the economy and debt-Repubes and Demos are equally stupid

[markabilly]

I can not beleive the stupidity of the last few weeks.

Repubes want to lower taxes and cut spending, go back to the 2004 debt ceiling (you know the amount of the debt that was lowered while bill clinton was in the white house)--bad to do when times are bad.

Demos want to raise taxes and debt ceiling

meanwhile we are over-loading ourselves with debt.

Yet none understand that job growth here is largely a myth, because the jobs lost, are not actually lost, they are going over seas, and now even the finanical jobs, the accounting jobs, health insurance claims jobs and all the rest, are going overseas via compuyer networking.

Our biggest export, is selling or transferring jobs to overseas markets (which is not really an export, just a joke), along with selling treasury notes to folks like to china.....

[schmenke]

Sigh... this old nugget.

Supply and demand mkbilly... even that lovely woodchucker lass of yours would understand.

The U.S. are the world's largest consumers of goods. They demand their plasma t.v.'s and they demand them cheap.
The Chinese have both the production capacitiy and non-unionized labour rates to supply that demand.


The U.S. is not selling treasury notes to China. They are floating them on the open market for anyone to buy.
If measures are not taken soon to keep the national debt in check those treasury notes will loose their market value and the U.S. economy will really be up a creek full of excrement.

[harvick#1]

One of the major problems and downfall is too much government. Being a politic was never intended to be a career, but theae congressmen/women have allowed it to happen. They are off in their own little worlds maling over 100k with free healthcare and a pension, something the repubs are all for giving away to from the middle class. Both sides lost sense of reality and need a swift kick in the ass

[Bob Riebe]

One of the major problems and downfall is too much government. Being a politic was never intended to be a career, but theae congressmen/women have allowed it to happen. They are off in their own little worlds maling over 100k with free healthcare and a pension, something the repubs are all for giving away to from the middle class. Both sides lost sense of reality and need a swift kick in the assThe Republicans, main failing, is they are cowards whose main concern is staying in office, even if it means kissing Jack-asses buttocks.

They are taking nothing from the middle class, if you are paying attention Obama is giving all sorts of people, who help elect him, waiver from having to be forced into the Obamacare scam.

The elected officials make the rules that govern them, and till more T.E.A. party types get in, that do not drop their pants and squat when Washington insiders say crap, beyond Greek type violence we are screwed.
The supposed put-upon middle class elects these hustlers because they think they are getting freebies, when all they get are bills that pay for Washington insiders freebies.
As bad as the elected officials are, it is the ones who are not elected, never get fired and stay there regardless of who the president it that are the cancer that is growing.

[Roamy]

Hopefully a third party emerges and we throw all of these fags out of office. the lowest approval rate in our history as of today.

[Rollo]

Yet none understand that job growth here is largely a myth, because the jobs lost, are not actually lost, they are going over seas, and now even the financial jobs, the accounting jobs, health insurance claims jobs and all the rest, are going overseas via computer networking.

Our biggest export, is selling or transferring jobs to overseas markets (which is not really an export, just a joke), along with selling treasury notes to folks like to china.....

Forgive me if I'm wrong but Wages & Salaries (which are the expense of what we like to call "Jobs") are subject to the forces of Supply and Demand like any other commodity.

China by virtue of having a population which is 4 and a bit times larger than the United States has a Supply Curve for labour shifted greatly to the right of the United States; because of this, the point at which Demand and Supply curves cross should give you a lower price for labour.
China has an Absolute Advantage when it comes to the factor of labour.

Firms as a result of wanting to lower costs will naturally want to relocate where those costs are less. China which has lower labor costs is obviously as a result of a decisions firms make.

You can't blame companies for wanting to be profitable. That is their point, is it not?

[markabilly]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but Wages & Salaries (which are the expense of what we like to call "Jobs") are subject to the forces of Supply and Demand like any other commodity.

China by virtue of having a population which is 4 and a bit times larger than the United States has a Supply Curve for labour shifted greatly to the right of the United States; because of this, the point at which Demand and Supply curves cross should give you a lower price for labour.
China has an Absolute Advantage when it comes to the factor of labour.

Firms as a result of wanting to lower costs will naturally want to relocate where those costs are less. China which has lower labor costs is obviously as a result of a decisions firms make.

You can't blame companies for wanting to be profitable. That is their point, is it not?

That was NOT my point. Regardless of why, the fact is that this is what is happenning.

And that fact is being ignored, completely ignored, in all this discussion about spending and debt ceiling, and the health of the american econmy.

And there is no discussion about how to address this particular problem



As for the teabaggers party, it goes from dum to dumber. What those tea party and republicans want to forget, is that under LBJ, taxes went up, the revenues exceeded debt, and unempoyment dropped. Under Clinton and the Demos, in Clinton's final years, the national debt was being reduced. Bush and 911 put a stop to that.
Fact. Like it or not.

Under the Republicans begining with Nixon, the debt has always gone up, up and up. Fact, like it or not.

If the chinese were not busy buying american debt using the profits from thier sales to this country, far more of you would be unemployed



So, it really does not matter about the debt ceiling going up or down, and cutting spending, or increasing spending to "stimulate the economy". The job drain contiunes, and until that is fixed, none of the other ultimately matters.

Rome burns while the politicans fiddle.................................

[Bob Riebe]

Under Clinton and the Demos, in Clinton's final years, the national debt was being reduced. Bush and 911 put a stop to that.
Fact. Like it or not.

.vkKFact, like it or not, Clinton merely signed a Republican budget bill, they controlled the House and Senate, starting in '94.
Get your facts straight.

Obama was elected with Democratic control of the house and senate and has NEVER yet even signed a budget.
The only president to ever have not done so, which I believe, but am not sure, is against one of the worthless congressional laws or something similar.

It was Republicans imitating Democrats, especially while Rino Bush was president, that brought about the T.E.A. party concern and anyone trashing that is ignoring facts or simply trying to play both ends against the middle.
Of course that is how the Rinos survived till voters started to pull their heads out of their rectums.

[Rollo]

So, it really does not matter about the debt ceiling going up or down, and cutting spending, or increasing spending to "stimulate the economy". The job drain contiunes, and until that is fixed, none of the other ultimately matters.

The "job drain" is ultimately cause by firms relocating production to places where labour is cheaper and thus maximising profits.
I suppose that the United States could try and compete with China on a wages basis but that would mean that the wage levels in the United States would have to drop, and I don't think that something which most people would enjoy.

The other option would be to do what Germany and Italy do and produce goods at a higher price point and at a better quality. I do wonder though whether firms in setting up production plants wouldn't just produce a better quality of goods in places like Vietnam and Laos where labour and ground-rents are cheaper anyway.

