Acting on behalf of the people

[gbpfan1231]

For starters, according to this article, I believe it is 26% who don't want to tax them higher, so you've got that backwards.

 

As for the Health Care bill. Again, I think you're morphing numbers. I do believe over half wanted them to do something. Then, in an effort to please everyone, including the insurance companies, we ended up with this Frankenmess that everyone hates. That's just Washington being Washington, and it's happened through the ages. The tax thing is more cut and dry.

 

As for your last bit (which, btw, was a bit confusing because, based on missing "n't"s, I'm not sure what you thought was stupid and what you didn't). Regardless. Let's look at Payback. So, let's assume that the business in question is operating at a profit level so that every penny of additional profit would be taxed at 38% rather than 35%. So, you're saying this stove I buy is going to put an extra $1000 into my pocket come year's end if taxes remain what they are. That means the stove generates $1538 in pre-tax profits. Well, guess what, that means the stove is going to put about $954 in my pocket if the taxes go up. That's $46. Not enough to sway the equation either way and a much, much smaller spread than your $1000 to $250. Though I must admit, yours does help your point more.

 

As for your promotion. Let's say you're making $240K. Living safely in below the "rich line" with all of us hateful poor folks. Then you get a fat raise of $50K. Oh no! You just got shot up into the next tax bracket! There goes all your money, right? Wrong. All the money you used to make, plus the 10K that pushes you up to the next level still gets taxed at the exact same rate you've been paying. Then, the next 40 gets taxed at a higher rate. I'm not going to bother actually doing the calculation. However, I can assure you that you will be better off for having gotten that raise.

 

Also, you keep bringing up, "blame the rich". Where have I implied any ill-will towards them?

You make good points - you usually do.

 

Sounds like the answer should have been to end the tax cuts for ALL people then - it seems like the tax rate makes no difference. (yes that was tongue in cheek somewhat but a lot of what you wrote implies that).

 

It still comes down to income redistribution by letting some end and not others.

[TimC]

Two wars...the worst economic crisis (probably worse than the Depression but we didn't defer the Depression)...record deficits...why not cut taxes?

 

Screw it, our children and grandchildren will pay for all this. As long as it doesn't hurt us as much today. Just more proof that the human species is one filthy disgusting animal.

[detlef]

You make good points - you usually do.

 

Sounds like the answer should have been to end the tax cuts for ALL people then - it seems like the tax rate makes no difference. (yes that was tongue in cheek somewhat but a lot of what you wrote implies that).

 

It still comes down to income redistribution by letting some end and not others.

Well, what about this? Who's to say where the marginal rates should have been all along? Maybe the "right" rates should have been 38% for the top bracket and the bottom ones where they are. I mean, assuming that we're going to have progressive structure to begin with, that is (and I'm not convinced we should). Maybe Bush got it mostly right when he lowered the bottom ones but just brought his buddies at the top along for the ride.

 

However, the main argument against letting them all expire is the amount of money that will take out of the consumer engine. Again, every single red cent that the poorest bracket earns (and doesn't get taxed on) is immediately put back into the mix. As you move up the ladder, less and less gets spent. And that's the thing, we can't afford to pay off the debt via tax revenues if that comes at the expense of consumer spending, because we need people to keep buying things. And the only bracket that will almost assuredly spend exactly as much as they currently do is the top bracket. People who bring home far more than they "need". Tom Brady is going to buy whatever the hell he wants to buy this year and next, regardless of whether he's getting taxed at 38% or 35%.

 

And, again, I'm not saying this happens at 250K. In fact, I'm quite on record in previous threads as saying that might not be the spot. But there certainly is a threshold at which this happens. I'm not going to pretend to know where that is, but anyone who says that threshold does not exist is a fool. And if we need to raise more tax dollars, that's the safest place to find it.

Edited December 7, 2010 by detlef

[Ursa Majoris]

Well, what about this? Who's to say where the marginal rates should have been all along? Maybe the "right" rates should have been 38% for the top bracket and the bottom ones where they are. I mean, assuming that we're going to have progressive structure to begin with, that is (and I'm not convinced we should). Maybe Bush got it mostly right when he lowered the bottom ones but just brought his buddies at the top along for the ride.

