|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 4:08:42 PM
|
|
|
Random
Posts: 1038
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Zipperhead
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
Those who have more property get more protection from the government protecting our property rights. I get more benefit today than I did when I was a poor graduate student. So it is not unreasonable to expect me to pay more than I did then.
And those who have more property generally have more income, so they are already paying in proportion to their benefit without progressive rates.
And you do pay more today, even without a progressive rate structure, because your income is higher today.
So, I'm not really sure I understand what you are disagreeing with. Yes, we should pay in proportion to our benefit, which is correlated with our income. But we have an income tax, so by making more you already pay more. That doesn't mean you should also pay at a higher rate.
_____________________________
"That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false." -- Valery
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 4:28:05 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
For some reason, however, profits are higher here than they are in Somalia. Does it have something to do with the legal framework which our government provides which protects property rights? Do we all get the same benefit from this, no.
Well, presumably because it's easier to make money when warlords are not shooting at you. So, yes, it has to do with the fact that our country has higher economic stability, partially because the government protects its citizens better. But, since we all live in this country, that's a net wash. We all get the same benefit by not getting shot at. Bill Gates started as an average Joe like you and me, but he managed to create a company and prosper. While the government kept him safe while doing so, the fact that we have not similarly prospered is our fault, not the government's.
quote:
Just like we all get the same potential benefit for our state run university systems. We all have the option of going there. If you choose to benefit from the university, you have to pay. Same way, if Bill Gates chooses to stay in the US and operate and benefit from our legal system, it is not unreasonable to ask him to pay in proportion to his benefit.
His benefit is no bigger than yours or mine. He has the same rights from the Bill of Rights, he has the same protection from the fire department and police department, he drives on the same roads, he's protected by foreign invaders by the same military, the same postal service delivers his mail, he has the same property rights as you or I. He gets more money because he's better at business than we are. Not because the government held a lottery 20 years ago and decided that Bill Gates was going to be the next rich guy and then gave him a bunch of money. Because he worked for it in a capitalist society that provides us all with the opportunity to work for it... and that opportunity is more or less equal.
quote:
Those who have more property get more protection from the government protecting our property rights. I get more benefit today than I did when I was a poor graduate student. So it is not unreasonable to expect me to pay more than I did then.
Can you be more specific about what the government does for you now, as opposed to what the government did for you when you were a poor grad student?
I'm willing to bet that the government did more for you when you were a poor grad student (in terms of loans and grants and sending benefits to your school to reduce your cost and so on) than it's doing for you right now. The fact that you're PROSPERING more now has to do with the fact that you're PRODUCING more now, and that's all you, not the government. The government merely provides a framework in which you can freely produce, and prosper, without people shooting at you and taking your stuff (usually).
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 4:45:21 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 564
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Random
And those who have more property generally have more income, so they are already paying in proportion to their benefit without progressive rates.
And you do pay more today, even without a progressive rate structure, because your income is higher today.
So, I'm not really sure I understand what you are disagreeing with. Yes, we should pay in proportion to our benefit, which is correlated with our income. But we have an income tax, so by making more you already pay more. That doesn't mean you should also pay at a higher rate.
Actually, I would be all in favor of a flat tax, with all the deductions eliminated (i.e. mortgage interest, property taxes, charitable donations, etc), but the article cited says nothing about whether the tax is progressive or proportional, it just says that the wealthy person pays more. That may be a higher or lower percentage of his income than someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 4:56:15 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
While it has an intuitive appeal, a flat tax can actually be regressive in it's impact. Consider two households for example: one earning $50k and one earning $100k. Let's further assume that the basic needs of life cost about $30k a year (a modest house, decent insurance, one car per wage earner to get to work, and basic other sustenance needs) .
The more affluent individual has $70k of disposable income. The less affluent individual has only $20k above and beyond his basic sustenance needs.
Let's further assume a 10% flat tax. The rich household pays $10k or about 14% of his disposable income. The less affluent household pays $5k, or 25% of his disposable/discretionary income. Said differently, the rich person is able to keep 86% of his income while the more blue collar guy only keeps 75%.
