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.

Sorry, by "Who you ask" I meant that it depends on who you ask the questions. For example if you ask an inner-city kid with pants below their rears and packing heat, he may not know who socrates is, but if you go to a suburb and find someone wearing a button up shirt with a pocket protector and ask then he may know and go into detail.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Pretty much any other educational system is superior to the US educational system.

It comes from it being effectively dominated by religious fundamentalists that are more concerned with indoctrinating than they are educating...

*mutters something nasty about the utterly corrupt things masquerading as human beings that are the Texas Board of Education*

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:California and New York are dominated inreligious fundamentalists? Wow I never knew.

I specifically mentioned the Texas Board of Education in that post for a reason.

You did where? Oh I see it the font size 1 line I was supposed to notice. If you want to say it, say it. Don't hide it and hope we all care enough to look for your Easter eggs.

Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.

I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait you think those countries are cradle to grave support? Er...no.

I don't really know what you mean by "cradle to grave support" and so went with "extensive socialism."

Sorry my man. Socialism on a scale commensurate or nearly commensurate with Greece.

Interestingly, Were the US led by an enlightened Frazzled administration, I would look hard at Germany's educational, tax, regulation, and international/tariff and nontariff structures. They do seem to work, and work quite well.

The irony being that much of Germany's success here -- much like Japan's -- can be attributed to the rebuilding efforts after WW II, which includes their Con. equivalents, which America was key in drafting and informing.

.. if only you'd gotten that new social contract eh ?

Ouze wrote:

Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.

I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.

Not really, that percentage he's quoting is actually pretty close to being correct. However he most likely stated it incorrectly because he should've said that 48% of Americans receive more in tax deductions than they have to pay in federal income taxes, this is what he means by people taking from the government without contributing to it.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

The one taxes that nobody can really avoid are medicare and social security though, everybody pays for those. However for things like the postal service and military they give no taxes, state taxes pay for local fire and rescue though and state taxes laws vary by, you guessed it, state. So partially right and partially wrong because the 47%-48% stated pay into medicare and social security, which everyone benefits from later, but not into military, federal law enforcement, post office, or anything else controlled directly by the federal government.

Polonius wrote:The only education worth anything is the one you do yourself. I'm not saying that classwork, lectures, tests, and a physical building can't all help, but the only way you can actually learn anything beyond random facts is through practice and actually reading and using the material.

Whats scary is I read that as "I'm not saying that classwork, torture, tests, and a physical building can't all help"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:OF course they could choose other books if they existed. Problem is that because Texas is a powerhouse in book buying (upwards of $570 Million and ranked amoungst the highest)) of textbooks and due to this the board holds publishers hostage by refusing books that don't meet their political bent. They sway what is and isn't included, the tone of wording, etc. and the ublishers bow to their revisions, and requests.

Presumably areas such as California (largest population in the country) or New York (3rd largest population) could exercise their own prejudices.

Something tells me Arizona, California, and New York don't refer to the Battle of San Jacinto as when we gained our freedom, and the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Texas has a huge sway in it, because our large demographics means that book producers often use the TBE's standards for new books.

Once again, remember Texas Hurr! Remember Goliad! Remember the Alamo!
Speaking of the Alamo

You know that's not an argument, right?

Every time you respond to someone's serious argument with a troll, Frazzled, you just discredit yourself further.

Wait, I had credit to begin with? Awesome.

What wiener dog pissed in your Cheerios this morning? Would you like a wiener dog to pee in your breakfast cereal? I can arrange that.

halonachos wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.

I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.

Not really, that percentage he's quoting is actually pretty close to being correct. However he most likely stated it incorrectly because he should've said that 48% of Americans receive more in tax deductions than they have to pay in federal income taxes, this is what he means by people taking from the government without contributing to it.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

The one taxes that nobody can really avoid are medicare and social security though, everybody pays for those. However for things like the postal service and military they give no taxes, state taxes pay for local fire and rescue though and state taxes laws vary by, you guessed it, state. So partially right and partially wrong because the 47%-48% stated pay into medicare and social security, which everyone benefits from later, but not into military, federal law enforcement, post office, or anything else controlled directly by the federal government.