As for government debt issues, even if the United States were to cut government spending to ZERO, you'd still need to collect enough in taxes to fund existing debt and interest responsibilities.
At less than 15% of GDP, tax receipts for the US Federal Govt were the lowest they'd been as a percentage since 1962.
Assuming the 2008 level of taxation before the GFC and Government Spending of ZERO it would still take until 2018 to eliminate Government debt.

[markabilly]

vkKFact, like it or not, Clinton merely signed a Republican budget bill, they controlled the House and Senate, starting in '94.
Get your facts straight.


It was Republicans imitating Democrats, especially while Rino Bush was president, that brought about the T.E.A. party concern and anyone trashing that is ignoring facts or simply trying to play both ends against the middle.
Of course that is how the Rinos survived till voters started to pull their heads out of their rectums.


The dems controlled both senate and the house through clinton's first term. Get your facts straight.


then your rino showed up and spent like crazy.................so much for clinton's success in balaning the budget, indeed in producing a surplus.

Ain't no fan of Billy clinton, but i got to admit.......

then the teabagger party shows up,
and yep, some folks start pulling their heads out and sticking them up the rectum of the teabagger party.

I Love their rhetoric, but bottom line is the average teabagger is even more clueless

[markabilly]

The "job drain" is ultimately cause by firms relocating production to places where labour is cheaper and thus maximising profits.
I suppose that the United States could try and compete with China on a wages basis but that would mean that the wage levels in the United States would have to drop, and I don't think that something which most people would enjoy.

The other option would be to do what Germany and Italy do and produce goods at a higher price point and at a better quality. I do wonder though whether firms in setting up production plants wouldn't just produce a better quality of goods in places like Vietnam and Laos where labour and ground-rents are cheaper anyway.

As for government debt issues, even if the United States were to cut government spending to ZERO, you'd still need to collect enough in taxes to fund existing debt and interest responsibilities.
At less than 15% of GDP, tax receipts for the US Federal Govt were the lowest they'd been as a percentage since 1962.
Assuming the 2008 level of taxation before the GFC and Government Spending of ZERO it would still take until 2018 to eliminate Government debt.

Once again, you miss the point. But it is interesting to note the average tarriff to import goods into Germany and Italy run much higher than the the USA, not counting their value added taxes, which is something like 4 times higher than the USA whose tarriffs now average about 1%

[Rollo]

The four biggest areas of spending are Medicare & Medicaid, Social Security, Defense Spending and so-called Discretionary Spending. Of the latter Obama proposed freezing or reducing that in his 2011 State of the Union address.
Those four make up four-fifths of the US Budget.

If savings in the budget are to be made, then those four areas are where to do it for the most benefit. That means largely hacking at Defence Budgets, and spending on benefits for an aging population. That's all good and fine, provided you don't mind the social costs of reducing the quality of life for people as they retire.
On that last point, that's a dereliction of duty of both colours of politics going back as far as the Social Security Act of 1965 under LBJ. That's 46 years to work out a solution; the problem is that if anyone were to actually put forward a serious proposal to fixing it, it would be the most efficient vote loser yet invented.

Still, privatising profits and nationalising debt seems to be the modus operandii for a lot of countries around the world at the moment.

[Alexamateo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW9dxFrAk-I&feature=player_detailpage

I thought everyone might enjoy a little levity on the subject.

[anthonyvop]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but Wages & Salaries (which are the expense of what we like to call "Jobs") are subject to the forces of Supply and Demand like any other commodity.

In a free market...yes.

But in a world with with minimum wage laws, OSHA, Union Monopolies, EPA, and other government agencies and regulations too many to mention.....No!

[anthonyvop]

Once again, you miss the point. But it is interesting to note the average tarriff to import goods into Germany and Italy run much higher than the the USA, not counting their value added taxes, which is something like 4 times higher than the USA whose tarriffs now average about 1%

You fail to mention the USA's VAT. You might know it as the politically correct name.....Corporate Tax.

[anthonyvop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW9dxFrAk-I&feature=player_detailpage

I thought everyone might enjoy a little levity on the subject.

Bleh!!!! More elitist, Anti-Tea Party crap.

He is right about those in the middle being clueless though


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc_3EXt4BY0

[Rollo]

In a free market...yes.

But in a world with with minimum wage laws, OSHA, Union Monopolies, EPA, and other government agencies and regulations too many to mention.....No!

Those things only apply to the US. Factories in the Philippines, Pakistan and Vietnam (where my Nike Dunk Lo come from) don't worry about "minimum wage laws, OSHA, Union Monopolies, EPA, and other government agencies". That's who US Factories are competing on wages against.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What China does best is sell low-cost products in very large masses. Maybe the US should sell even more of what it does best and take some orders for F-22s and some Nimitz class aircraft carriers. I'm sure i'm China and India would love to buy some of those. ;)

[airshifter]

That was NOT my point. Regardless of why, the fact is that this is what is happenning.

And that fact is being ignored, completely ignored, in all this discussion about spending and debt ceiling, and the health of the american econmy.

And there is no discussion about how to address this particular problem



As for the teabaggers party, it goes from dum to dumber. What those tea party and republicans want to forget, is that under LBJ, taxes went up, the revenues exceeded debt, and unempoyment dropped. Under Clinton and the Demos, in Clinton's final years, the national debt was being reduced. Bush and 911 put a stop to that.
Fact. Like it or not.

Under the Republicans begining with Nixon, the debt has always gone up, up and up. Fact, like it or not.

If the chinese were not busy buying american debt using the profits from thier sales to this country, far more of you would be unemployed



So, it really does not matter about the debt ceiling going up or down, and cutting spending, or increasing spending to "stimulate the economy". The job drain contiunes, and until that is fixed, none of the other ultimately matters.

Rome burns while the politicans fiddle.................................


National debt didn't go down ever during the Clinton years, unless you compare national debt as a percentage of GDP. When comparing that number, it reduced, but it was a Republican controlled congress that did it. When compared as a percentage the low point in recent history was around 2000-2001, but the real climb didn't take place until 2008-2009. With the Dems controlling congress, the percentages of debt were climbing again.

Who is controlling congress has a much greater impact on debt than who is President. And looking back in history, both parties have screwed us in that respect.

Clinton managed to fool some people into thinking the national debt was being reduced by slick talking the budget surplus. Having a budget surplus is easy really. You simply overbudget and then don't spend all the money. Having a real debt reduction in significant amounts or a significant reduction in debt as a percentage of GDP is a much better goal.

[anthonyvop]

Those things only apply to the US. Factories in the Philippines, Pakistan and Vietnam (where my Nike Dunk Lo come from) don't worry about "minimum wage laws, OSHA, Union Monopolies, EPA, and other government agencies". That's who US Factories are competing on wages against.

Actually they do. Average wages in all those countries you mentioned have been going up significantly with their countries prosperity.