If you look at it this way, a flat tax structure (particularly those without some level of deductions) can actually be regressive.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 6:29:02 PM
|
|
|
Random
Posts: 1038
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Zipperhead
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
While it has an intuitive appeal, a flat tax can actually be regressive in it's impact. Consider two households for example: one earning $50k and one earning $100k. Let's further assume that the basic needs of life cost about $30k a year (a modest house, decent insurance, one car per wage earner to get to work, and basic other sustenance needs) .
The more affluent individual has $70k of disposable income. The less affluent individual has only $20k above and beyond his basic sustenance needs.
Let's further assume a 10% flat tax. The rich household pays $10k or about 14% of his disposable income. The less affluent household pays $5k, or 25% of his disposable/discretionary income. Said differently, the rich person is able to keep 86% of his income while the more blue collar guy only keeps 75%.
If you look at it this way, a flat tax structure (particularly those without some level of deductions) can actually be regressive.
Unless you look at an option like FairTax which gives every family a "prebate" of the flat tax rate times poverty level every month. It is a flat tax, but a flat sales tax, not a flat income tax. By doing the prebate, the tax is actually progressive.
_____________________________
"That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false." -- Valery
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 6:31:55 PM
|
|
|
Random
Posts: 1038
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Zipperhead
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
Actually, I would be all in favor of a flat tax, with all the deductions eliminated (i.e. mortgage interest, property taxes, charitable donations, etc), but the article cited says nothing about whether the tax is progressive or proportional, it just says that the wealthy person pays more. That may be a higher or lower percentage of his income than someone else.
Thank you for clarifying that. I misunderstood your posts, because I thought you were arguing that the rates should be progressive since the "rich" benefit progressively from everything our government does.
I can buy that Gates benefits more, but I don't think he benefits more as a percentage of his income, so a flat rate seems reasonable to me.
Almost more important than the rates is the complexity. It is ridiculous how much time, money and effort is spent deciphering the tax code. I am not a huge fan of the FairTax, but I certainly think it's better than what we have now.
_____________________________
"That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false." -- Valery
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 6:42:56 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Random
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
While it has an intuitive appeal, a flat tax can actually be regressive in it's impact. Consider two households for example: one earning $50k and one earning $100k. Let's further assume that the basic needs of life cost about $30k a year (a modest house, decent insurance, one car per wage earner to get to work, and basic other sustenance needs) .
The more affluent individual has $70k of disposable income. The less affluent individual has only $20k above and beyond his basic sustenance needs.
Let's further assume a 10% flat tax. The rich household pays $10k or about 14% of his disposable income. The less affluent household pays $5k, or 25% of his disposable/discretionary income. Said differently, the rich person is able to keep 86% of his income while the more blue collar guy only keeps 75%.
If you look at it this way, a flat tax structure (particularly those without some level of deductions) can actually be regressive.
Unless you look at an option like FairTax which gives every family a "prebate" of the flat tax rate times poverty level every month. It is a flat tax, but a flat sales tax, not a flat income tax. By doing the prebate, the tax is actually progressive.
Conceptually, FairTax isn't really a flat tax as we normally think of the term "flat tax" (historically associated with flat income tax regimes rather than sales tax). That said, I like the idea of substituting a sales tax for income tax. It makes much better sense:
from a fiscal point of view - it taxes consumption and exempts saving.
from an environmental point of view - same reason
Generally, European countries have done fairly well with their Value Added Tax systems, which is another form of a sales tax.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 9:02:08 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1968
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rgsoundguy
Actually, with the abuses of eminent domain, I would say the government attacks property rights. A municipality would love to get its hands on Gates' estate and subdivide it and collect even more revenue from property taxes. And there is another issue, people with larger properties are paying more in property taxes anyway, so sorry, not buying the property rights argument.
The government attacks some property rights. There would still be a developer somewhere in that process making a nice chunk of change. One could argue that he benefited more from government than the original owners of the seized property.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Protecting software is frankly not all that hard even without intellectual property rights protections.
Focusing on one particular person and one particular type of property misses the point. These government benefits could include securing intellectual property, but as has been mentioned they could also include various protectionist trade policies and subsidies; they could include favorable zoning regulations; they could include government-paid-for improvements to infrastructure to help facilitate the operation of a business; they could include large-scale tax breaks for opening up a new facility or even agreeing to keep an existing facility open; as in the case of the "Enron loophole," they could include manipulating existing regulations to benefit the corporation at the expense of the average consumer; they could include a massive financial bailout should the business venture go under.
