home, I have owned at least four toasters, because they DON'T work. They're built like crap and I throw them away and buy new ones.
Even still, WE (the US) don't manufacture those. WE import them. This isn't creating jobs in the US other than the few who do the import and retail work.
David, I have no idea what your shovel-ready jobs thing refers to. Can you elaborate? |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 01:31:05 PM · #341 |
All you ever wanted to know about Obama's shovel ready jobs can be found on google.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2012 01:44:51 PM · #342 |
| I guess I just don't pay enough attention to politics. Darn day job of mine gets in the way of a lot of things I should probably do. Including shovel more.... :-) |
|
|
|
08/26/2012 05:16:53 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
All you ever wanted to know about Obama's shovel ready jobs can be found on google. |
ss
...as can "Trickle Down Economics" eh :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
08/27/2012 11:16:11 AM · #344 |
Thanks for taking the time to write out more responses. Even though we seem to be opposing each other, I do appreciate the honest back-and-forth. I must say, though, that I dislike how you choose to only include small segments of my arguments to make your points.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Wow, no need for name calling. |
That's not name calling. It's the proper dictionary term for lack of knowledge. Obama's position is also on his website with a date of July 16, 2012, so you simply don't know what you're talking about. |
You know the connotation of the word.
Thanks for the link. I'm amazed how unorganized his site is (my opinion), I honestly didn't think to look under the "truth team" section in order to find his proposed corporate tax policies. I have no idea how you found that other than using google.
Anyways, here's the bit from Obama's website, (80% of the page is merely attacking Romney's plan):
Originally posted by Obama:
President ObamaĆ¢s plan reduces the incentive to move operations overseas, and instead, creates a new 20 percent income tax credit that helps companies cover their moving expenses and bring their operations back to the United States. And to create a more level playing field for American businesses, the President has proposed a minimum tax on foreign earnings, which will reduce incentives for moving profits offshore. |
I love how they spin additional taxes on our globalized companies as 'leveling the playing field'. Can you explain how increasing taxes on these corporations levels the playing field? Who are we leveling them with?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Obama is just further punishing companies for being globalized. |
More [not knowing what you're talking about]. Obama is only asking companies to pay the difference between what they would have already owed as a U.S. company and what they paid in foreign taxes. What that doesn't do is REWARD companies that ship jobs overseas by giving them a lower tax rate for doing so. "The United States is the last major economic power to tax the profits of locally headquartered companies if that income is earned abroad." |
I think your quote, by whoever said it, is misleading. Most other industrial nations have been moving towards a territorial tax system in recent years (including Japan and UK). The Camp proposal (a proposal in the Ways and Means Committee, basically the same as Romney's proposal) is a good first step towards that route.
The problem with our current taxation, as I understand it, is that it only taxes repatriated funds. Under the Camp proposal, all overseas corporate income would be subject to a flat tax. So if you think about it, if a company is making and selling a product in India, it currently evades US taxes if the profits are reinvested back into the Indian production line (at least as I understand it). If the same company was making the product in the US and selling it in India, it would be subject to full US taxation (with foreign tax credits) as the funds must be repatriated back to the US in order to reinvest in production. However, under the Camp proposal, the profits from both examples would be taxed at a low flat tax rate, no matter if the company was making the product in the US, or in India. This gives incentive to bring the money back into the US to reinvest here, because it's taxed the same either way. Again, that's how I read it. Feel free to explain your understanding without the use of the words "uneducated or ignorant".
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Your argument that the progressive system doesn't work is simply not true according to the numbers |
Your numbers barely represent a FLAT tax, let alone significantly progressive. In 2005, the top 1% earned 21.8% of the income and paid 23.1.% of taxes while the bottom 50% earned 3.07% of the money and paid 3.0% taxes. |
I think you misread the chart (I won't repost it, since it's somewhat large, but instead go here and scroll down halfway). The chart showed the effective tax rate by income level. The title of the chart alone is a bit misleading and I can understand the source of your confusion. I will summarize though. The bottom 50% earners pay effectively 3% taxes on their income on average. The top 1% earners pay an effective average rate of 23.1%. I don't know how that represents a flat tax.
Using your 21.8% of income number, from above, the correct amount of income paid by the 1% top earners was actually 39% in 2005 (also on the link above, just a different graph).
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Should the top 1% pay an effective rate of 50%? What would be fair in your mind? |
It's a tax on income, so the percentage of taxes they owe should be at least in line with the percent of the money they make. A good start would be to treat capital gains and dividends as regular income (as Reagan did). At no point from 1950 to the mid-1980's did the top 1% make more than 8% of the income. By 2007, they took home 24%, yet their effective tax rate has gone DOWN. The last time that happened was right before the Great Depression. What's actually occurring is Ayn Rand in reverse: rather than an upper class supposedly refusing to support the lazy, the lower classes will eventually be unable to support the tax burden shifted down to them from above. |
Ok, lets look at the effective tax rates from the 1980s to today. That link covers a few different things, but what you're looking for is the "effective individual income tax rate", the second table. Compare the trend between the bottom quintile to the top 1%. Yes, the effective tax rates have been lowered on everyone, but the rich have seen the least amount of tax relief over that period. Stating that the lower class has gained tax burden just does not appear to be true. Do you have a graph or numbers that support this theory?
To me, it really looks like you're more upset about income inequality. There are many natural economic factors at work there, not just a taxation system. Our economy has shifted to a truly global one. Our low income workers are now competing with low income workers in other countries. We have also seen increased immigration from other countries of unskilled workers who are driving low skill wages down due to increased competition. Our economy favors brains over brawn.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
The ONLY way to truly fix this is to cut our spending and grow the economy. |
Those two statements are incompatible. Cutting spending does not grow the economy. It has the opposite effect. |
It depends on what economic theory you subscribe to. Keynesian economics would say that you're right to a certain extent. But the government is not the engine of the economy. Consumers are. So government spending is only acceptable to prevent collapse or briefly spur the economy. It cannot be turned to to keep the economy running. At some point the Keynesian spending has to be cut off. Basically, a difference between using government funds as starter fluid or as the gasoline. Using it as gasoline is not sustainable. I don't even think Keynes would agree with the US's quantitative easing as the best starter fluid per his general theory.
Message edited by author 2012-08-27 11:33:12. |
|
|
|
09/01/2012 09:35:31 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
All you ever wanted to know about Obama's shovel ready jobs can be found on google. |
ss
...as can "Trickle Down Economics" eh :O)
Ray |
While doing some resent research on quantitative easing, isn't quantitative easing further promoting the trickle-down concept? In fact, it seems even more convoluted.
QE is supposed to make bankers feel better about lending to businesses by buying their bad securities and investments. This costs potentially trillions.
How is QE any better than lowering taxes for all? How is QE ultimately different than lowering corporate taxes? In fact, how is it any better? |
|
|
|
09/01/2012 09:54:12 AM · #346 |
|
|
|
09/01/2012 07:00:01 PM · #347 |
| QE is a fancy pants term for "printing money". |
|
|
|
09/01/2012 09:57:21 PM · #348 |
| Right, I understand that. I just don't understand why some people back this type of economic recovery, and in the same breath try to disprove trickle-down theory. Just looking to understand the argument. |
|
|
|
09/05/2012 03:46:25 PM · #349 |
| I hate to say it, but the rhetoric at the DNC that I hear on NPR's reporting makes me retch as much as anything that came out of the RNC. Our political system is bankrupt. Woe to future generations. |
|
|
|
09/05/2012 04:06:26 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Woe to future generations. |
That sounds like a campaign slogan.
 |
|