They also pay all the end-user taxes; like sales tax, taxes on gasoline, alcohol, prepared foods/restaurants, etc. There are a lot more taxes than just income tax. As Ouze said, the article was predicated on an entirely false conclusion. That nearly half of Americans don't pay net tax at all.

Mannahnin wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.

I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.

Not really, that percentage he's quoting is actually pretty close to being correct. However he most likely stated it incorrectly because he should've said that 48% of Americans receive more in tax deductions than they have to pay in federal income taxes, this is what he means by people taking from the government without contributing to it.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

The one taxes that nobody can really avoid are medicare and social security though, everybody pays for those. However for things like the postal service and military they give no taxes, state taxes pay for local fire and rescue though and state taxes laws vary by, you guessed it, state. So partially right and partially wrong because the 47%-48% stated pay into medicare and social security, which everyone benefits from later, but not into military, federal law enforcement, post office, or anything else controlled directly by the federal government.

They also pay all the end-user taxes; like sales tax, taxes on gasoline, alcohol, prepared foods/restaurants, etc. There are a lot more taxes than just income tax. As Ouze said, the article was predicated on an entirely false conclusion. That nearly half of Americans don't pay net tax at all.

Of course, most of the taxes you mentioned are not federal taxes, yet they can vote in federal elections (read vote in members that will give them benefits).

Polonius wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
No, but they are more concerned with indoctrinating than they are educating.

So, like all American high schools?

The only education worth anything is the one you do yourself. I'm not saying that classwork, lectures, tests, and a physical building can't all help, but the only way you can actually learn anything beyond random facts is through practice and actually reading and using the material.

That's very true.

You need good material to read, of course. That's where libraries (school, university and community) can help.

Having read the original piece, I have to admit, it's a pretty interesting essay, in a "what a pathetic attempt at coherent thoughts, and a sad waste of time and bandwith" kind of way.

Sales tax=state
Gas tax=state

Like I said, FEDERAL law enforcement, military, and postal service. Those are all federally run and are paid for with federal income tax. Its not a false conclusion because they pay a state tax, but not a federal income tax. Which means that they don't pay into the American system but may be paying into the California, Texas, or Alabama system which doesn't benefit people outside of the state. When I pump gas into my car I pay taxes that supports VDOT and not TXDOT.

Then there are people who may not even pay state income tax. End user taxes can only generate so much, but at least its something you know.

Mannahnin wrote:There are a lot more taxes than just income tax. As Ouze said, the article was predicated on an entirely false conclusion. That nearly half of Americans don't pay net tax at all.

What's been most interesting to me thus far is that posters taking issue with the article are predicated on an entirely false conclusion; that the article is referring to all taxes, as opposed to federal taxes.

The government as envisioned by the founding fathers did not feature an income tax.

I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.

Last I checked, 48% of the country were living at or below the poverty line. This is the reason our economy is failing. Not that they're not paying taxes, but that 48% of the population cannot afford to spend money and our economy is based on a consumption model. If they're not consuming, the economy stalls.

Taxes are meant to redistribute wealth so that it benefits everyone (funding 'society'). By taking money from those who have more than they can spend, and giving it to those who will spend it, you create a positive feedback loop in which everyone does better.

An economy that is actually functioning will make more money for a rich person, even if they have to pay some of that in taxes, as all their investments will do better. There is a huge amount of historical data that shows this to be true. When the lowest in society are able to afford to spend money, all of society does better. When the wealth becomes accumulated in the hands of a few, economies stall, and we all do worse.

I find the idea that not paying enough taxes is the magical catalyst that makes someone vote for their own self-interest pretty laughable.

Juvenal didn't write about "bread and circuses because they are not paying enough taxes"

Redbeard wrote:The government as envisioned by the founding fathers did not feature an income tax.

I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.

Last I checked, 48% of the country were living at or below the poverty line. This is the reason our economy is failing. Not that they're not paying taxes, but that 48% of the population cannot afford to spend money and our economy is based on a consumption model. If they're not consuming, the economy stalls.