Except, perhaps, for some small-scale tax breaks for starting a small business, I have yet to see any "normal" person enjoy any of these benefits.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 10:28:22 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
The government attacks some property rights. There would still be a developer somewhere in that process making a nice chunk of change. One could argue that he benefited more from government than the original owners of the seized property.
...
Focusing on one particular person and one particular type of property misses the point. These government benefits could include securing intellectual property, but as has been mentioned they could also include various protectionist trade policies and subsidies; they could include favorable zoning regulations; they could include government-paid-for improvements to infrastructure to help facilitate the operation of a business; they could include large-scale tax breaks for opening up a new facility or even agreeing to keep an existing facility open; as in the case of the "Enron loophole," they could include manipulating existing regulations to benefit the corporation at the expense of the average consumer; they could include a massive financial bailout should the business venture go under.
Except, perhaps, for some small-scale tax breaks for starting a small business, I have yet to see any "normal" person enjoy any of these benefits.
-Dan.
Wow, we think a lot a like. I wonder how much of this is interdependent (ie: from us debating with/against each other for the last whatever years) and how much of it is independent.
I do think that the rich generally benefit more from intellectual property rights. I do tend to be in favor of less government intervention, but that also includes fewer intellectual property rights (ie: sooner expiration dates), no price floors (ie: milk), no subsides or corporate welfare, no eminent domain abuse, and no government bail outs. The only justification for an import tariff on another nation, for example, would be if the other nation imposes an import tariff on us (and our import tariff should be equal to theirs). In general, neither nation should impose import tariffs in order for both nations to optimally benefit from comparative advantages.
Here is an example of the rich unfairly benefiting from intellectual property rights
quote:
"That is, the drugs that were developed with government funding were 3 times as expensive as the drugs developed without government funding. In 1991, the most recent year of the study, drugs developed with federal funding were over 11 times more expensive than drugs developed without federal funding."
"For many drugs, the government has paid for most or all of the pre-clinical research, and it frequently funds the development of the drug all the way through FDA Phase II and Phase III trials. In these cases, which are many, the drug should not be priced as though the firm had borne all the risks and made all the investments."
http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/drug_war.htm
Why should pharmaceutical corporations bear the patents and profits of a drug that were paid for by tax payers?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 10/14/2008 11:52:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/13/2008 11:46:35 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
and I don't think that intellectual property rights really helps research and development that much (though I do think it has a place for things that have very high fixed costs and low variable costs). Many advancements were made without the help of intellectual property rights. Universities, for example, fund all kinds of research that doesn't help us economically and that doesn't help our health (ie: research to figure out where each star in the sky is), we don't need intellectual property for that. Universities, for the most part, can advance medicine without the need for intellectual property getting in the way. I also think that intellectual property causes a lot of corruption. For instance, look at my Red Yeast rice and the FDA article under conspiracies and my FDA and Health article here. Chances are, Red yeast rice containing lovastatin wouldn't be illegal if competing products aren't subject to intellectual property rights (intellectual property rights give special interest groups with patents an economic incentive to have non patented competing products outlawed, not because those competing products are harmful to our health or the environment, but because they get in the way of the profit margins of those special interest groups' monopoly. Removing these intellectual property rights removes much of the incentive to have non patented competing products outlawed for economic reasons and it removes much of the incentive to have the FDA, "alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document" (post 5) (this problem has probably been going on long before this survey revealed it and, chances are, it won't go away anytime soon even if the reality of it never makes it to the public. Chances are that a lot of corruption happens behind closed doors and hardly ever surfaces to the public. The best way to remove this kind of corruption is to remove the incentive for it and intellectual property rights give incentive for corruption) and it removes much of the incentives to have authorities and independent organizations lie about or suppress the true conclusions of studies or to suppress studies or the conduction and public distribution of studies on things that don't have patents. The best way to eliminate corruption is to remove the incentive for corruption. If there is incentive for corruption this increases the chances that corruption exists. Patents give special interest groups an incentive to act unethically because they can benefit from it. Another good example of this is DCA (read post 2). DCA is relatively harmless and chances are that the only