Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The guy making minimum wage gains a *lot* more proportionally. He qualifies for Food Stamps, WIC, housing assistance, medical assistance, and so forth. And he pays ZERO taxes. So on net, he makes out very well. For every dollar he earns, the government pays him more.

The guy taking home $200k benefits proportionally little. Between payroll and income taxes, he's probably given up $100k to the government. There is NO way that he's getting $100k of value of government services, because otherwise, there wouldn't be any money to give to seniors, sick, and poor. On net, he probably pays for 5 people's worth of services.

Anyhow, go ahead and cheer about all the bankers losing their jobs - just don't be surprised when your taxes go up because they aren't able to pay as much as they used to...

You misunderstand. The guy taking home $200,000 isn't taking home $200,000 because he's got some inherent $200,000 worth. He's taking home that money because he's part of economic and social systems that place him in a position to take home $200,000. Sure, he's probably pretty smart and hard working, but without property, contract law and corporate laws, and without everyone else doing their part in the economy he isn't able to earn that money.

Assuming that his take home pay is somehow God given, then jumping up and down and pretending the last step in the system, tax, is somehow the only artificial element is simply false.


Also, your last sentence doesn't apply to me. I've never said I'm happy about the bankers losing their jobs, mostly because I don't really care one way or the other. White collar dudes taking a small hit doesn't seem very relevant compared to blue collar families losing their homes, and small family businesses unable to get loans due to the tightening of credit.

Greebynog wrote:Just thought I'd mention (OT) that the Alzheimers Society in the Uk spend 2% of income on administration, 7% on fundraising and 91% on the cause. I used to work for them and they're damn good at keeping costs down. But, that's an aside.

Yeah, there are some organisations out there that are really efficient. There are plenty that do more than government could ever do in their respective fields, and they do it for less. But they're the exception, because fundraising is, most times, freaking expensive.

dietrich wrote:I lost interest in the Republicans when they went from the 'party of small government' to the 'we just won't make it bigger party'. Smaller government helps everyone.

QFT, The Republican party sold-out the very ideals the party was founded on. They had THE power for six years controlling the legislative and executive branch. They have fought for decades for this and when they finally achieved their goal, what did they do?. They turned into a bunch of whores for the corporate lobbists and sold out.

Very true. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There are two parties: the Washington party (incumbents) and the nonWashington party (wannabe incumbents). After two years in power there's really not much difference. Further, since most of these turkeys are there since the dawn of time (Biden/McCain and well most of them) there's no change regardless, just some shuffling of the chairs.

Jeez next thing you know I'll be voting for Nader again.
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him. Bring Back Teddy! Bring Back Teddy! Bull Moose in '08!

JohnHwangDD wrote:The guy making minimum wage gains a *lot* more proportionally. He qualifies for Food Stamps, WIC, housing assistance, medical assistance, and so forth. And he pays ZERO taxes. So on net, he makes out very well. For every dollar he earns, the government pays him more.

The guy taking home $200k benefits proportionally little. Between payroll and income taxes, he's probably given up $100k to the government. There is NO way that he's getting $100k of value of government services, because otherwise, there wouldn't be any money to give to seniors, sick, and poor. On net, he probably pays for 5 people's worth of services.

Anyhow, go ahead and cheer about all the bankers losing their jobs - just don't be surprised when your taxes go up because they aren't able to pay as much as they used to...

That dude gets missiles, a standing army, roads, a clean water supply, the benefits of subsidized research, education for his children, a stable government, subsidies in the form of tax breaks for his company that allow it to remain competitive in the global market, a coast guard, a retirement benefit, air traffic control for his business trips, airport security for the same, parks to take his children to… Need I go on?

Most importantly, and least thought of, he gets to walk out his door and be relatively assured that when he walks out the door in the morning, he’ll be walking into a normal and polite society that hasn’t descended into anarchy where every man is for himself.

That dude gets missiles, a standing army, roads, a clean water supply, the benefits of subsidized research, education for his children, a stable government, subsidies in the form of tax breaks for his company that allow it to remain competitive in the global market, a coast guard, a retirement benefit, air traffic control for his business trips, airport security for the same, parks to take his children to… Need I go on?