Taxes are meant to redistribute wealth so that it benefits everyone (funding 'society'). By taking money from those who have more than they can spend, and giving it to those who will spend it, you create a positive feedback loop in which everyone does better.

An economy that is actually functioning will make more money for a rich person, even if they have to pay some of that in taxes, as all their investments will do better. There is a huge amount of historical data that shows this to be true. When the lowest in society are able to afford to spend money, all of society does better. When the wealth becomes accumulated in the hands of a few, economies stall, and we all do worse.

Agreed.

Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.

Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate* on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?

If corporations pay dividends using post-tax dollars, why should we tax those dollars again when they're received by the owners of the corporation?

*when those taxes are paid, of course.

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.

Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?

If corporations pay dividends using post-tax dollars, why should we tax those dollars again when they're received by the owners of the corporation?

For the same reason that we tax retail sales at each level of distribution. Because they're separate transactions.

Things are taxed at separate levels all the time, it's not new, novel or wrong. That argument is not really a serious one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, "mr buffet" doesn't pay that first 35%, his company does. Separate people as far as tax is concerned.

Corporations are separate legal entities to their owners, managers, etc.

Redbeard wrote:Last I checked, 48% of the country were living at or below the poverty line. This is the reason our economy is failing. Not that they're not paying taxes, but that 48% of the population cannot afford to spend money and our economy is based on a consumption model. If they're not consuming, the economy stalls.

This is why you (the general you) have to check harder. 48% of the country, according to the study that posted this "fact" about 3 weeks ago, is living "in poverty", as defined by the study. Also defined by the study is the "fact" that "in poverty" is anything between 100% and 199% of the poverty line.

Thus, you can earn almost double the poverty line, and still be considered in poverty. For a family of 5, that would include any amount up to ~$52,000 versus a poverty line of $26,000.

Franky, I think that definition is nonsensical. How can double the amount considered to be poverty, still be considered poverty? If I showed up for 'Ard Boyz with a 4,998 point army list, wouldn't you (the general you) have a problem with that?

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.

Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate* on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?

That's not how it works.

He's only taxed once. HIs company, which is legally another entity, gets taxed a second time. If corporations didn't push so hard for personhood, they'd not be taxed extra like that-- but they did, despite not actually being people they have been given the rights of a person.

Which also comes with the responsibilty of paying your motherfething taxes.

Rented Tritium wrote:Things are taxed at separate levels all the time, it's not new, novel or wrong. That argument is not really a serious one.

Actually it really is a serious argument. You can't simply dismiss it because you don't have a good response.

The fact is that Warren Buffet is paying a higher tax rate than his secretary because his money is double taxed. His secretary's money isn't double taxed: corporations can deduct salary.

If Mr. Buffet took profits from Berkshire Hathaway as salary rather than dividends his tax rate would be (about) 35%.

Would you be happier if Mr. Buffet paid 35% tax rate instead of 15%, even if the total amount paid in taxes were reduced?

sourclams wrote:
This is why you (the general you) have to check harder. 48% of the country, according to the study that posted this "fact" about 3 weeks ago, is living "in poverty", as defined by the study. Also defined by the study is the "fact" that "in poverty" is anything between 100% and 199% of the poverty line.

I didn't mention a study - do you have a reference to it?

I think it'd be pretty hard to support a family of 5 on $52k/year lately. Have you seen the price of a box of space marines lately?

biccat wrote:The fact is that Warren Buffet is paying a higher tax rate than his secretary because his money is double taxed.

No it isn't.

His corporation's income is taxed.

If he didn't want his corporation to be taxed he'd lobby to remove the corporation's rights to personhood so they don't have the responsibility of paying their taxes. But he doesn't do that. His corporation is perfectly fine with having the rights to personhood. So they pay their taxes.

Or are you going to argue that the rich who already have too much to begin wtih should be exempt from tax while everyone else needs to pay?

Rented Tritium wrote:Also, "mr buffet" doesn't pay that first 35%, his company does. Separate people as far as tax is concerned.