 

However, the main argument against letting them all expire is the amount of money that will take out of the consumer engine. Again, every single red cent that the poorest bracket earns (and doesn't get taxed on) is immediately put back into the mix. As you move up the ladder, less and less gets spent. And that's the thing, we can't afford to pay off the debt via tax revenues if that comes at the expense of consumer spending, because we need people to keep buying things. And the only bracket that will almost assuredly spend exactly as much as they currently do is the top bracket. People who bring home far more than they "need". Tom Brady is going to buy whatever the hell he wants to buy this year and next, regardless of whether he's getting taxed at 38% or 35%.

 

And, again, I'm not saying this happens at 250K. In fact, I'm quite on record in previous threads as saying that might not be the spot. But there certainly is a threshold at which this happens. I'm not going to pretend to know where that is, but anyone who says that threshold does not exist is a fool. And if we need to raise more tax dollars, that's the safest place to find it.

I think you make very valid points, especially as regards the actual rates and their relationship to each other. What is happening right now is everyone thrashing around trying to find ways to have everyone else pay the piper for the excesses we have all contributed to.

 

Rather than just expire the tax rates, a solution I didn't see anywhere would have been to raise them for everyone but at a graduated rate, say add 1% to the bottom rate, 1.5% to the next and so on.

[redrumjuice]

Rather than just expire the tax rates, a solution I didn't see anywhere would have been to raise them for everyone but at a graduated rate, say add 1% to the bottom rate, 1.5% to the next and so on.

 

You are focusing on raising taxes and totally ignoring the real problem.

 

If we did a balance sheet, you could tax us all at 100% and we would still be in the red.

 

We don't need higher taxes, we need fundamental changes to the way the system is rigged to increase costs, and expanding gov't.

 

Until you do that, these stupid tax hike arguments are just that, stupid.

[Savage Beatings]

I dunno. I think the average American person is getting exactly what they want - either benefits, or tax cuts, or both. Sure, its idiotic long term. But that's to be expected from a nation of idiots.

 

Nobody will be getting a tax cut. Our rates will simply stay the same.

 

 

You are focusing on raising taxes and totally ignoring the real problem.

 

If we did a balance sheet, you could tax us all at 100% and we would still be in the red.

 

We don't need higher taxes, we need fundamental changes to the way the system is rigged to increase costs, and expanding gov't.

 

Until you do that, these stupid tax hike arguments are just that, stupid.

 

Totally agree. Everyone seems to have only one focus; raising more revenue for the government... but at the same time the government continues to spend and expand at an alarming rate. Revenue simply can't keep up.

[untateve]

Nobody will be getting a tax cut. Our rates will simply stay the same.

 

 

 

 

Totally agree. Everyone seems to have only one focus; raising more revenue for the government... but at the same time the government continues to spend and expand at an alarming rate. Revenue simply can't keep up.

 

But I want what I want and I don't want to pay for it. And if you tell me I can't have it that way, I'm not going to vote for you.

 

And, of course, politicians care more about power and re-election than actual leadership.

[TimC]

You are focusing on raising taxes and totally ignoring the real problem.

 

If we did a balance sheet, you could tax us all at 100% and we would still be in the red.

 

We don't need higher taxes, we need fundamental changes to the way the system is rigged to increase costs, and expanding gov't.

 

Until you do that, these stupid tax hike arguments are just that, stupid.

 

Simmah down. They are busy planning our Socialistic Utopia they are creating for us. Just remember everything is "free" there.

[cre8tiff]

I am disgusted that the unemployed were being held hostage for the rich, and that some, if not most of them were trusting enough to vote their captors into office in the first place. I think if the moderates weren't dead before , they certainly will be now.

 

Disgusting. I like Obama and think he means right, but giving in to this is not far from negotiating with terrorists. .

[evil_gop_liars]

but at the same time the government continues to spend and expand at an alarming rate. Revenue simply can't keep up.

 

What exactly are we spending and expanding on?