Thats BS, I never got my missiles. I want some missiles and a standing army to do my foul bidding. Where's the mix up?

Most importantly, and least thought of, he gets to walk out his door and be relatively assured that when he walks out the door in the morning, he’ll be walking into a normal and polite society that hasn’t descended into anarchy where every man is for himself.

Not correct. Society can exist without government. We're not having riots and looting in Houston, not because of the governemnt, but because, mayhaps unlike other towns **cough NOLA cough**we're polite (and really really heavily armed).

jfrazell wrote:Incorrect. He wants to tax "the rich" more. I'll believe a tax cut is coming when my dog becomes a vegetarian.

That's just silly and doesn't have anything to do with the conversation. You keep pretending this is about the total level of tax, or something. It's about where the burden lies. When taxes on the rich are raised, the burden on the poor is decreased.

And no, they're won't be a taxcut. Your deficit is horrible, before factoring in the $3 trillion spent in Iraq.

dienekes96 wrote:What if most of money comes from overseas investments? Would I be benefitting more from the infrastructure in place (which is in place for everybody) or from my hard work? Several posters love to assume that rich people are all born rich...that their wealth is inherently "unfair". The data proves otherwise. Most rich citizens were not born that way. Many wealthy citizens were (and if you need to know the difference between rich and wealthy, I can't help you) born wealthy, I admit. But there are a lot more rich people than wealthy. Most of the rich earned that money.

Yeah, but it has nothing to do with what I was saying. I don't think the rich are all heirs and heiresses drawing on trust funds. Most rich folk hail from middle class backgrounds, who worked hard and got a little lucky. I intend on being rich, and when I am I'll be able to recognise that wealth was created by

And they do pay a huge amount in taxes. The top 10% of earners in this country pay over 50% of the taxes, I believe.

It's around 65%, I think. Which is slightly more than most other Western countries, because the top 10% of earners in the US bring in around twice the %

sebster wrote:Those areas are almost ALL areas. See below. That 5-10% is a joke, as what they call admin costs are not what a business would call admin costs. A business would call that salary. There is plenty more waste in the federal government.

You're speculating, and using rhetoric and anecdotes to get there. It's a fairly useless approach.

sebster wrote:Because it's even easier still to keep yelling 'bad, wasteful government' while refusing to introduce practical tax rates.

Of course it's easier. The truth always is.

I work in DC. My wife works on Capitol Hill and I work to support the DoD. The DoD is probably at least in the middle of the pack wrt efficiency in spending their little sliver of the pie.

And it's not efficient at all.

sebster wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Incorrect. He wants to tax "the rich" more. I'll believe a tax cut is coming when my dog becomes a vegetarian.

That's just silly and doesn't have anything to do with the conversation. You keep pretending this is about the total level of tax, or something. It's about where the burden lies. When taxes on the rich are raised, the burden on the poor is decreased.

And no, they're won't be a taxcut. Your deficit is horrible, before factoring in the $3 trillion spent in Iraq.

That on its face is not supportable. One is not tied to the other. unless the budget is balanced you'r just talking rates paid.Obama could easily raise the tax rate on the rich without reducing taxes to anyone else.

Evil Eli wrote:

dietrich wrote:I lost interest in the Republicans when they went from the 'party of small government' to the 'we just won't make it bigger party'. Smaller government helps everyone.

QFT, The Republican party sold-out the very ideals the party was founded on. They had THE power for six years controlling the legislative and executive branch. They have fought for decades for this and when they finally achieved their goal, what did they do?. They turned into a bunch of whores for the corporate lobbists and sold out.

The state of the Republican party is nothing new. They've been pretty much the same since at least Reagan. Their conservative element gained dominance with Goldwater, then Reagan brought in the Christians (who had previously voted in strong numbers for Carter). Since then it's just been a game of blathering about social conservative values and small government, while happily running massive deficits and dismantling the middle class. Their corruption has been pretty obvious for at least two decades, although never as blatant as it currently is.

The Democrats are better, being a collection of infighting do-nothings who have been bought by less insane, less scary private interests.

