| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2012 01:04:12 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not blaming you, but it's soooo hard to compare these numbers (and it gets done all the time). Nobody in the middle class actually pays 25% of their income in tax. |
I was referring to Ryan's budget, where deductions and loopholes are eliminated and people actually do pay that rate or close to it. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:06:10 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Cory:
(if you doubt this, go study up on why foreign debt is actually a good thing, as I don't have time to explain that in full)... |
so long as the debt incurred goes to growing the tax base and not entitlement programs. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:12:45 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
This is the frustrating part. Saying the wealthy don't pay enough is seen as a personal attack. First of all I honestly don't know anything about Canadian policies. Second of all the Bush tax cuts are for the top 1% who find all kinds of loopholes to not pay their taxes anyway. |
The frustrating part is people thinking all wealthy people have these magic money hiding cauldrons no one else has access to. Your welcome to come up here and show me these loophole to shelter my money from the government, I'm willing to listen.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The middle and lower class should not pay a HIGHER tax rate than the rich. That just seems like common sense. 30% of a poor persons income could be the difference between a comfortable life and homelessness. 30% for a rich person would make no impact on their daily life. |
No where did I mention this. It's a straw man argument.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But I'm in the extreme on this one. I don't think any one person should be allowed to have billions. As was mentioned... did they really do a billion dollars worth of work? No. Not all rich people are hard working, and even if they are, the hard work doesn't equal the amount of money they are making. |
According to you. Why shouldn't they get paid commensurate to how the company performs?
Originally posted by escapetooz:
After visiting places like Haiti and the DR it's laughable to come back to the states and see billionaires whining about poor people taking advantage. They need a good dose of a reality check. |
I'm not complaining about being taken advantaged of, I'm complaining about being used as a scapegoat because I work hard and earn more money. Fix inefficiencies in the system first, curtail useless spending second, then maybe come asking for more taxes after that. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:13:26 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not blaming you, but it's soooo hard to compare these numbers (and it gets done all the time). Nobody in the middle class actually pays 25% of their income in tax. |
I was referring to Ryan's budget, where deductions and loopholes are eliminated and people actually do pay that rate or close to it. |
Ok. I'm not aware of his budget, but I still think my points would hold (which didn't take any loopholes or deductions into account). Under Ryan's plan, if the 15% vs. 25% bracket starts at $35,000, does someone making $34,999 pay 15% tax on his whole income and someone making $35,001 pay 25% tax on his whole income? I'm guessing this is not the case (and if it were we'd see a lot of creative paychecks). |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:28:27 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Cory:
I was not aware that the US economy relied so heavily upon Apple.
Frankly, this argument is bullshit, and you both know it. Nothing is at all this clear cut, and China does not own, or support the US. |
This was one anecdotal example. Not a measure for the entire economy. We all know this kind of stuff is happening right now all over the world.
And excuse me, China doesn't support the US?
"In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy." |
Nope, that's not supporting. It's partnering with, or investing in, or whatever you may wish to call it, but 8% is not supporting the US... We could very easily live without that 8%, we just have our reasons why it's beneficial... (if you doubt this, go study up on why foreign debt is actually a good thing, as I don't have time to explain that in full)... |
And by that logic if you get federal loans for college, the government isn't supporting you either?
What exactly does support mean to you? |
No, I don't see loans as supporting someone... I see grants as supporting someone. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:30:38 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
This is the frustrating part. Saying the wealthy don't pay enough is seen as a personal attack. First of all I honestly don't know anything about Canadian policies. Second of all the Bush tax cuts are for the top 1% who find all kinds of loopholes to not pay their taxes anyway. |
The frustrating part is people thinking all wealthy people have these magic money hiding cauldrons no one else has access to. Your welcome to come up here and show me these loophole to shelter my money from the government, I'm willing to listen.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The middle and lower class should not pay a HIGHER tax rate than the rich. That just seems like common sense. 30% of a poor persons income could be the difference between a comfortable life and homelessness. 30% for a rich person would make no impact on their daily life. |
No where did I mention this. It's a straw man argument.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
But I'm in the extreme on this one. I don't think any one person should be allowed to have billions. As was mentioned... did they really do a billion dollars worth of work? No. Not all rich people are hard working, and even if they are, the hard work doesn't equal the amount of money they are making. |
According to you. Why shouldn't they get paid commensurate to how the company performs?