[ioan]

Our biggest export, is selling or transferring jobs to overseas markets (which is not really an export, just a joke), along with selling treasury notes to folks like to china.....

And me thinking it was weapons and hot air what you guys are mostly exporting. Silly me.

[markabilly]

And me thinking it was weapons and hot air what you guys are mostly exporting. Silly me.


Hot air?? We got an enormous surplus right now, over 104 in many areas, with high humidity, but nobody is buying, seems demand side curve is a reverse raduis, squared..


Damn I forgot about MIC. .
As the MIC (that is military industrial complex-for the ignorant); The Repube rinos want to cut spending on everything but the miltiary.

That is the answer: we need to stir up some more wars somewhere to get a stimulus, but we gotta learn to keep our boots in the USA.

The last ten years, we been stirring it up, only to go charging in trying to save people from themselves and spending a bunch of money doing it. Not as much profit in those sorts of operations.

Just look at Iraq. You think them sorry folks gonna refund any of those trillions we spent on them? Hell, no. They are already selling their oil fields to the chinese.

Yes sir, just more stupidity

[Bob Riebe]

The dems controlled both senate and the house through clinton's first term. Get your facts straight.
Only if you live in Never Land.

The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952).

Now that we know your facts are skewed, it explains your rhetoric.

[Jag_Warrior]

Damn I forgot about MIC. .
As the MIC (that is military industrial complex-for the ignorant); The Repube rinos want to cut spending on everything but the miltiary.

That is the answer: we need to stir up some more wars somewhere to get a stimulus, but we gotta learn to keep our boots in the USA.

The last ten years, we been stirring it up, only to go charging in trying to save people from themselves and spending a bunch of money doing it. Not as much profit in those sorts of operations.

Just look at Iraq. You think them sorry folks gonna refund any of those trillions we spent on them? Hell, no. They are already selling their oil fields to the chinese.

Yes sir, just more stupidity

Yeah, in our minds, because of the design of our capitol, etc., we seem to think we're the New Romans or something. But we always forget about the getting paid part. See, they got paid. Either you offered up tribute... or they burned your village and enslaved your women. Nah, we're more like Dotty the Dumb Hooker: we get... well, you know... but then we forget to ask for the money. And then we walk around and brag about it.

And now we've got these TEA Party people, or more accurately, the "rebranded neocons"... who've put on TEA Party jackets to sneak in the OG TEA Party, but they're all for wasting a few hundred billion more $ overseas (in the name of God, democracy and apple pie, of course), and at the same time they want to dismantle our nation to pay for their Holy Crusades.

For those who have not yet drank the kool-aid (of either party), a few of us have been talking about forming a new party. It'll be called the Whiskey Party. Our motto will be: "We're sick and tired of being sick & tired!" Not a lot of deep thought went into that, but it did seem to capture the mood. Owning a firearm won't be mandatory, but it might be helpful at some point (depending on how liquored up we get when we start talking politics). And absolutely, positively NO neocons or Evangelical Zionists allowed - they have to sit outside in the rain with the (actual) Marxists, Maoists, etc. Imagine, Michele Bachmann and Hugo Chavez sitting in the mud together. But any (real) TEA Partyer, who is sincere in his beliefs (and can also add & subtract), we'll at least interview for an open spot.

[Rollo]

Actually they do. Average wages in all those countries you mentioned have been going up significantly with their countries prosperity.

And what happens as a result of the costs of labour going up? The price mechanism finds a new equilibrium position.

[ioan]

Lots of rhetoric here in this thread, but no solutions so far. Here's a few.

Military spending - 20% reduction phased in over five years. Withdraw from all foreign conflicts absent a formal declaration of war.


Only 20% and that over 5 years?!
They can easily go to 80% if only formal declarations of war are to be responded to.
Then you won't need to cut social security and medicare.



Social Security & Medicare - Everyone age 60 and up no change in benefits from today's level; age 55-60 a 5% reduction in benefits; age 50-55 a 10% reduction; age 45-50 a 15% reduction; 40-45 a 20% reduction; everyone else a 25% reduction.

Not good!



Taxes - Individuals: Abolish ALL deductions for EVERYTHING. NO personal exemptions. Reduce the tax rates to compensate. People at or below the poverty level pay no income tax. For every $1000 you make above the poverty level you pay 1% of income (poverty level @ $10K and you make $11 you pay 1%; you make $12 you pay 2%) up to a to be determined cap.

And how do you set the cap?

For example 80,000 means they have to pay 70% so they keep 24,000.
For 50,000 they have to pay 40% so they keep 30,000.
Heck even for 40,000 taxes would be 30% so they keep 28,000.

Looks strange to me to Want to earn more then 50.000 a year. Without even mentioning that at 110,000 they keep 0.



- Corporations: Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE. This is a basic fallacy of the law. Enact an entirely new tax code for corporations which accurately determines their taxable profit and which also does away with the volumes of special exceptions now on the books.

This could work if done properly.

[Jag_Warrior]

Lots of rhetoric here in this thread, but no solutions so far. Here's a few.

Military spending - 20% reduction phased in over five years. Withdraw from all foreign conflicts absent a formal declaration of war.

Social Security & Medicare - Everyone age 60 and up no change in benefits from today's level; age 55-60 a 5% reduction in benefits; age 50-55 a 10% reduction; age 45-50 a 15% reduction; 40-45 a 20% reduction; everyone else a 25% reduction.

The rest of the government at large - A 20% reduction phased in over five years. Enact a ban on Congress adding ANY riders to bills which do not specifically address the main subject of the bill.

Taxes - Individuals: Abolish ALL deductions for EVERYTHING. NO personal exemptions. Reduce the tax rates to compensate. People at or below the poverty level pay no income tax. For every $1000 you make above the poverty level you pay 1% of income (poverty level @ $10K and you make $11 you pay 1%; you make $12 you pay 2%) up to a to be determined cap. - Corporations: Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE. This is a basic fallacy of the law. Enact an entirely new tax code for corporations which accurately determines their taxable profit and which also does away with the volumes of special exceptions now on the books.

OK, you'd be welcome in the Whiskey Party. And while you recite that, I'll let you wear my bullet proof vest... cause you'd be a marked man! :eek:


See how easy that was? Now go find some people with the intestinal fortitude to get it enacted.

And there's the rub. :( Assuming they didn't kill you, ALEC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-21/koch-exxon-mobil-among-corporations-helping-write-state-laws.html) and the Club for Growth (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aC_041icApro) would never let this come to pass; they're too powerful and wealthy and they value their sacred cows too highly. Sadly, the level of intestinal fortitude in politics these days is linked to the size of the donation check that is written. But that doesn't mean that common sense people, who aren't married to an ideology, shouldn't try.