It amazes me that people in this country vote against their interest - watching exit interviews from the 2004 election made me shake my head. Total idiots who had no idea - "got to stop the gays from marrying" but it doesn't matter if the gov screws up the economy and you don't have a house or a job.

Word brother. Because we all know if gays get any foot hold or are treated like human beings and run countries wars would increase. Yeah, maybe fashion wars that is. It boils down to opium for the masses who cares about real issues. That Palins real perty so I am going to vote fer her. What's really astounding is just how polarized this nation is becoming and I dread any kind of voting fiascoes in this election.

jfrazell wrote:That on its face is not supportable. One is not tied to the other. unless the budget is balanced you'r just talking rates paid.Obama could easily raise the tax rate on the rich without reducing taxes to anyone else.

Every dollar in the deficit is shared out amongst everyone, it's more taxes you will have to raise tomorrow, and right now today it's money drawn away from investment that could be used to create jobs and increase productivity. Increasing taxes on the rich, while changing nothing else reduces the burden of government spending felt by the poor.

But that whole line of argument is irrelevant, because Obama's plan will reduce the taxes paid by people earning less than $150,000. So why you're fixated on the idea of their being an increases in taxes on the rich, and nothing else happening at all is silly.

Again, please cite a time since kennedy when the Democrats have materially reduced income taxes, then I'll believe you that anything will actually be lowered.

Both tax plans are analyzed in detail in the document I just posted. Both of them LOWER taxes overall. Lower than they honestly should be in Obama’s plan, not just in McCain’s plan.

If your entire defense is “Obama’s lying, because Democrats always raise taxes,” just say so.

Right now we can show more proven examples of McCain and Palin lying. Obama’s lied to, but not as often or blatantly. The Republican candidate currently is demonstrably the more deceptive one.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199923

jfrazell wrote:Again, please cite a time since kennedy when the Democrats have materially reduced income taxes, then I'll believe you that anything will actually be lowered.

Yeah, this is pretty much how Republican political debating works, isn't it?

"I've got a tax plan that gives an overall minor tax cut, but is mostly geared around giving a tax break to the working and middle classes, while increasing taxes paid by the wealthy."
"Democrats don't give tax breaks! Don't believe the lies!"
"No really, this is mostly about moving the burden towards the rich, and away from the working and middle classes, who's economic well being hasn't increased since the 70s."
"Not since Kennedy! Lies!"

There's two clever bits in there in the argument you've formed. You've framed the argument strongly in your favour, 'prove to me' is an impossible task that leaves the other side with all the work to do while you just get to keep saying nuhuh and bringing nothing of your own to the table. It's also moved the discussion towards an irrelevant side point, total tax paid under various administrations since Kennedy, assumes that's somehow the determinant of this plan getting up.

Ultimately credit to you, it's a clever piece of rhetoric. I'm guessing its probably coming from O'Reilly, as Hannity isn't that clever. It might be from Rove, but there was nothing in there about fathering black babies or being foreign, so that's unlikely. You could have come up with it yourself though, you seem a fairly cluey guy.

But it really has to be remembered that ultimately it's nothing but empty rhetoric. The issue is simple, Obama's tax plan will move the tax burden away from low income earners and towards people earning more than $150,000.

Mannahnin wrote:Both tax plans are analyzed in detail in the document I just posted. Both of them LOWER taxes overall. Lower than they honestly should be in Obama’s plan, not just in McCain’s plan.

If your entire defense is “Obama’s lying, because Democrats always raise taxes,” just say so.

Right now we can show more proven examples of McCain and Palin lying. Obama’s lied to, but not as often or blatantly. The Republican candidate currently is demonstrably the more deceptive one.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199923

Political talking head assumption #1104; proving the other guy did the same thing, even if it was twenty years ago and only nowhere near as bad, makes everyone equally accountable.

sebster wrote:
Yeah, this is pretty much how Republican political debating works, isn't it?

I don't know. Ask a Republican.

It should be an easy thing. Were income tax rates reduced under the Johnson, Carter, or Clinton administrations?

jfrazell wrote:

sebster wrote:
Yeah, this is pretty much how Republican political debating works, isn't it?