reason the FDA put a stop to the sales of it in this situation is because one can't get a patent on it and special interest groups were afraid that it would interfere with the profit margins of competing drugs that don't have patents. After all, the FDA does approve drugs that are far more dangerous. Heck, smoking cigarettes is harmful and cigarettes hardly have any health or medicinal benefits associated with them, yet selling cigarettes and smoking is not illegal. Why? Because special interest groups who have incentive to keep these harmful products legal lobby to keep them legal. So it doesn't seem like the government is too concerned about our health when it comes to smoking, why should I believe they are concerned about our health when it comes to what drugs or dietary supplements to outlaw? If it's legal for people to decide to smoke, it should be legal for them to decide to take red yeast rice for their cholesterol or DCA to try and treat their terminal cancer after the doctors sent them home to die. As long as people are aware of the known health benefits and risks of using such a drug for the purpose they want to use it for, or if few studies have been conducted on it, they should know that and then it should be for them to weigh the benefits and risks involved with taking a drug or supplement that isn't wells studies for a particular purpose. Otherwise, if the government wants to outlaw red yeast rice containing lovastatin or DCA because they think it's best for us, despite the fact that red yeast rice and DCA are far less harmful than cigarettes and studies have shown red yeast rice to be safer and more effective than some legal drugs that lower cholesterol, then the government should be consistent about their concern for our health (instead, they consistently do that which is most profitable to special interest groups) and they should outlaw cigarettes. The reason they won't is because cigarettes benefit special interest groups and so it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to deduce that the government is not that interested in our health and that they are highly influenced by special interest groups and that the reason many non patentable drugs and supplements are outlawed is not because of possible negative health implications, but because of special interest groups who have to compete with those drugs and supplements. People know the harmful risks of cigarettes and they can choose to smoke and just like people can choose to smoke, they should also be able to choose to take red yeast rice or DCA to try and treat a health problem they think it might treat so long as they know the risks and ramifications (ie: drug interactions) involved or so long as they know that the risks and ramifications are unknown due to a lack of studies. Of course, the assistance of a doctor is highly recommended and in many cases their prescription should be required. Intellectual property rights also give those who benefit the most from it incentive to claim that society as a whole benefits more from it than its cost even if such property rights cost society more than they benefit it).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 10/14/2008 12:02:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 12:58:16 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2191
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
Here is the problem with your analogy:
quote:
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
People on the low end of the money scale now get back an awful lot of money. You would have to fight over the $20 8 ways and decide that the 2 poorest get a piece of it. This would more accurately reflect what happens today in regards to taxes. If you take a family of 4 or 5 that makes between $25k and $40k after adjustments they will easily pocket several thousands dollars a year from their tax bill of 0.
quote:
Unless you look at an option like FairTax which gives every family a "prebate" of the flat tax rate times poverty level every month. It is a flat tax, but a flat sales tax, not a flat income tax. By doing the prebate, the tax is actually progressive.
That totally defeats the idea of tax reform in the first place. The first income tax that was declared unconstitutional was a flat tax- it may have been 1%. After the 16th amendment it became a sliding scale of from 1% to 6% or something like that. Since then it has morphed into the monster that it is. Any tax system run by the US Congress if there is ever any exemption will run into the same thing. The exemeptions will snowball and in a few years it will be exactly like the one it replaced. It will not end the socialist state either or the mentality from the Great Society to the current bailouts.
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 1:43:09 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 564
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
If you take a family of 4 or 5 that makes between $25k and $40k after adjustments they will easily pocket several thousands dollars a year from their tax bill of 0.
I assume that you are talking about the Earned Income Tax Credit?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 3:13:22 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2191
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I assume that you are talking about the Earned Income Tax Credit?
No, you can get both the EIC and the Child Tax Credit if you hit the window just right.
Let me give you an example. A guy has a wife and 3 kids. He makes about $40k she stays at home with the kids. He pays $4k a year health insurance costs that his employer assists with and he puts 5% of his pay into his 401k. His new adjusted income is about $34k which before doing anything else already qualifies him for both the EIC and the Child Tax Credit. Depending on any other adjustments and such he may be able to slide that $34k down a little more but it will still be safely over the Child Tax Credit minimum.