Good post. :up:

[Rollo]

Taxes - Individuals: Abolish ALL deductions for EVERYTHING. NO personal exemptions. Reduce the tax rates to compensate. People at or below the poverty level pay no income tax. For every $1000 you make above the poverty level you pay 1% of income (poverty level @ $10K and you make $11 you pay 1%; you make $12 you pay 2%) up to a to be determined cap. - Corporations: Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE. This is a basic fallacy of the law. Enact an entirely new tax code for corporations which accurately determines their taxable profit and which also does away with the volumes of special exceptions now on the books.

See how easy that was? Now go find some people with the intestinal fortitude to get it enacted.

How about this:

Individuals
$0 - $6,000 - Nil
$6,001 - $37,000 - $0* plus 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001 - $80,000 - $4,650* plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000 - $17,550* plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over - $54,550* plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

*figure equals sum total of marginal tax rates to that point.

Deductions for individuals are allowed provided they are directly relatable to generating an income.

Corporations
[b]$0 and over[b] - 30c for each $1

Deductions for corporations are allowed provided they are directly relatable to generating an income. Obviously for a corporation this would include the normal course of business expenses such as wages, rent, electricity etc.

Incomes derived by individuals from corporations which are paid from post-taxed profits must include the amounts of tax paid within that income, but the amount of tax counts as a tax credit on an individual's income.

[Rollo]

1) You have just made it more complex (i.e. easier to game) and opened the door for further "necessary modifications". One of the most important reasons I structured my proposal the way I did was to eliminate that sort of thing. You keep the rules very, very simple. That way, everyone knows where they stand and, much more importantly, they know where everyone else stands too - there is no perception of some people being more equal than others.

Actually all I did was quote verbatim the taxation rates in Australia for the year ending 2010-11. The Henry Taxation review which took seven years to commission into what was deemed fair and responsible thought that these taxation rates subject to inflation were both good and workable.
The rules are very simple. Taxation is determined on the level of income you make.


2) My basic assumption is that everybody pays the same rate (above the poverty level). Your proposal provides reverse incentive to be successful and provides a MAJOR incentive for more successful people to avoid paying taxes and to change the system to favor themselves - right back to where we are now.

Everyone ideally would prefer to pay ZERO, it's human nature. Everyone is always going to game the system even if they earn very little; that fact is almost uncontestable.
Marginal taxation rates in principle apply to the next dollar. Poor people by the fact that they earn less income, will always find anything other than a progressive taxation system more burdonsome. Someone on $10,000 a year is always going to miss that next dollar than someone on $100,000 a year. That is the reason why progressive taxation rates exist.


3) Income to individuals, from investment or otherwise, must only be taxed at the individual rate.

Under this system income to individuals, from investment or otherwise, ARE taxed at the individual rate. Someone who earns $29,000 and gets a dividend will find that the tax credits on a pre-taxed dividend actually end up as a refund in their hands. The vast majority of people find that they pay no net difference on pre-taxed dividends. Those people who are already on $80,001 only pay the marginal difference.


4) Why in the world would you want to tax your most productive and successful citizens at a 45% rate? Talk about an incentive to NOT play fair!!

a) Your statement that people on $80,000 and above are "most productive" is crap.
Wages as a production cost are determined by the forces of supply and demand; not by how "productive" someone is. The profits of a company are produced by those workers actually engaged in production of goods and services. Whilst it can be said that without management a company will not function is both true and accurate, to suggest that they're "more productive" is a load of tosh.

Do you honestly think that Obama on $400,000 is really that much more "productive" than someone working at the Trenton Van Camp beans factory? On average a Van Camp beans factory worker generates $496,000 of profit per person but I bet they're not paid that.

b) You don't charge the highest workers a flat 45% rate. Under a marginal taxation system, every dollar is taxed at the marginal tax rate. Someone on $600,000 a year is still charged $0 on those first $6000, 15% on the next $31,000 etc.

Most importantly the system in Australia WORKS. Before the Global Financial crisis Australia was running an actual government surplus. That is an excess of taxation receipts over government spending. Also, Australian net Government Debt was ZERO.
The last real United States Government surplus was in 1957. I'm not sure when the last time the United States Government actually cleared its debts but I think it was probably about 1855-1859.

[anthonyvop]

How about this:

Individuals
$0 - $6,000 - Nil
$6,001 - $37,000 - $0* plus 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$37,001 - $80,000 - $4,650* plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 - $180,000 - $17,550* plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over - $54,550* plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

*figure equals sum total of marginal tax rates to that point.

Deductions for individuals are allowed provided they are directly relatable to generating an income.

Corporations
[b]$0 and over[b] - 30c for each $1

Deductions for corporations are allowed provided they are directly relatable to generating an income. Obviously for a corporation this would include the normal course of business expenses such as wages, rent, electricity etc.

Incomes derived by individuals from corporations which are paid from post-taxed profits must include the amounts of tax paid within that income, but the amount of tax counts as a tax credit on an individual's income.

Why do some people actually believe there is some kind of moral prize to punish the more successful?

How about this.

10% on ALL income up to $250,000. No deductions!!! Everybody pays.....EVERYBODY!!!

[anthonyvop]

Do you honestly think that Obama on $400,000 is really that much more "productive" than someone working at the Trenton Van Camp beans factory?

Of course he does. His buying power alone generates more production.
Your Bean Factory worker can probably be replaced by a machine. A person who earns $400K a year either spends more or invests more. Even if he stuffs the money into a mattress it doesn't matter.

It is morally corrupt to tax people more just because they can afford it. Would it be OK if a restaurant charged you more for a bowl Soup than a guy sitting at the next table just because your paycheck is bigger????

There is no Honor in spending other people's money.

[Rollo]

Why do some people actually believe there is some kind of moral prize to punish the more successful?

Rich people tend to have far more political leverage than poor people and are therefore in a far better position to game the system in the first place.
Poor people also feel the effects of taxation far more than rich people. To reiterate: "Someone on $10,000 a year is always going to miss that next dollar than someone on $100,000 a year. That is the reason why progressive taxation rates exist."

[Bob Riebe]

And now we've got these TEA Party people, or more accurately, the "rebranded neocons"...
Try again.

Neo-con.= Rino, which equals the people the T.E.A. group wants to get rid of.

No wonder you agree with Markabiliy on this, you don't quite have the facts straight.

[Rollo]

Of course he does. His buying power alone generates more production.

No.

What it "generates" isn't production. That's what someone else generates.

Try again.

[Jag_Warrior]

Try again.

Neo-con.= Rino, which equals the people the T.E.A. group wants to get rid of.

No wonder you agree with Markabiliy on this, you don't quite have the facts straight.

As usual...