I don't know. Ask a Republican.

It should be an easy thing. Were income tax rates reduced under the Johnson, Carter, or Clinton administrations?

Which of them proposed Obama's plan?

I could care less anymore were the tax breaks are coming from just explain to me what administrations are spending it all irresponsibly. Regardless of who gains the presidency they are playing major catch up/clean up from the Bush administration. Of course thier going to give a tax incentive in the last year as thier headed out the door to look good. Looks like were really paying for it now. Don't worry tho' as the economy is strong rhetoric seems to have subsided.

I don't know who's plan he took the idea from. I believe this is similar to the Clinton tax rates (which were raised from Original Bush )

jfrazell wrote:
Not correct. Society can exist without government. We're not having riots and looting in Houston, not because of the governemnt, but because, mayhaps unlike other towns **cough NOLA cough**we're polite (and really really heavily armed).

I'm surprised you didn't write "because New Orleans is filled with, YOU KNOW."

CorporateLogo wrote:

jfrazell wrote:
Not correct. Society can exist without government. We're not having riots and looting in Houston, not because of the governemnt, but because, mayhaps unlike other towns **cough NOLA cough**we're polite (and really really heavily armed).

I'm surprised you didn't write "because New Orleans is filled with, YOU KNOW."

MY MOM"S RELATIVES?

stepped into it on that one didn'tcha

jfrazell wrote:I don't know who's plan he took the idea from. I believe this is similar to the Clinton tax rates (which were raised from Original Bush )

So you don't know what, if any, relation the Obama plan has to former presidents, but you're convinced that the failure of presidents to initiate similar plans, whether they ran such plans as part of their platform or not, means Obama's plan will also fail.

jfrazell wrote:Not correct. Society can exist without government. We're not having riots and looting in Houston, not because of the governemnt, but because, mayhaps unlike other towns **cough NOLA cough**we're polite (and really really heavily armed).

Long-time lurker, first time poster.

As a life-long resident and homeowner in New Orleans, I take exception to your comment. I'll be the first to admit that New Orleans isn't the most friendly town, but don't paint me with that broad brush. There are plenty of polite, courteous, and honest people in New Orleans.

Get past your prejudice and judge a person by their own virtues and not based on their place of residence or by association with other members of their immediate societal neighbors.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that feller behind the tree!"

Why not simply take the Democratic ideal to it's logical conclusion:
- make less than $100,000 and you pay zero taxes - the government pays you!
- make more than $100,000 and the government confiscates every extra penny that you earn.

That's fair, right?

After all, there are lots more people who earn less than $100k who'd like a little extra money.

Why not soak the rich to get it?

And nobody really needs more than $100k per year.

After all, it's not like they actually *earned* it... :S

Stop your reductionist arguments, put on your big boy pants, turn off Hannity and join the real world.

OK, you first...

Just keep in mind that it's the Democrat who says we should be proudly patriotic to have the privilege to pay more tax. If a little more is good, and we're all supposed to be flag-waving patriots, then we should be paying every extra penny to the government, because their government knows best.

That's what the Dems boil down to.

Also, I doubt that, given the choice, the Dems would set the threshold as high as $100k. The threshold would probably be closer to $40k.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The guy making minimum wage gains a *lot* more proportionally. He qualifies for Food Stamps, WIC, housing assistance, medical assistance, and so forth. And he pays ZERO taxes. So on net, he makes out very well. For every dollar he earns, the government pays him more.

The guy taking home $200k benefits proportionally little. Between payroll and income taxes, he's probably given up $100k to the government. There is NO way that he's getting $100k of value of government services, because otherwise, there wouldn't be any money to give to seniors, sick, and poor. On net, he probably pays for 5 people's worth of services.

Anyhow, go ahead and cheer about all the bankers losing their jobs - just don't be surprised when your taxes go up because they aren't able to pay as much as they used to...

That dude gets missiles, a standing army, roads, a clean water supply, the benefits of subsidized research, education for his children, a stable government, subsidies in the form of tax breaks for his company that allow it to remain competitive in the global market, a coast guard, a retirement benefit, air traffic control for his business trips, airport security for the same, parks to take his children to… Need I go on?