Let's say for example that said person also works at a company that has a profit sharing plan or some kind of incentive plan. He can work with the numbers to maintain status for both quite easily. Say that place has had a great year and he knows he will get a 2k bonus that fall. He can adjust his 401k so that he 1)Gets more money in retirement while 2)maintaining his EIC status.
It isn't hard really.
< Message edited by rlj -- 10/14/2008 3:22:00 PM >
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 3:44:36 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 627
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
You do something profitable, you get profits. Yay profits! Now, you get taxed more as well, so you have to determine whether the profits are worth it (or whether they'd be more worth it if you were suddenly a citizen of, say, Bermuda) but the entire basis of our economy, and the reason any of us make money, is the idea that work, whether it be in terms of ideas created or actual physical labor, is worth something.
For some reason, however, profits are higher here than they are in Somalia. Does it have something to do with the legal framework which our government provides which protects property rights? Do we all get the same benefit from this, no. Just like we all get the same potential benefit for our state run university systems. We all have the option of going there. If you choose to benefit from the university, you have to pay. Same way, if Bill Gates chooses to stay in the US and operate and benefit from our legal system, it is not unreasonable to ask him to pay in proportion to his benefit.
You're absolutely correct!! Since he makes more money he shold pay more taxes! GUESS WHAT: HE ALREADY DOES PAY MORE!! He probably pays more in taxes than 90% of us combined on this forum.......quit trying to bleed more out of him just because you are envious of his wealth!
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
Government intervention protects both you and Bill Gates pretty much equally, by saying that whatever profits you make (after taxes) are yours, and protecting you from being robbed of those profits.
Those who have more property get more protection from the government protecting our property rights. I get more benefit today than I did when I was a poor graduate student. So it is not unreasonable to expect me to pay more than I did then.
And you are paying more now than you did then; if you aren't then it's time to fork over the money voluntarily instead of waiting for the confiscatory policies of Congress to take it from you by force of law!
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 3:54:59 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 627
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
quote:
I assume that you are talking about the Earned Income Tax Credit?
No, you can get both the EIC and the Child Tax Credit if you hit the window just right.
Let me give you an example. A guy has a wife and 3 kids. He makes about $40k she stays at home with the kids. He pays $4k a year health insurance costs that his employer assists with and he puts 5% of his pay into his 401k. His new adjusted income is about $34k which before doing anything else already qualifies him for both the EIC and the Child Tax Credit. Depending on any other adjustments and such he may be able to slide that $34k down a little more but it will still be safely over the Child Tax Credit minimum.
Let's say for example that said person also works at a company that has a profit sharing plan or some kind of incentive plan. He can work with the numbers to maintain status for both quite easily. Say that place has had a great year and he knows he will get a 2k bonus that fall. He can adjust his 401k so that he 1)Gets more money in retirement while 2)maintaining his EIC status.
It isn't hard really.
Using your illustration this dude will get back $3580 above and beyond whatever withholding he may have!! (And this assumes a standard deduction and not itemized in which case the refund would be higher....possible as much as another $633)
Factor in his Social Security of $2601 and he'll net $979! Ain't welfare great!!
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 4:34:14 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2191
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Using your illustration this dude will get back $3580 above and beyond whatever withholding he may have!! (And this assumes a standard deduction and not itemized in which case the refund would be higher....possible as much as another $633)
Factor in his Social Security of $2601 and he'll net $979! Ain't welfare great!!
LOL! I have known your opinion on this for years. : ) Still though under the current administration that isn't welfare it is a tax cut. :D
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 5:12:44 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 564
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
You're absolutely correct!! Since he makes more money he shold pay more taxes! GUESS WHAT: HE ALREADY DOES PAY MORE!! He probably pays more in taxes than 90% of us combined on this forum.......
Where did I say that Bill Gates should pay more? I am just saying that it is not unreasonable to have a tax system where people like Bill Gates pay more and that it is reasonable to have a tax system where those who benefit more from government also pay more.
quote:
quit trying to bleed more out of him just because you are envious of his wealth!