Bob. Bob. Bob... What I was referring to are the fake/new to the game TEA Party people, not the ones who actually are sincere in their beliefs (whether they are correct or not). These "rebranded neocon" people are the same as the commies, who all of a sudden weren't commies, the day after the Soviet Union fell. Leopards can't change their spots, but two-legged skunks are known to change their stripes (as opportunity dictates).

[Bob Riebe]

As usual...

Bob. Bob. Bob... What I was referring to are the fake/new to the game TEA Party people, not the ones who actually are sincere in their beliefs (whether they are correct or not). These "rebranded neocon" people are the same as the commies, who all of a sudden weren't commies, the day after the Soviet Union fell. Leopards can't change their spots, but two-legged skunks are known to change their stripes (as opportunity dictates).Ahhh----- grasshopper has become wise.

[Rollo]

This is an interesting website. It's also a wee bit scary.

A visualization of US debt (credit card bill) stacked in 100 dollar bills (http://www.wtfnoway.com/)

[anthonyvop]

Rich people tend to have far more political leverage than poor people and are therefore in a far better position to game the system in the first place.

Not true and if it was does it matter?


Poor people also feel the effects of taxation far more than rich people. To reiterate: "Someone on $10,000 a year is always going to miss that next dollar than someone on $100,000 a year. That is the reason why progressive taxation rates exist."

So you agree that the progressive Tax rate is so people like you can feel better about themselves by spending other people's money?

You never answered my Restaurant question.


Would it be OK if a restaurant charged you more for a bowl Soup than a guy sitting at the next table just because your paycheck is bigger????

[anthonyvop]

No.

What it "generates" isn't production. That's what someone else generates.

Try again.


Really? is that what they taught you?

So if I use my income to have a home built I am not generating any production? That Cement company is still gonna make cement even though nobody is buying it? The electrician is gonna keep wiring even though he has no construction site to work on?

[Rollo]

Really? is that what they taught you?

No. What you taught me is that you either do not know how to read, or are deliberately twisting the question because you don't understand it.


Do you honestly think that Obama on $400,000 is really that much more "productive" than someone working at the Trenton Van Camp beans factory?

Wages are the reward for labour. A reward happens when something has been completed. Productivity is a measure of outptut (in this case labour).

But you answered:

Of course he does. His buying power alone generates more production.

Buying power has NOTHING to do with productivity. Buying power results from how much money someone has. A welfare recipient by your logic is productive, and if we apply it, then the logical outcome is that we should pay unproductive people more money to sit around and do nothing because they will then have more buying power.

Yours is the formal fallacy of the "Ignoratio elenchi" or the irrelevant conclusion. The rest of your line of argument including the post above is a separate issue.

[Rollo]

No it's not. It is the demand for products which drives the economy. Without the consumer there is no production. Those with resources (money) consume more and invest in things like building houses (obviously in the hope of a return) as well as invest in new innovations/technologies making the future better. Else we would all be sitting around striking flints to start fires and throwing rocks at animals in hopes of dinner.

I agree.

Demand however is not productivity.

[anthonyvop]

No. What you taught me is that you either do not know how to read, or are deliberately twisting the question because you don't understand it.



Wages are the reward for labour. A reward happens when something has been completed. Productivity is a measure of outptut (in this case labour).

But you answered:


Buying power has NOTHING to do with productivity. Buying power results from how much money someone has. A welfare recipient by your logic is productive, and if we apply it, then the logical outcome is that we should pay unproductive people more money to sit around and do nothing because they will then have more buying power.

Yours is the formal fallacy of the "Ignoratio elenchi" or the irrelevant conclusion. The rest of your line of argument including the post above is a separate issue.

Wow! I mean Wow!

No wonder Economists can never get laid....at least the ones like Keynes....If you cannot grasp the fact that it is wealth and wealth alone that can truly and honestly create productivity then North Korea is the place for you.

This brings to mind the time famous economist Milton Friedman was in South America and saw canal diggers using shovels. Friedman asked why the excavation equipment was sitting idle. Officials replied that it was because it was a jobs program, and if they used the equipment, jobs would be lost. Friedman then pointed out that if the officials didn’t want productivity in their jobs program, the workers could be given spoons instead of shovels.

[anthonyvop]

I agree.

Demand however is not productivity.

One more time....Demand CREATES THE NEED FOR PRODUCTIVITY!!!!

[Rollo]

One more time....Demand CREATES THE NEED FOR PRODUCTIVITY!!!!

No it doesn't.

Profit Motive creates the need for Productivity. Profit Motive is not Demand.
Demand is the volume of goods that consumers are willing to purchase at a particular price.

Just because you yell something louder and louder doesn't make it true. An appeal to emotion is also a logical fallacy. That's two of them you've totted up now.

[Bob Riebe]

No it doesn't.

Profit Motive creates the need for Productivity. Profit Motive is not Demand.
Demand is the volume of goods that consumers are willing to purchase at a particular price.

Just because you yell something louder and louder doesn't make it true. An appeal to emotion is also a logical fallacy. That's two of them you've totted up now.Demand creates need; need creates productivity; productivity creates profit.
Many items have been produces iwith too low of demand (need) to be profitable. Eventually they cease to exist unless the losses can be used to benefit the tax hit on the company producing them.

Saying profit creates need is just plain silly.

[ArrowsFA1]

Not true and if it was does it matter?
Depends which side of the wealth fence you're sitting on.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

One more time....Demand CREATES THE NEED FOR PRODUCTIVITY!!!!

What if the goods demanded are produced in another country?

[Alexamateo]

Demand creates need; need creates productivity; productivity creates profit.
Many items have been produces iwith too low of demand (need) to be profitable. Eventually they cease to exist unless the losses can be used to benefit the tax hit on the company producing them.

Saying profit creates need is just plain silly.

I don't know, a supply-sider would say "Supply creates it's own demand." Hence we salesmen go out and "Drum up Business."

[Alexamateo]

Really? is that what they taught you?

So if I use my income to have a home built I am not generating any production? That Cement company is still gonna make cement even though nobody is buying it? The electrician is gonna keep wiring even though he has no construction site to work on?

You do realize you are making an inadvertent case for Keynes, don't you? The implication is that the problem is on the Demand side of the economy and a Keynesian style stimulus on public works projects to inject money into the economy might be just the thing to increase demand and get these concrete plants and electricians working again. This in turn would mean that they have money to go out and buy things etc. etc.

Remember that Keynes and the ilk believe in free markets. The deficit spending is designed to smooth out the boom and bust cycles of the market. The problem is that politicians always forget to stop the spending in the boom cycles and we get the deficits we have now.

[markabilly]

This is an interesting website. It's also a wee bit scary.

A visualization of US debt (credit card bill) stacked in 100 dollar bills (http://www.wtfnoway.com/)

big deal. it is only money


meanwhile rome continues to burn.......................