So a company makes $100, pre-tax.

The Government takes $35.

The company pays its 50 employees $1 each.

The Government takes another 15%-35%, or $12.50 total.

Out of the $100 that company earned, the company got $15 to redistribute to shareholders (which may include the employees) or re-invest. The employees got $37.5, before any gains in stock options. The Government got $47.50 of the $100 so far. If any of those employees choose to exercise a stock option, the government will get another ~25%. If any of those employees got paid a bonus for exceptional performance, the government gets 50% of that amount. If reinvestment results in a purchase from an outside company, the government gets sales tax.

Let's say nobody exercises their stock options/ESOP, and all of the remainder gets paid out in bonuses.

Of $100, the company is left with $0. The employees are left with $45 after-tax. The Government gets $55.

Is it any surprise that companies dedicate so much effort to finding tax shelters and shipping income offshore?

biccat wrote:Would you be happier if Mr. Buffet paid 35% tax rate instead of 15%, even if the total amount paid in taxes were reduced?

I'd be happier if he was taxed at a top marginal rate of 70%, like the highest marginal rates were inthe 50s and 60s when this country was still recognized as a world leader and not a crumbling super-power. You know, back when the wealthy were willing to support the society that allowed them to become wealthy.

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.

Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?

If corporations pay dividends using post-tax dollars, why should we tax those dollars again when they're received by the owners of the corporation?

Doers it bother you that corporations can shield their earnings such that they pay out no income tax, yet can make distributions out to shareholders? Does it bother you that personal corps can run through personal expenses and do that all the time?

sourclams wrote:So a company makes $100, pre-tax.

The Government takes $35.

The company pays its 50 employees $1 each.

The Government takes another 15%-35%, or $12.50 total.

Employee wages, bonuses and salaries are tax exemptions for corporations.

Melissia wrote:No it isn't.

His corporation's income is taxed.

And if the corporation earns $100, he only gets $56 (assuming he's the sole owner).

Melissia wrote:If he didn't want his corporation to be taxed he'd lobby to remove the corporation's rights to personhood so they don't have the responsibility of paying their taxes. But he doesn't do that. His corporation is perfectly fine with having the rights to personhood. So they pay their taxes.

Given this comment I'm pretty sure you don't understand the concept of "corporate personhood" beyond what you read on The Daily Kos or the Socialist Workers Weekly. And I'm not interested in explaining it to you.

Melissia wrote:Or are you going to argue that the rich should be exempt from tax while everyone else needs to pay?

I am going to argue that dividends from corporate earnings should be tax exempt while personal income received as compensation from corporations should be taxed. Stick around for the whole show.

biccat wrote:Employee wages, bonuses and salaries are tax exemptions for corporations.

Thank god, I knew I had to be wrong somewhere.

biccat wrote:Given this comment I'm pretty sure you don't understand the concept of "corporate personhood"

I don't read either of those magazines. I studied the concept in business law classes.

I think it's you that doesn't understand the full rammifications of corporate personhood.

Even if he's the sole owner, it is somewhat irrelevant. The corporation and him are separate entities.

biccat wrote:I am going to argue that dividends from corporate earnings should be tax exempt while personal income received as compensation from corporations should be taxed.

Why should they be exempt? They're a form of income. Maybe I should argue that my personal income should be exempt from taxation? Except I don't think I have the lobbying power of a big corporation yet, hrm...

While the distinction was poorly made there IS a difference between corporate tax, capital gains, and income taxes. There is a 17% cap IIRC on capital gains because the money has already been taxed once at a high rate.
Melissa's attempt to link corporate personhood to thier tax rate is unsurprising, and wholly unrelated. The corporate sales tax was high in America long before corporations began to advocate for legal personhood.
The frequently overlooked fact is that Warren Buffet never said he paid less in INCOME taxes than his secretary, because either he does or he pays his secretary a larger salary than he pays himself...which actually wouldn't be too suprising.
All said capital gains taxes are fine where the are, corporate taxes need to be lower, income taxes need to be lower and the government needs to stop spending so much fething money.