Radical Changes to save the economy

[WTF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Mar 1 2009, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Put a name on a pig and it is still a pig.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (usetacould @ Mar 1 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

No, it is you who don&#39;t understand. We want less federal government as it was intended by the constitution, and the liberal out of our wallet.[/b]

You are now talking about a entirely different subject but one that you two still need to understand the difference in Regressive taxes and Progressive to rationally discuss. Maybe this will help.



http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html

Progressive taxes (such as income taxes) pay mostly for Rich Boy toys: Desert Storm, Cold War, gunboat diplomacy, the Fed&#39;s infinite labor pool (WANTED: unemployment) and any related poverty, NAFTA, GAT, free trade agreements, interstate freeways, National Parks, FBI, CIA, a hot-shot standing military, etc. And regressive taxes: (mostly local sales taxes and fees) go for Poor Boy toys: local roads, hospitals, schools, local parks, libraries, cops, city/county councils, fire fighting, etc.

If "toys" sounds too flippant, feel free to swap with a term that rings true for you, such as "tools of the trade", or "economic infrastructures."

To oversimplify a bit, a carpenter does not require the Rich Boy toys, and the CEO of GM does not require the Poor Boy toys. And progressive (mostly federal income) taxes soak the rich, regressive (mostly local sales) taxes soak the poor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT TO DISCUSS TAXES. It is why Republicans want to ONLY discuss Income Taxes. It is an incomplete discussion, one that hides their Soak the Poor agenda. Discussing REGRESSIVE taxes are as Paul Harvey would say "And Now for the rest of the story" God rest his soul.

[Dagny D.E.W.]

comments moved to my fav political site... back to just providing here...

[WTF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dagny D.E.W. @ Mar 2 2009, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

All I know is that this country is soon going to be looking like the America written about in Atlas Shrugged. And that is just a damn shame.

What about the Laffer Curve that says no matter what the tax rates are, the government gets 17% of GDP? If that is true and I believe it is, then the DAMN government can just back off and put taxes at 17% and let the PEOPLE keep what they earn w/o taxing it 3 different ways from Sunday and spitting nails because someone wants to pass his inheritance to his children. IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY, he earned it, he should be able to pass it to a dog if that is what he wants w/o another damn tax on it.[/b]

I shot John Galt

http://ask.metafilter.com/75897/I-shot-John-Galt

Read this link if you want some recommendations on how to clear your mind of that Ayn Rand drivel.


People seem to have about as much grasp of the Laffer Curve like they do Progressive/Regressive taxes. The Laffer Curve only states that there is a certain tax rate that you will obtain peak tax reciepts. He never stated what that number was as is is impossible to say given all the variables.

What some fail to understand is that if you had a tax rate of 1% your tax receipts would not be enough to pay for a dirt interstate highway, much less a missile defense system, more like a couple of bottle rockets. And we all know how scared those on the right are of the bogey man.....good lord they&#39;d give their first born to the government to &#39;feel&#39; a little safer before thay actually want to pay taxes for all the feel good shit they want.

[Guest 121818-1]

I know the difference between how people label taxes as "progressive" and "regressive" and I understand the issues with both.

I also understand that you cant operate a government based on the least of the tax payers even though those are the ones tha "tax" the government more so than others.

I think, which equates to my opinion and not based on what some high thinking person of the want for curing all social ills that everyone has an obligation to pay some sort of tax. Generally speaking when we discuss taxes here for the most part we are discussing income tax and not all of the other convolutions of taxes both exposed and hidden. I could complain about the taxes that I pay that others do not pay such as the hunting tax or the fishing tax and so forth but we have been over that many times and made lists of them but those are realtively small potatoes compared to income tax.
We all know that just about everyone pays some tax in one form or another..

My question is what happens if we all decided to become wage earners? Who is going to pay the wages? What would happen if the people that work longer hours without a wage but only make a living off of the rpofit they generate decided they had enough? Who would provide the jobs for the wage earners? What is the point of working longer hours and rsking what you make if the government is going to take so much of your earnings that you have little more than the average wage earner?

You can state that the tax rates at one time were much higher but in that time there were all sorts of ways to reduce the rate through deductions and such that are gone for the higher incomes.

I would suppose that for some the American Dream is to have a job, transportation, and own their own home but this isnt what I invision the American dream to be. The American dream to me is that and so much more. This used to be considered the land of opportunity and I still think that most peole judging by their desire to get here by any means possible think that too. The American dream is the prospect of unlimited opportunity and it is or was up to you to reach as high as possible and achuieve the most that you can and become wealthy. I can remeber when the goal was to become a millionaire or more.

Has it now become the goal of the government to squash the ambition of people to make them accept that they have no right to the achievements that they worked so hard for? Have we as a people become so dependent on the government that we accept that the must take more and more of our earnings and redistribute those earnings to others that have no desire to better themselves or to reach for the highest rung? So some would think that we should blindly acept the government taking from the ones that have achieved success and give to those that dont want to spend the time or take a risk to become something more than the average wage earner.

Why cant we say enough is enough and put our government on the monetary diet that has been far to long overdue?
Sure there are things that our governemtn needs and is obligated to do and it is spelled out in the Constitution which established a republic of states and a small federal government. We need to get back to that concept and stop expecting the federal government to be all things to all people.