[gloomyDAY]

This is making me a little anxious at the moment. I get paid through the Army, so if a budget is not decided on soon I'll be out of a paycheck and my scholarship at school. There have already been reductions in active duty personnel and budget cuts throughout most branches as well.

[Rollo]

This is making me a little anxious at the moment. I get paid through the Army, so if a budget is not decided on soon I'll be out of a paycheck and my scholarship at school. There have already been reductions in active duty personnel and budget cuts throughout most branches as well.

I wouldn't worry that much. From what I've read over the past few days, most analysts seem to think that a deal will be struck despite the utterly toxic politics being played out on both sides. It's worth noting that the Debt Ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962.
This Debt Ceiling is a huge screen for the fact that there is a very large debt that no-one's got the courage to sort out.

I think come August 3 you'll continue to be paid.

Aside: I did however find these two articles amusing:
Apple Now Has More Cash Than the U.S. Government - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/the-us-now-has-less-cash-than-apple/242729/)
U.S. balance now less than Apple cash | Trading Desk | Financial Post (http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/28/u-s-balance-now-less-than-apple-cash/)

[anthonyvop]

You do realize you are making an inadvertent case for Keynes, don't you? The implication is that the problem is on the Demand side of the economy and a Keynesian style stimulus on public works projects to inject money into the economy might be just the thing to increase demand and get these concrete plants and electricians working again. This in turn would mean that they have money to go out and buy things etc. etc.

Remember that Keynes and the ilk believe in free markets. The deficit spending is designed to smooth out the boom and bust cycles of the market. The problem is that politicians always forget to stop the spending in the boom cycles and we get the deficits we have now.

No....Keynes believed, as you stated, deficit spending to smooth out boom and bust cycles. In other words he advocated government bailouts. I advocate a true free market and against any and all deficit spending.

Of course history has shown that Keynes is wrong.

[Rollo]

In other words he advocated government bailouts.

To which book are you referring to here?

[markabilly]

No....
Of course history has shown that Keynes is wrong.


Another wet dream of the tea party :rolleyes:


So typical and sounds good, too bad it has nothing to do with reality

[anthonyvop]

Another wet dream of the tea party :rolleyes:


So typical and sounds good, too bad it has nothing to do with reality

Show us one example where Keynesian economics were better than a real Free Market?

Just one!

Don't bother answering because there is none. Keynesian policies infringe on the rights of the individual while the free market does not(The real free market not some anarchist silliness).

[Firstgear]

I advocate a true free market and against any and all deficit spending.
This is a very black/white statement.

I'm not familiar with all the nuances of financial speak, but it sounds to me, that if this statement was taken on a personal level, you'd be against borrowing money to purchase anything.
Am I to believe that you'd only purchase a house or car, for example, if you had the cash in hand to do so?

[Gregor-y]

Show us one example where Keynesian economics were better than a real Free Market?

Just one!

Don't bother answering because there is none. Keynesian policies infringe on the rights of the individual while the free market does not(The real free market not some anarchist silliness).
1893 versus 1932, for a start. If you want to argue it was the war made everything better (speaking from the rather insular view of the US, of course), remember that was a bigger injection of cash than the New Deal and only reinforces the point.

[race aficionado]

This is a man, a politician I do admire:


We are the United States of America, the greatest country on earth. We don't default.
Dennis Kucinich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Q52PwFVgE&feature=player_embedded

[Rollo]

Show us one example where Keynesian economics were better than a real Free Market?

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
During the Free Banking Era the average length of a US recession was 22 months, whilst after WW2 it's only been an average of 11.


Just one!

We can do better than that, try eleven!


In other words he advocated government bailouts.

Have you found that book yet? No?

[Rollo]

BBC News - US House passes Republican budget proposal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14351148)
The US House of Representatives has passed a Republican bill proposed by Speaker John Boehner to increase the nation's debt ceiling.
Mr Boehner's plan passed the House by a vote of 218-210, with 22 Republicans and every Democrat voting against.

Every Democrat voting against? Why? Why would they not want the Debt Ceiling to be raised when one of their own is sitting in the Oval Office?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-senate-debt-vote-20110729,0,1040563.story
The Senate voted Friday evening to reject Speaker John A. Boehner's debt-ceiling plan just hours after it moved through the House, setting up a dramatic weekend of negotiations as Congress works to stave off a potential federal default.
The Senate tally was 59-41 on the motion to table the House plan, including some Republican votes.

Both sides are playing toxic politics to the point where nobody is serving the national interest. If someone started a serious third party now, would that garner enough votes to split the two?

[anthonyvop]

This is a very black/white statement.

I'm not familiar with all the nuances of financial speak, but it sounds to me, that if this statement was taken on a personal level, you'd be against borrowing money to purchase anything.
Am I to believe that you'd only purchase a house or car, for example, if you had the cash in hand to do so?

Borrowing money from a private is not deficit spending if the net worth and income more than covers the installments. I do have a mortgage on some of my properties but the rental income more than covers the Mortgage and upkeep which allows for a nice profit along with equity.
Every car I have owned has been paid for with CASH....never financed. Unless it is a Collectible car purchased as in investment it is really stupid to pay interest on something that loses value as soon as you sign on the dotted line.

That is the problem. What the government is doing is basically as if a person who runs out of money to pay his bills and reaches the limit on the credit card just asks for a higher credit limit to be able to buy more stuff....Without any foreseeable plan to make the payments

[anthonyvop]

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
During the Free Banking Era the average length of a US recession was 22 months, whilst after WW2 it's only been an average of 11.



We can do better than that, try eleven!


Well first off those numbers are seriously flawed and like most left wing economist fail to understand history and basic human nature. Of course recessions lasted longer 150 years ago...Jeez it took 3 months to cross the US. Nothing happened fast.

But it doesn't really matter. Even if it was true that is like saying that National Socialism/Fascism is better...After all under Hitler and Mussolini "unemployment" was low and the trains ran on time.

You don't get it. If you really value freedom then you have to embrace capitalism and no other system. For better or for worse that is Freedom

[Rollo]

Well first off those numbers are seriously flawed

Prove otherwise. Show your sources.


and like most left wing economist fail to understand history and basic human nature.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages"
- Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) 1776.

Basic human nature is to look out for one's own. What's not to understand? Everyone from Smith, to Hayek, Galbraith, von Mises, of all economic colours knows this. Again, please show your proofs.


Of course recessions lasted longer 150 years ago...Jeez it took 3 months to cross the US. Nothing happened fast.

How long would it have taken to send a telegraph message from New York to Los Angeles in 1893?

The Panic of 1893 although was triggered by the the bankruptcy of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad. When news hit the markets in Wall St, it caused a panic sell off and a run on the banks. The DJIA lost 60 points (which amounted to roughly 75% of its value in 9 minutes on February 26, 1893.
Nothing happened fast? I'm sorry, but not even the stock market crash in 1987 was that quick.