Originally posted by escapetooz:
After visiting places like Haiti and the DR it's laughable to come back to the states and see billionaires whining about poor people taking advantage. They need a good dose of a reality check. |
I'm not complaining about being taken advantaged of, I'm complaining about being used as a scapegoat because I work hard and earn more money. Fix inefficiencies in the system first, curtail useless spending second, then maybe come asking for more taxes after that. |
This is what I mean. Was I talking about YOU? I'm sorry if you are a billionaire heading up a major corporation, then maybe I was. Otherwise STOP taking what I said personally because you're probably not that rich.
Do companies get billions for how they "perform"? Guess that depends on who is grading the performance. If undercutting foreign and domestic employees, destroying the environment, and bullying companies smaller than you is "performing" then no they shouldn't get paid for that kind of performance.
ETA: The rich people I'm referring to fight to keep and further the inefficiencies in the system. Monsanto would be a big example. They have their hands all over the US government and are making earning a decent wage harder and harder for small farmers, not to mention getting the ruling pushed through that made it possible to patent live things which has opened up a whole terrible can of worms.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 13:36:17. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:31:57 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Cory:
No, I don't see loans as supporting someone... I see grants as supporting someone. |
Can we make that distinction since we'll probably never pay China back? :P Is it really a "loan" in that case?
And I disagree that it's not support. Support implies you need the help. Whether you pay it back or not, it's still helping you when you need it, it's still support. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:36:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Cory:
No, I don't see loans as supporting someone... I see grants as supporting someone. |
Can we make that distinction since we'll probably never pay China back? :P Is it really a "loan" in that case?
And I disagree that it's not support. Support implies you need the help. Whether you pay it back or not, it's still helping you when you need it, it's still support. |
Ah, but again, you should try to get a more complete understanding of the entire effect that foreign investment has... It's not really that we need the money, same as I don't need my credit card, but I make almost every purchase with it because there are benefits to doing so.
Of course, I do think we'll pay China back, and they do too, or they wouldn't be investing. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:39:17 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
This is what I mean. Was I talking about YOU? I'm sorry if you are a billionaire heading up a major corporation, then maybe I was. Otherwise STOP taking what I said personally because you're probably not that rich. |
I'm not taking it personally, but where are you drawing the line? The mechanisms where I can shelter my income are the exact same for someone in the top 0.1%, or 0.01%, or 50%, it's all the same. I don't see why we should ostracize only the people at the very top. Seems rather selective if you ask me.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Do companies get billions for how they "perform"? |
They kind of do, it's called net profit.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Guess that depends on who is grading the performance. If undercutting foreign and domestic employees, destroying the environment, and bullying companies smaller than you is "performing" then no they shouldn't get paid for that kind of performance. |
Do you always paint everything with such a broad brush? I know it makes better sound bites but it's far from reality. Not all billion dollar companies ravage the people and environment they utilize.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 13:43:30. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:40:42 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Of course, I do think we'll pay China back, and they do too, or they wouldn't be investing. |
The market thinks so also else the spread would be huge and interest rates on US bonds would sky rocket. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:45:42 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
This is what I mean. Was I talking about YOU? I'm sorry if you are a billionaire heading up a major corporation, then maybe I was. Otherwise STOP taking what I said personally because you're probably not that rich. |
I'm not taking it personally, but where are you drawing the line? The mechanisms where I can shelter my income are the exact same for someone in the top 0.1%, or 0.01%, or 50%, it's all the same. I don't see why we should ostracize only the people at the very top. Seems rather selective if you ask me.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Do companies get billions for how they "perform"? Guess that depends on who is grading the performance. If undercutting foreign and domestic employees, destroying the environment, and bullying companies smaller than you is "performing" then no they shouldn't get paid for that kind of performance. |
Do you always paint everything with such a broad brush? I know it makes better sound bites but it's far from reality. Not all billion dollar companies ravage the people and environment they utilize. |
Did I say all? But you can bet the ones that do that are the main ones that will be taking advantage of tax loopholes. Sadly, it's probably much more than you think and I don't think I'm painting things that broadly. You don't have to be dumping toxic waste to ravage the environment. All fast food companies harm the environment. How many companies does that alone bring the count up to?
That is the nature of monocrops and factory farming. It's not sustainable and it's not good for the environment, even if it is just corn. Corn strips the soil of nutrients and eventually leaves vast wastelands, not to mention all the native life and vegetation that had to be killed to create the fields in the first place.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 13:51:33. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:49:41 PM · #62 |
Ah. We missed the initial query about whether Mormon and Catholic candidates will be considered Christians.
But I will say that my ideal candidate will support the following:
Flat tax on all income for all. Capital gains included. And a national sales tax so even drug lords contribute. (They buy things.)