Most importantly, and least thought of, he gets to walk out his door and be relatively assured that when he walks out the door in the morning, he’ll be walking into a normal and polite society that hasn’t descended into anarchy where every man is for himself.

Same with the minimum wage earner: national defense, public roads, municipal water, federal research, public schools, etc.

Except, he doesn't actually pay for them. All benefit, no cost.

And he gets his government benefits NOW, rather than waiting until age 65+.

As for anarchy, that isn't an issue, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:On net, he probably pays for 5 people's worth of services.

Anyhow, go ahead and cheer about all the bankers losing their jobs - just don't be surprised when your taxes go up because they aren't able to pay as much as they used to...

You misunderstand.

Also, your last sentence doesn't apply to me. I've never said I'm happy about the bankers losing their jobs, mostly because I don't really care one way or the other. White collar dudes taking a small hit doesn't seem very relevant compared to blue collar families losing their homes, and small family businesses unable to get loans due to the tightening of credit.

You misunderstand.

The last sentence amplifies the previous:
- the rich pay for the vast majority of government services.
- if they aren't there, the government doesn't have any money
- unlike normal people, the government doesn't cut spending when they lose income
- so everybody else has to pay more because there are fewer rich guys to soak

And losing a $200k job isn't a "small hit" - probably they're going to lose their homes, because it's not easy getting that kind of job.

And "blue collar" families don't do that badly. Back when I was in metro Detroit, I knew guys easily making $100k annually. Not my kind of work, but the pay was very good.

sebster wrote:

jfrazell wrote:I don't know who's plan he took the idea from. I believe this is similar to the Clinton tax rates (which were raised from Original Bush )

So you don't know what, if any, relation the Obama plan has to former presidents, but you're convinced that the failure of presidents to initiate similar plans, whether they ran such plans as part of their platform or not, means Obama's plan will also fail.

Nope, what I am saying is that there is no anecdotal evidence to support the claim that a Democratic President will lower tax rates. Statements fail to support a claim in light of past evidence. As Obama votes straight party line what his party does is a good indicator of what he will do. What he says is not relevant, as like all politicians, he's a flip floppin mambo machine.

Mambo Kings unite!

Not Dice wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Not correct. Society can exist without government. We're not having riots and looting in Houston, not because of the governemnt, but because, mayhaps unlike other towns **cough NOLA cough**we're polite (and really really heavily armed).

Long-time lurker, first time poster.

As a life-long resident and homeowner in New Orleans, I take exception to your comment. I'll be the first to admit that New Orleans isn't the most friendly town, but don't paint me with that broad brush. There are plenty of polite, courteous, and honest people in New Orleans.

Get past your prejudice and judge a person by their own virtues and not based on their place of residence or by association with other members of their immediate societal neighbors.

So do you speak with a Philly accent, a Southern accent, or a pseudo Cajun accent? (aka what part?). My mom and most relatives had the weird Philly accent with a couple of in laws with the Cajun side.


My statements come only after seeing the pics from NOLA after Katrina and how the Houston crime rate shot up in the months after with crimes from Katrina refugees.

Mannahnin wrote:The budget was last balanced (and running a surplus) in the Clinton administration. When was the last time a Republican budget ran a surplus?

Re: the household indicator, have you looked at the actual report? The number you're looking for is in paragraph 2 of page 30:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

"Overall, about 81 percent of households would owe less tax whereas only about 11 percent would be hit by a tax increase."

They never had a balanced budget or a surplus because they never stopped having a deficit. All they did was transfer public debt to intergovernmental debt, then report the public debt as paid and viola look a surplus (just don't look at the other numbers). You cannot pay off debt with debt, and the natonal debt went up every year in the Clinton Administration. Reagan did much the same thing only he was not as ballsy with the lie.


What galls me to no end about Biden is I gave 3 times as much to charity as him and I do not make nearly as much. Then again it isvery easy to be generous with other peoples money.

@ Jfrazell screw that 25% on income I want a revenue neutral system like the fair tax were I can choose to ot pay at all.