[anthonyvop]

Prove otherwise. Show your sources.

I just did
Here is another one. It lists the current recession as starting in December 2007 and "Ending" on June 2009??? Really? With a revised first 1/4 GDP of 0.4 I guess we didn't get the memo announcing the end of the recession.

And apparently the Great Depression ended in 1933......WOW....Just WOW.



"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages"
- Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) 1776.

Basic human nature is to look out for one's own. What's not to understand? Everyone from Smith, to Hayek, Galbraith, von Mises, of all economic colours knows this. Again, please show your proofs.

While it is basic Human nature to be charitable it is criminal to forcibly take money from others so you can feel good. Then there is the definition and level of charity. 90 weeks of unemployment benefits isn't charity but vote buying. Bailing out failed businesses isn't charity it is appeasing Unions...I can go on and on about how MY MONEY is being used for political gain not genuine charity.

There is no honor in spending other people's money.


How long would it have taken to send a telegraph message from New York to Los Angeles in 1893?

How long would it take to ship product?


The Panic of 1893 although was triggered by the the bankruptcy of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad. When news hit the markets in Wall St, it caused a panic sell off and a run on the banks. The DJIA lost 60 points (which amounted to roughly 75% of its value in 9 minutes on February 26, 1893.
Nothing happened fast? I'm sorry, but not even the stock market crash in 1987 was that quick.

That was one event! between 2 close and electronically collected entities. Accept it. Your source is a seriously flawed and bias one.

[BDunnell]

Accept it. Your source is a seriously flawed and bias one.

I am sure that, following such a rebuke from a respected non-partisan critic like your good self, Rollo will issue an immediate retraction.

[race aficionado]

According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone will exceed $5 trillion. With a cost like this, why isn’t war central to the debate over the national debt?

Well, I know my answer:

1) War is good business for those who produce and sell the products necessary for a profitable war and those "businessmen" are deeply ingrained in our political machinery and economical system.

- - - - - - - - - -

Peace should be an option that is more profitable for ALL of us.


Ah what the heck!

Without sharing there can be no justice,
Without justice there can be no peace,
Without peace there can be no future.
:s mokin:


Has that debt ceiling fallen on our heads already? :dozey:

[Rollo]

And apparently the Great Depression ended in 1933......WOW....Just WOW.

Well it did. The US economy GREW in the Spring Quarter of 1933.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_10-60.jpg

Great Depression (economy) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/243118/Great-Depression)

A recession or a depression ends when the economy stops shrinking. Grant that Real GDP wouldn't reach 1929 levels until mid-1936 but nevertheless, technically the dperession broke in 1933.


That was one event! between 2 close and electronically collected entities.

SO where was this great computer in 1893 of which you speak?

[Roamy]

Lets face it - Until we revamp the lousy tax code in this country and get rid of the IRS we are doomed to the governments Ponzi scheme. And while I am at it I have decided I am now for term limits for all members of congress.

[markabilly]

Keynesian policies infringe on the rights of the individual while the free market does not(The real free market not some anarchist silliness).

The "real free market"???well show me one. About the only time the usa had a truly free market, was back in the old western days,-on the frontier only-- and whoever was the best shot, was the law.

And make up your mind about law enforcement, cause you talk about all this freedom, yet are always wanting the law to protect you.

Much like the marxists, and other utopian society dreamers, the tea party has a great philosophy to sprout off with, but reality justs gets in the way.

:dozey:

[anthonyvop]

The "real free market"???well show me one. About the only time the usa had a truly free market, was back in the old western days,-on the frontier only-- and whoever was the best shot, was the law.

And make up your mind about law enforcement, cause you talk about all this freedom, yet are always wanting the law to protect you.

Much like the marxists, and other utopian society dreamers, the tea party has a great philosophy to sprout off with, but reality justs gets in the way.

:dozey:


Apparently you have no idea how Capitalism and the Free market works.

You think it is some form of anarchy which couldn't be further from the truth. In a real free market there is a strong justice system to prevent fraud, theft and to settle disputes.

It is in no way, shape or form some type of wild west scenario in which "the best shot" wins. You are like the people who pointed to the Madoff ponzi scheme as an indictment of Capitalism.

[BDunnell]

Apparently you have no idea how Capitalism and the Free market works.

I'm glad you put that in bold and underlined it. I was in serious danger of ignoring it otherwise.

[Rollo]

You think it is some form of anarchy which couldn't be further from the truth. In a real free market there is a strong justice system to prevent fraud, theft and to settle disputes.


Assuming that this theoretical market did actually exist. Given that everyone acts from "his or her own rational self-interest", doesn't that make the system open to being gamed, just like any other system?
Who do you propose would pay for said "strong justice system to prevent fraud, theft and to settle disputes" since you're so vehemently opposed to taxation? Would such a system just spontaneously arise?

[BDunnell]

Assuming that this theoretical market did actually exist. Given that everyone acts from "his or her own rational self-interest", doesn't that make the system open to being gamed, just like any other system?
Who do you propose would pay for said "strong justice system to prevent fraud, theft and to settle disputes" since you're so vehemently opposed to taxation? Would such a system just spontaneously arise?

While we're about it, let's not forget that the individual espousing the notion of a 'strong justice system' is also one who claims to have flouted other justice systems by virtue of the unlawful possession of a firearm.

[Bob Riebe]

While we're about it, let's not forget that the individual espousing the notion of a 'strong justice system' is also one who claims to have flouted other justice systems by virtue of the unlawful possession of a firearm.Can you add anything to this thread that is not simply attacking another poster?

[Rollo]

The West Wing did it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5igKuNF1rI&feature=youtu.be
Ok, so the US economy didn't collapse... but it nearly did, Japan didn't sink into the sea... but it nearly did...

[BDunnell]

Can you add anything to this thread that is not simply attacking another poster?

There was no attack in what I said — merely a factual (if the said incident did actually take place) statement.

[Captain VXR]

http://images.ichc.s3.amazonaws.com/originals/completestore/2011/7/18/9bba5fba-a917-47ca-b6f5-999a7fc66280.jpg
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/a35134dd-bcf4-4bef-b050-cd7420e82a36.jpg
On balance, IO wsould say that the Repubes are more stupid

[Bob Riebe]

On balance, IO would say that the Repubes are more stupid
That list is another bull-**** piece of used toilet paper; tax cuts are do not add to a deficit.
Spending money one does not have and trying to forcefully take it from a populace that will not give it adds to the false deficit, which only exists in the mind of those who think they can spend as much as they want because they have zero to start with but think all money is theirs regardless of fact or laws.