[redrumjuice]

What exactly are we spending and expanding on?

 

How can you even pretend this is a serious question.

[Square]

How can you even pretend this is a serious question.

Well, we all know you are about being serious.

[redrumjuice]

am disgusted that the unemployed were being held hostage

 

How long do you pay people not to work? 2 years? 4 years? 10 years? Forever?

[yo mama]

Nobody will be getting a tax cut. Our rates will simply stay the same.

Not true. Workers will get a 2% payroll tax cut under this new bipartisan circle jerk. And you can call it semantics if you want to, but extending a tax cut that was set to expire is effectively the same as a new tax cut.

[redrumjuice]

The total liabilities of the United States government, including future social security and medicare payments that the U.S. government is already committed to pay out, now exceed 65 TRILLION dollars, which is more than the entire GDP of the whole world.

[evil_gop_liars]

The total liabilities of the United States government, including future social security and medicare payments that the U.S. government is already committed to pay out, now exceed 65 TRILLION dollars, which is more than the entire GDP of the whole world.

 

Where do you and AZ sign up for these obscure economic blogs?

 

From the comments

 

Did you know that all the bills you will pay for the next 50 years is more money than you and your neighbors will make THIS year!?!?

 

That's the comparison being made in this article. Kind of silly...

[gbpfan1231]

Well, what about this? Who's to say where the marginal rates should have been all along? Maybe the "right" rates should have been 38% for the top bracket and the bottom ones where they are. I mean, assuming that we're going to have progressive structure to begin with, that is (and I'm not convinced we should). Maybe Bush got it mostly right when he lowered the bottom ones but just brought his buddies at the top along for the ride.

 

However, the main argument against letting them all expire is the amount of money that will take out of the consumer engine. Again, every single red cent that the poorest bracket earns (and doesn't get taxed on) is immediately put back into the mix. As you move up the ladder, less and less gets spent. And that's the thing, we can't afford to pay off the debt via tax revenues if that comes at the expense of consumer spending, because we need people to keep buying things. And the only bracket that will almost assuredly spend exactly as much as they currently do is the top bracket. People who bring home far more than they "need". Tom Brady is going to buy whatever the hell he wants to buy this year and next, regardless of whether he's getting taxed at 38% or 35%.

 

And, again, I'm not saying this happens at 250K. In fact, I'm quite on record in previous threads as saying that might not be the spot. But there certainly is a threshold at which this happens. I'm not going to pretend to know where that is, but anyone who says that threshold does not exist is a fool. And if we need to raise more tax dollars, that's the safest place to find it.

You are right that every cent for the poorest bracket goes back into the mix. I mean they need unlimited texting and the new call of duty game (what else would they do with the 50 inch plasma). Why don't we not end the tax breaks but instead get a list of all these poor souls and we can then take the list of the super rich and just transfer the Directv bills or the AT&T Iphone bills with data package and unlimited texting into the names of the rich so the poor can get stuff for free and the rich pay for it and the money still goes into the economy - winner winner winner

 

I just don't think that all of this money should have to come from the rich for the sake of - well they can afford it and they are not spending it anyway.

 

You seem like a smart dude that probably has a little nest egg - why are you not going to the website that Redrum posted in a different thread and helping the cause you can pay more to the govt if you choose - I mean come on you can afford it so why are you not doing it. If all of the lefties got together and paid some extra it can only help right? I am guessing none of you have done this - why not?

[Ursa Majoris]

I am guessing none of you have done this - why not?

Because we (or at least I) want to see a comprehensive plan that covers both spending AND taxation. You and I both know what you keep poking away at is akin to taking a piss in the Pacific.

[gbpfan1231]

Because we (or at least I) want to see a comprehensive plan that covers both spending AND taxation. You and I both know what you keep poking away at is akin to taking a piss in the Pacific.

I have done that many many times.

 

If I were you though I would throw $10 bucks out to that website for the sole reason to shut my piehole up.