There is no excuse for this assertion. You have no right to accuse me of being envious. Did I say that Bill Gates was a bad person and need to be punished because he was wealthy? Did I even say anything negative about his wealth? No, all I said was that because he benefits more from the fact that the government protects property rights (which you conceded), that it is reasonable that he pay a higher share of the tax bill. Where you find envy in there is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 6:18:44 PM
|
|
|
Random
Posts: 1038
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Zipperhead
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rlj
Still though under the current administration that isn't welfare it is a tax cut. :D
Which is part of the problem. I am sorry but it is not possible to pay negative taxes.
If we stopped intentionally calling things by the wrong name, maybe it would be easier to have an intelligent public discussion about the issues.
If you don't pay taxes, but you get money back, that is welfare, not a tax cut. Leaving the debate over whether it should be done aside, can't we at least call it what it really is?
_____________________________
"That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false." -- Valery
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/14/2008 9:13:27 PM
|
|
|
Random
Posts: 1038
Joined: 4/18/2005
From: Zipperhead
Status: offline
|
I still disagree. There is no such thing as a refundable tax credit. A tax credit can only be up to the amount of tax you actually owe. Anything more than that is something else. If you don't want to call it welfare, that's fine, we can use another word.
But it's not a tax credit. People who don't pay taxes can't get a tax credit, by definition. Call it a stimulus payment, call it welfare, call it a prebate, I don't care. But it's not a tax credit, and it's not negative taxes. Heck, call it an investment if you want. But make it clear what you are doing -- don't bury it within the tax code in such a way that most people don't even know it exists.
Obama claimed in a debate that he will be cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. Since less than 95% of Americans pay taxes, this is simply not possible either. He may be cutting taxes for 65% of Americans, or whatever the number is, but for the rest he is giving them other people's money and calling it a tax credit.
Webster went to all the trouble to come up with definitions for all the words, why is it so hard to use the right ones? My view is that it is intentional, to try to hide the true agenda.
_____________________________
"That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false." -- Valery
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/15/2008 7:24:07 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2191
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
I agree with you Random. Perhaps in the case of the child tax credit we can call it a gratuity from Uncle Sam for making a little tax payer?
_____________________________
-Roger
This is who I'm voting for. He is from the same party I voted for last time. This is consistent with my belief in the failure of the two party system and my disgust with it.
http://www.baldwin08.com/#
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/20/2008 11:03:57 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion's share of the nation's wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports.
...
When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureau's computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from $300,000 to $1 million it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40 to 50 percent. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample.
http://www.lcurve.org/SuperRich.htm
If these are really what the official said, it's obvious that they're just making up lame excuses. The computer can't handle numbers higher than a million? Any programmer with half a brain can fix that in a few hours TOPS. Give me a break. Of course, once the officials realize that's a ridiculous excuse, they will try to find other lame excuses that are hopefully more believable. You know the incredible thing? Most Americans buy into this nonsense. There is a good chance that much of what we are fed by the media, by corporations, and by authorities are lies and it seems that most Americans buy into them hook, line, and sinker (of course, it probably won't be something as obvious as, "our computers can't compute numbers above a million," as in this situation, but still).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 10/21/2008 12:18:03 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Bar Stool Economics - 10/21/2008 12:17:53 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1443
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
From a programming standpoint, claiming there's an issue at the $1 million mark is... entirely ridiculous. Computers do not count in base 10 like us. They count in base 2, grouped into sets of 8 places (byte) and generally represented in hexadecimal, which is 16 places (count from 0 to F), because writing out binary is really, really long. As such, the number "one million" is not even a place holder rollover to a computer.
Here's what the rollovers look like in binary, and what the number is in decimal:
Binary = Decimal
1 = 1
10 = 2
100 = 4
1000 = 8
10000 = 16
100000 = 32
1000000 = 64
10000000 = 128
Now, it does get somewhat more complicated when you introduce decimals and so forth, but suffice it to say that the binary equivalent of 1,000,000 is 11110100001001000000 (in integer terms) which is nowhere close to a digit rollover, and is nowhere close to a maximum of any normal programming number type. Decimal number types are generally represented by merely indicating where the decimal goes, so it wouldn't be close there either.
In other words, quite possibly the stupidest excuse I've ever heard. ;)
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