[WTF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Mar 2 2009, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

. . .that everyone has an obligation to pay some sort of tax.. . .

. . . Generally speaking when we discuss taxes here for the most part are realtively small potatoes compared to income tax. . .

. . .We all know that just about everyone pays some tax in one form or another..[/b]

2Dogs.....Everyone pays some sort of tax. Next generally speaking if you only discuss Income taxes than you are just addressing the tax that takes the largest bite out of high wage earners. It is not a true discussion about taxes. Regressive user fee&#39;s and sale&#39;s tax&#39;s take a larger bite out of low wage earners. Those people think that their taxes are also to high....a person renewing his car registration and has to pay what ever the fee is (See I make good money and do not even pay attention to that small fry fee) thinks that it is way to high. Why? Because of how little he makes that fee is a big dent in his budget! It is just a drop in the bucket to you and I.

There are all kinds of things that are unfair...shit I do not have kids yet I paid 11k to HISD last year. Plus every swinging dick gets like a 1k deduction for each kid they have. What is fair about that? Yet you do not hear me bitching....I live in the community and do not want to see a bunch of dumbass&#39;s growing up around me.

That is why we pay taxes.....hell if they had to be fair before we paid them then nobody would have to pay. You think I want my tax money going to some Defense Contractor making a killing off killing by way of government contracts?




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Mar 2 2009, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

My question is what happens if we all decided to become wage earners? Who is going to pay the wages? What would happen if the people that work longer hours without a wage but only make a living off of the rpofit they generate decided they had enough? Who would provide the jobs for the wage earners? What is the point of working longer hours and rsking what you make if the government is going to take so much of your earnings that you have little more than the average wage earner?[/b]

It will not happen....there will always be somebody that will want to own a company. Always. You might as well &#39;&#39;what if&#39;&#39; about free pussy! Might be fun to talk about but no can do . Ain&#39;t go&#39;n happen. You always have the choice of selling your company and becoming one of those wage earners. That really does not seem like your style but it is your choice.

[WTF]

Here was the article I was looking for.....it shows what different wage earners pay in marginal tax rates.



http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes...lTaxRate40.aspx


Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn&#39;t be a waste of time.

Well, two researchers did it.

In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%

[Dagny D.E.W.]

comments moved to my fav political site... back to just providing here...

[WTF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dagny D.E.W. @ Mar 4 2009, 02:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

sounds like slavery to me.

the FairTax would be fair to all.

and we would not have to have all these discussions about repressive/progressive, what and who and when and we could instead be spending our time hobbying.[/b]

To understand the Fair tax bs you have to understand that it has similiar Progressive and Regressive features. As somebody said earlier, you can dress up a pig but it&#39;s still a pig.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

The effective tax rate for a family household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates. The rebates would have the greatest effect at low spending levels, where they could lower a household&#39;s effective rate to zero or a negative rate.[31] At higher spending levels, the rebate has less effect, and a household&#39;s effective tax rate would approach 23 percent of total spending. For example, a household of three persons spending $30,000 a year on taxable items would devote about 6 percent of total spending to the FairTax after the rebate. A household spending $125,000 on taxable items would spend around 19 percent on the FairTax.[4] The lowest effective tax rate under the FairTax could be negative due to the rebate. This could occur when a household spends less and pays less in taxes than the average poverty level spending for a similar household size. The household&#39;s rebate would exceed actual taxes paid by that household. Buying or otherwise receiving used items can also contribute towards a lower rate. The total amount of spending and the proportion of spending allocated to taxable items would determine a household&#39;s effective tax rate.[31]

[metal_head]

Just as an FYI, wikipedia is a good source for quick info, but not always a reliable source.

[WTF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (metal_head @ Mar 5 2009, 01:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Just as an FYI, wikipedia is a good source for quick info, but not always a reliable source.[/b]

True but that is why it is important to take a peak at the footnoted sources. The so called Fair Tax is part Regressive and Progressive. What it really is is a tax simplifacition. That in and of itself is not a bad ideal. Get rid of all the bs deductions and we could lower the rate right there. Of course Charity centers would raise bloody hell as would home owners.......well you get the picture, everyone thinks their cause is worth a tax deduction.

[Gnadfly]

Where&#39;s My Check, Mr. Man? We can&#39;t live on hope alone.

[WTF]

No CHECKS for whiners


How &#39;bout some cheese?

[AlexisSoftTouch]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WTF @ Mar 5 2009, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

No CHECKS for whiners


How &#39;bout some cheese?[/b]

Only if it is Velveeta, that government kind don&#39;t stick like Velveeta, nor melt as well.

[Guest 121818-1]

Wikipedia is a great start for first graders needing some basic information that is as reliable as what his buddy Bobby told him in the restroom.

[WTF]

That is why I supplied Wikipedia for ya&#39;ll! lol If that is to hard to understand let me know and I&#39;ll do color by number Fair Tax info. LOL

Every form of Fair Tax has that feature built in .....what the Fair Tax tries to do is SIMPLIFY the tax code. That include&#39;s NOT having a tax deduction for homes and Charity. Things most will not go for.