[detlef]

You are right that every cent for the poorest bracket goes back into the mix. I mean they need unlimited texting and the new call of duty game (what else would they do with the 50 inch plasma). Why don't we not end the tax breaks but instead get a list of all these poor souls and we can then take the list of the super rich and just transfer the Directv bills or the AT&T Iphone bills with data package and unlimited texting into the names of the rich so the poor can get stuff for free and the rich pay for it and the money still goes into the economy - winner winner winner

 

I just don't think that all of this money should have to come from the rich for the sake of - well they can afford it and they are not spending it anyway.

 

You seem like a smart dude that probably has a little nest egg - why are you not going to the website that Redrum posted in a different thread and helping the cause you can pay more to the govt if you choose - I mean come on you can afford it so why are you not doing it. If all of the lefties got together and paid some extra it can only help right? I am guessing none of you have done this - why not?

You know, for a guy who keeps crying "class warfare", you sure engage in it a bunch. You'd think I was advocating going into uncharted territories of taxing the highest bracket with how you're carrying on. I mean, the richest brackets have been paying a higher percentage for a long freaking time. And for a lot of that time, the rates maxed out way higher than 38%. But that part that is particularly annoying is your bit about the rich paying for everyone's video games. Dude, why don't you try and make a point that doesn't require gross exaggeration? That's what I do for you.

 

I concede that 250K may not be the number

I actually try to discuss the actual implications in real numbers (like the whole payback issue with the stove)

I make it very clear that I do not intend to make claims about things I don't know (like where the top bracket should be)

I've conceded that it is not a savory notion to tax anyone more than someone else. That it's not "fair". But then you make it sound like the entire progressive tax bracket structure is my idea and that I'm out to screw the rich.

 

Why can't you return the favor?

 

I say that it is not a bad thing to get a raise even if the highest tax bracket goes up. You say that's stupid, without explaining why, and then I have to show you, with plain math why it is.

 

We'd get a lot further here if both of us were actually making an effort to not distort arguments.

 

Listen, I'm not saying we just keep going after the rich because we can. I've actually pointed out why it makes sense for them to do so. From the fact that much of it literally gets spent on them to the fact that every penny that goes to the bottom gets used to buy things that they sell. Again, the money doesn't disappear, it all ends up in the system. And history shows that it all ends up back at the top. So, it basically works. Now, I agree that there's likely a better way that would not involve the red tape that the Fed inflicts upon people. But right now we need to do two things. Spend less and take the pressure off the deficit with some quick cash.

 

So, while we're figuring out how to whittle down the gov't, this doesn't seem like a bad place to go looking. And, again, it's not like it's a place we haven't looked, and found it before.

 

And, why do I give to the charities of my choosing and not extra to the Gov't? Because I'm like everyone else, I don't agree with everything they spend it on and I'm going to give as much, but no more than they tell me I have to give. You hate giving your money to some poor dude so he can buy an iPhone. I hate paying for wars we should have never gotten into. Taxes suck. They suck for me and they suck for everyone. I pay more than some and I pay less than some. I don't know why I have to throw more of my money into the pot just because I realize that raising the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket would be an effective way to raise tax revenue without hurting the economy.

[bpwallace49]

You know, for a guy who keeps crying "class warfare", you sure engage in it a bunch. You'd think I was advocating going into uncharted territories of taxing the highest bracket with how you're carrying on. I mean, the richest brackets have been paying a higher percentage for a long freaking time. And for a lot of that time, the rates maxed out way higher than 38%. But that part that is particularly annoying is your bit about the rich paying for everyone's video games. Dude, why don't you try and make a point that doesn't require gross exaggeration? That's what I do for you.

 

I concede that 250K may not be the number

I actually try to discuss the actual implications in real numbers (like the whole payback issue with the stove)

I make it very clear that I do not intend to make claims about things I don't know (like where the top bracket should be)

I've conceded that it is not a savory notion to tax anyone more than someone else. That it's not "fair". But then you make it sound like the entire progressive tax bracket structure is my idea and that I'm out to screw the rich.

 

Why can't you return the favor?

 

I say that it is not a bad thing to get a raise even if the highest tax bracket goes up. You say that's stupid, without explaining why, and then I have to show you, with plain math why it is.