All people wishing to get a driver's license MUST ride a bike in traffic, following the rules, as part of their test.
More bike lanes.
Support for care and feeding of national parks. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:54:28 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Ah. We missed the initial query about whether Mormon and Catholic candidates will be considered Christians.
But I will say that my ideal candidate will support the following:
Flat tax on all income for all. Capital gains included. And a national sales tax so even drug lords contribute. (They buy things.)
All people wishing to get a driver's license MUST ride a bike in traffic, following the rules, as part of their test.
More bike lanes.
Support for care and feeding of national parks. |
Add to that a significant prisoner reduction program, and legalize & tax marijuana, since those are both pretty darn common-sense measures that will make a big difference as well, both by adding economic output, and by decreasing costs related to housing and feeding pot smokers.
ETA: Given the choice, I would much rather vote for an atheist than a catholic or mormon. Since both of the religions rely upon the ability to suspend critical thinking and operate upon feeling and beliefs alone- about the last thing you want a president doing.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 13:56:02. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:56:53 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ok. I'm not aware of his budget, but I still think my points would hold (which didn't take any loopholes or deductions into account). Under Ryan's plan, if the 15% vs. 25% bracket starts at $35,000, does someone making $34,999 pay 15% tax on his whole income and someone making $35,001 pay 25% tax on his whole income? I'm guessing this is not the case (and if it were we'd see a lot of creative paychecks). |
It's 10% and 25%, and for his plan to be anything other than total fiction, that would HAVE to be the case. Since most economists, the CBO and non-partisan tax centers say it IS fiction (and Romney's plan fares no better), let's just simplify here. Ryan's 2010 plan said that capital gains should be taxed at nothing while the poor and middle class should pay something. The new approach drops specifics in favor of a 'everybody should pay some rate and the capital gains rate should be lower than whatever that rate is' policy. Is this reasonable?
Mitt Romney made $21.7 million in 2010ΓΆ€“ all of it from capital gains, dividends and interest. He won't release tax returns before 2010 for a very practical reason. The economic collapse of 2008 and 2009 produced huge investment losses that would have offset his already low tax rate to somewhere between outrageous and zero. While unsurprisingly legal, such a revelation would be political suicide.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 14:00:22. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 01:57:08 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
... getting the ruling pushed through that made it possible to patent live things which has opened up a whole terrible can of worms. |
And you can bet they've applied for a patent on the worms ...
Originally posted by escapetooz:
That is the nature of monocrops and factory farming. It's not sustainable and it's not good for the environment, even if it is just corn. Corn strips the soil of nutrients and eventually leaves vast wastelands, not to mention all the native life and vegetation that had to be killed to create the fields in the first place. |
That GMO corn has stronger/tougher stalks, so now the post-harvest field stubble is chewing up $500 tractor tires at about five times the normal rate ...
ETA: Note that the IRS defines capital gains as "unearned income" -- I am curious as to what moral (or other) basis or justification there is for taxing "unearned" income at half the rate of those who "earn" their (almost always substantially lower) incomes. It is clear that those monies are not being used to create jobs or to stimulate the economy in any way other than to manipulate financial transactions to as to increase accumulated wealth. It makes a joke of the whole supposed American ethos of "work hard and you'll get ahead" -- the trick really seems to be to choose wealthy parents, and to develop (or hire) the ability to accurately guess whether other people will want to buy or sell stock at some specified price (otherwise known as "technical trading").
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 14:06:49. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:01:28 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Monsanto would be a big example. They have their hands all over the US government and are making earning a decent wage harder and harder for small farmers, not to mention getting the ruling pushed through that made it possible to patent live things which has opened up a whole terrible can of worms. |
That wasn't Monsanto, but GE in the 1980 case Diamond vs. Chakrabarty.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 14:02:37. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:04:23 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's 10% and 25%, and for his plan to be anything other than total fiction, that would HAVE to be the case. Since most economists, the CBO and non-partisan tax centers say it IS fiction (and Romney's plan fares no better), let's just simplify here. Ryan's 2010 plan said that capital gains should be taxed at nothing while the poor and middle class should pay something. The new approach drops specifics in favor of "everybody should pay some rate and the capital gains rate should be lower than whatever that rate is." Is this reasonable?
Mitt Romney made $21.7 million in 2010ΓΆ€“ all of it from capital gains, dividends and interest. He won't release tax returns before 2010 for a very practical reason. The economic collapse of 2008 and 2009 produced huge investment losses that would have reduced his already low tax rate to somewhere between outrageous and zero. While unsurprisingly legal, such a revelation would be political suicide. |
I guess first you need to just stop talking about the old Ryan plan. It's gone and defunct and history and so only confuses the conversation. As far as your quote about everybody paying some rate and capital gains should be lower, the devil is completely in the details. If the application is literally exactly as you said? No, not reasonable. But, because of the math I just pointed out, I doubt that's the actual case. Here's my only point (and it can be entirely consistent with your own point), be very careful when throwing % rates out and ask if you are comparing rates that are real (ie. there are no deductions and it is on the entire amount considered) versus not-real (ie. deductions apply and the rate is stepped up).
It sounds great to throw out that the rich will pay 15% and the middle class will pay 25%, but it's only a liberal talking point and I chafe at both liberal and conservative spin. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:23:25 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds great to throw out that the rich will pay 15% and the middle class will pay 25%... |
The *CURRENT* Ryan plan sets rates at 10% and 25% while eliminating deductions and loopholes. He doesn't specify which deductions and loopholes, but it would basically have to be ALL of them (plus higher rates on the middle class) for the plan to work. You can check my math, but the current 15% capital gains rate is a lower number than 25% with no deductions or loopholes. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:31:36 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Monsanto would be a big example. They have their hands all over the US government and are making earning a decent wage harder and harder for small farmers, not to mention getting the ruling pushed through that made it possible to patent live things which has opened up a whole terrible can of worms. |
That wasn't Monsanto, but GE in the 1980 case Diamond vs. Chakrabarty. |
So it was. In any case Monsanto was one of the great benefactors of the ruling. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:44:14 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Ah. We missed the initial query about whether Mormon and Catholic candidates will be considered Christians.
But I will say that my ideal candidate will support the following:
Flat tax on all income for all. Capital gains included. And a national sales tax so even drug lords contribute. (They buy things.)
All people wishing to get a driver's license MUST ride a bike in traffic, following the rules, as part of their test.
More bike lanes.
Support for care and feeding of national parks. |
add working welfare, if we are going to give money away, make them work for it. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 02:53:05 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Ah. We missed the initial query about whether Mormon and Catholic candidates will be considered Christians.
But I will say that my ideal candidate will support the following:
Flat tax on all income for all. Capital gains included. And a national sales tax so even drug lords contribute. (They buy things.)
All people wishing to get a driver's license MUST ride a bike in traffic, following the rules, as part of their test.
More bike lanes.
Support for care and feeding of national parks. |
add working welfare, if we are going to give money away, make them work for it. |
If they are disabled or mentally impaired and can't work?
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 14:53:14. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 03:03:43 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds great to throw out that the rich will pay 15% and the middle class will pay 25%... |
The *CURRENT* Ryan plan sets rates at 10% and 25% while eliminating deductions and loopholes. He doesn't specify which deductions and loopholes, but it would basically have to be ALL of them (plus higher rates on the middle class) for the plan to work. You can check my math, but the current 15% capital gains rate is a lower number than 25% with no deductions or loopholes. |
Hmmm. I'm not sure how to get you to see what I'm talking about. The reality is that "25% with no deductions or loopholes" is still not 25%. it will be a lower effective rate. The stepped nature of our tax code does not qualify as a deduction or a loophole. This would never be changed because without it you might have a large difference in your tax bill with an unlucky additional $1 in income. Maybe you can help me by linking a source for info about Ryan's current tax plan? |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 03:16:00 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
If they are disabled or mentally impaired and can't work? |
they cant do any work?
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 15:16:43. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 03:26:47 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
If they are disabled or mentally impaired and can't work? |
they cant do any work? |
To my knowledge you are not allowed to work on disability or you can lose your benefits, but I just briefly looked it up and apparently there are some ways you can do both. I'm not sure what the rules are.
Not to mention single moms who pay practically as much in child care as they make working. It makes no sense to subsidize child care and not subsidize child rearing to me. Why have a middle man? Why give the mom money to pay someone else to watch her kids if she'd rather take that money and watch them herself? They do this in some European countries. It's called investing in your people.
Message edited by author 2012-08-15 15:27:21. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 03:49:45 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Why have a middle man? Why give the mom money to pay someone else to watch her kids if she'd rather take that money and watch them herself? |
Well, for this there is a possible rationale for this in that it creates another job -- the child-care worker is going to need to work somewhere.
It's all just a shell game anyway, with people paying each other for goods and sevices and passing the money around, with the investors/owners and financial institutions skimming a percentage off the top. |
|