 

We'd get a lot further here if both of us were actually making an effort to not distort arguments.

 

Listen, I'm not saying we just keep going after the rich because we can. I've actually pointed out why it makes sense for them to do so. From the fact that much of it literally gets spent on them to the fact that every penny that goes to the bottom gets used to buy things that they sell. Again, the money doesn't disappear, it all ends up in the system. And history shows that it all ends up back at the top. So, it basically works. Now, I agree that there's likely a better way that would not involve the red tape that the Fed inflicts upon people. But right now we need to do two things. Spend less and take the pressure off the deficit with some quick cash.

 

So, while we're figuring out how to whittle down the gov't, this doesn't seem like a bad place to go looking. And, again, it's not like it's a place we haven't looked, and found it before.

 

And, why do I give to the charities of my choosing and not extra to the Gov't? Because I'm like everyone else, I don't agree with everything they spend it on and I'm going to give as much, but no more than they tell me I have to give. You hate giving your money to some poor dude so he can buy an iPhone. I hate paying for wars we should have never gotten into. Taxes suck. They suck for me and they suck for everyone. I pay more than some and I pay less than some. I don't know why I have to throw more of my money into the pot just because I realize that raising the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket would be an effective way to raise tax revenue without hurting the economy.

 

Det . . you have posted many thoughtful and well reasoned entries in this thread. However you should know that the guy you are debating with thinks every poor person on welfare has an iphone, every video game known to mankind, adn chugs red bull and smokes cartons of cigarettes every day. In short, a caricature and exaggeration.

 

Thank you for your concise posts in this thread.

[WaterMan]

Det . . you have posted many thoughtful and well reasoned entries in this thread. However you should know that the guy you are debating with thinks every poor person on welfare has an iphone, every video game known to mankind, adn chugs red bull and smokes cartons of cigarettes every day. In short, a caricature and exaggeration.

 

Thank you for your concise posts in this thread.

 

And even if all the people on welfare had these things, it would be because their rent is low due to all the bullet holes in the walls. But is that the argument now? The CEO in jail who had a yacht against the welfare recipient with a PS3?

Edited December 8, 2010 by WaterMan

[gbpfan1231]

You know, for a guy who keeps crying "class warfare", you sure engage in it a bunch. You'd think I was advocating going into uncharted territories of taxing the highest bracket with how you're carrying on. I mean, the richest brackets have been paying a higher percentage for a long freaking time. And for a lot of that time, the rates maxed out way higher than 38%. But that part that is particularly annoying is your bit about the rich paying for everyone's video games. Dude, why don't you try and make a point that doesn't require gross exaggeration? That's what I do for you.

 

I concede that 250K may not be the number

I actually try to discuss the actual implications in real numbers (like the whole payback issue with the stove)

I make it very clear that I do not intend to make claims about things I don't know (like where the top bracket should be)

I've conceded that it is not a savory notion to tax anyone more than someone else. That it's not "fair". But then you make it sound like the entire progressive tax bracket structure is my idea and that I'm out to screw the rich.

 

Why can't you return the favor?

 

I say that it is not a bad thing to get a raise even if the highest tax bracket goes up. You say that's stupid, without explaining why, and then I have to show you, with plain math why it is.

 

We'd get a lot further here if both of us were actually making an effort to not distort arguments.

 

Listen, I'm not saying we just keep going after the rich because we can. I've actually pointed out why it makes sense for them to do so. From the fact that much of it literally gets spent on them to the fact that every penny that goes to the bottom gets used to buy things that they sell. Again, the money doesn't disappear, it all ends up in the system. And history shows that it all ends up back at the top. So, it basically works. Now, I agree that there's likely a better way that would not involve the red tape that the Fed inflicts upon people. But right now we need to do two things. Spend less and take the pressure off the deficit with some quick cash.

 

So, while we're figuring out how to whittle down the gov't, this doesn't seem like a bad place to go looking. And, again, it's not like it's a place we haven't looked, and found it before.

 

And, why do I give to the charities of my choosing and not extra to the Gov't? Because I'm like everyone else, I don't agree with everything they spend it on and I'm going to give as much, but no more than they tell me I have to give. You hate giving your money to some poor dude so he can buy an iPhone. I hate paying for wars we should have never gotten into. Taxes suck. They suck for me and they suck for everyone. I pay more than some and I pay less than some. I don't know why I have to throw more of my money into the pot just because I realize that raising the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket would be an effective way to raise tax revenue without hurting the economy.

Like I said before and like BP said - you do make great points but where does it stop? I guess I just get too fired up about how crappy our govt is and how it seems this world is crashing down. It just seems the more you do right the more you get hosed - bail out here bail out there.

 

BP is also right that I harp too much on the welfare people having Iphone/red bull/smoking etc. Again I exaggerate here because it sure as hell seems that people are becoming bigger and bigger idiots in this world and those that are the biggest idiots are the ones popping out too many kids they can't afford. I am sure that there are less of these people abusing the system like I harp about but I am also sure there are more that abuse the system than BP thinks. Just open your eyes and see what these people spend money on in WalMart or Best Buy. You do have great stories like that other topic but I just get sick and tired of seeing a ton of money spent on entitlements as it seems like people are just becoming bigger and bigger idiots and it pisses me off when we just keep throwing more money at it.

 

Oh and you will have to quote my post to show BP that I think he is right about my over the top harping on poor people - he has made it public he does not liek me so I am on the dreaded Ignore list. If you are reading this What up BP

[bpwallace49]

And even if all the people on welfare had these things, it would be because their rent is low due to all the bullet holes in the walls. But is that the argument now? The CEO in jail who had a yacht against the welfare recepient with a PS3?

 

Unfortunately that is what people actually think. That everyone on welfare is driving escalades with iphones . . . and in the next breath they say please give the upper 1% of wage earners in the country a tax break.

 

If people have a problem with the 250k cap then fine . . adjust it. But for the love of God the acting that the world will end and all businesses will close if the tax rate is returned to where it was for decades is beyond absurd.

[detlef]

Like I said before and like BP said - you do make great points but where does it stop? I guess I just get too fired up about how crappy our govt is and how it seems this world is crashing down. It just seems the more you do right the more you get hosed - bail out here bail out there.

 

BP is also right that I harp too much on the welfare people having Iphone/red bull/smoking etc. Again I exaggerate here because it sure as hell seems that people are becoming bigger and bigger idiots in this world and those that are the biggest idiots are the ones popping out too many kids they can't afford. I am sure that there are less of these people abusing the system like I harp about but I am also sure there are more that abuse the system than BP thinks. Just open your eyes and see what these people spend money on in WalMart or Best Buy. You do have great stories like that other topic but I just get sick and tired of seeing a ton of money spent on entitlements as it seems like people are just becoming bigger and bigger idiots and it pisses me off when we just keep throwing more money at it.

 

Oh and you will have to quote my post to show BP that I think he is right about my over the top harping on poor people - he has made it public he does not liek me so I am on the dreaded Ignore list. If you are reading this What up BP

I honestly have no idea how rampant the abuse of welfare may be. And, honestly, I don't think that, over the long haul, just handing people money is a very good way to lift them up. To be honest, I think, as a society, we give people just enough to get by so we don't have to trip over their dead bodies or in hopes that one less person will be driven through desperation to rob us at gunpoint. Where you and I likely differ is in our estimation of how much money truly goes wasted or is basically stolen in this regard. At least, how much it adds up to the big picture. Especially when you compare it to how much is squandered in the name of defense (not saying that defense, in and of itself is squandering our money, though I do think we need to play world police much less than we do, but rather in the stories we hear about the massive waste we needlessly incur by our defense department. The numbers are so often in the billions). None the less, this is only sort of about that, because I don't disagree that what we really need to do is spend less. So, that's really a non issue between us.

 

The issue is, "where does it end?" And I think it ends at the wealthiest bracket rolling back to a tax rate no higher (and often far less) than they'd been paying for most of the past century. I don't advocate an all you can eat buffet, just this.