It is amazing how the first Gulf War is in there as Pres. Bush made others pay for it.

[BDunnell]

That list is another bull-**** piece of used toilet paper; tax cuts are do not add to a deficit.
Spending money one does not have and trying to forcefully take it from a populace that will not give it adds to the false deficit, which only exists in the mind of those who think they can spend as much as they want because they have zero to start with but think all money is theirs regardless of fact or laws.

In my experience, such people as you describe exist purely for rhetorical purposes, not in real life.

[Bob Riebe]

In my experience, such people as you describe exist purely for rhetorical purposes, not in real life.Unless you live in the U.S., you are speaking from ignorance.
The very reason I do not comment on U.K. politics concerning financial matters.

[Bob Riebe]

It seem from info out there so far, and especially the talking heads, the Rinos still rule and the Repubes collapsed again as usual; whereas Obama got the only thing he was really fighting for, making this a lessor issue in the next election.
Same ****, same pile, as usual.

[Gregor-y]

Unless you live in the U.S., you are speaking from ignorance.
The very reason I do not comment on U.K. politics concerning financial matters.
I think he's spot on; your stereotype of people receiving benefits is no different from communists putting fluoride in your drinking water, every black person in the city on welfare driving a Cadillac Escalade, or the Satan worshipers in the woods of every small town. They're all conjured up to try and reinforce an opinion that can't rely on common sense, logic, or facts alone.

And, of course, it's hardly a US-only practice.

[Rollo]

Unless you live in the U.S., you are speaking from ignorance.
The very reason I do not comment on U.K. politics concerning financial matters.

I very much disagree with this.

What with a 24 hour news cycle and coverage being beamed around the world, I hardly think that you can call people not in the US "ignorant".
I for instance can tell you who the respective leaders of the parties are in both houses and who the speakers, who several secretaries are in the admiistration, and yet I can't even do that with the state of New South Wales which I live in off the top of my head and I certainly can't do that for any other state in Australia.

[anthonyvop]

http://images.ichc.s3.amazonaws.com/originals/completestore/2011/7/18/9bba5fba-a917-47ca-b6f5-999a7fc66280.jpg

On balance, IO wsould say that the Repubes are more stupid

#1 Is wrong. Obamacare took care of that
#2 Is just stupid. If you get sick and you have a choice of treatment is the USA or some 3rd world country we all know which one you would choose.
BTW Healthcare IS NOT A RIGHT and yet nobody is turned away at a hospital....Hmmmm.
#3 Rather spend it on Defense than most other government projects
#4 George Bush wasn't a conservative and Obama has tripled the deficit in less than 3 years.
#5 Social Security is suppose to be self-funded. And we are sick and tired of subsidizing the Lazy. The poor in the USA have Cell Phones and Cable TV.
#6 I agree with legalizing Marijuana but for other criminals we waste too much money coddling them. Tents in the Dessert and Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwiches
3 times a day is good enough.
#7 Agree with you on that one. How Conservative of ya.
#8 The Corporate Tax is just a thinly disguised Sales Tax. We just pass it along to the consumer. The best choice is to improve productivity by abolishing
the Corporate Tax.

[BDunnell]

#4 George Bush wasn't a conservative

What was he?

By the way, you failed to notice the main reason one finds it difficult to take that placard seriously, in that they mis-spell 'bin Laden', a name I would have thought had been in the news enough to enable everybody to get it right.

[Bob Riebe]

I think he's spot on; your stereotype of people receiving benefits is no different from communists putting fluoride in your drinking water, every black person in the city on welfare driving a Cadillac Escalade, or the Satan worshipers in the woods of every small town. They're all conjured up to try and reinforce an opinion that can't rely on common sense, logic, or facts alone.

Unless your primary newspaper is the Inquirer, I have not heard of your supposed news stories.
So the only spots that are on, are the ones you may be seeing.

[Bob Riebe]

What was he?

By the way, you failed to notice the main reason one finds it difficult to take that placard seriously, in that they mis-spell 'bin Laden', a name I would have thought had been in the news enough to enable everybody to get it right.Rino- Republican in name only.

[BDunnell]

That little piece you posted is one of the best examples of why neither those on the far left or far right can be trusted to provide anything resembling truthful information or reasonable discussion.
They are both operating in la la land.

As, some might say, are those who would describe the statements therein as 'far left' — evidence of how skewed some political compasses have become. Nonetheless, I think your sentiment is basically accurate, although some here who claim to know me better than I know myself have described me as being on the far left.

[BDunnell]

Rino- Republican in name only.

In what sense?

[Bob Riebe]

In what sense?In every sense.
The Republican party was/is the conservative party and there is nothing conservative about him.

[Rollo]

#8 The Corporate Tax is just a thinly disguised Sales Tax. We just pass it along to the consumer. The best choice is to improve productivity by abolishing the Corporate Tax.

Corporate Tax is a tax on profits. Profits are only the result of all Incomes minus all Expenditures. An entity which does not turn a profit pays zero Corporate Tax.
The best way to improve productivity is by either reducing input costs, or increasing output of product per unit of input cost. Since Corporate Tax is a tax on profits, it is NOT an input cost. If a Company does not make a profit, then it does not pay Corporate Tax, how then is it possible to pass on a cost which was never incurred?
Your argument is invalid.

[Bob Riebe]

Corporate Tax is a tax on profits. Profits are only the result of all Incomes minus all Expenditures. An entity which does not turn a profit pays zero Corporate Tax.
The best way to improve productivity is by either reducing input costs, or increasing output of product per unit of input cost. Since Corporate Tax is a tax on profits, it is NOT an input cost. If a Company does not make a profit, then it does not pay Corporate Tax, how then is it possible to pass on a cost which was never incurred?
Your argument is invalid.I believe and I may be wrong, that Anthony means by Corporate tax-- any fees (some times, recently more often, the governments use that term to cover-up a tax; although the Minn. government tried it and the Minn. Supreme Court said- you can call it what you want, but it is a tax and it is illegal.) , or other financial penalties imposed on businesses by governments.

[anthonyvop]

What was he?

By the way, you failed to notice the main reason one finds it difficult to take that placard seriously, in that they mis-spell 'bin Laden', a name I would have thought had been in the news enough to enable everybody to get it right.

Bush was fairly liberal in dealings with the Economy. Anyone who subsidizes private entities with the Tax payer's money is NOT A CONSERVATIVE

[anthonyvop]

Corporate Tax is a tax on profits. Profits are only the result of all Incomes minus all Expenditures. An entity which does not turn a profit pays zero Corporate Tax.
.


Maybe in the land of Rainbow and Unicorns where you live but in the USA Corporations pay taxes whether you make a profit or not. Licenses, Permits, Assets, Property Taxes, impact fees, environmental fees....ALL TAXES. ALL PASSED ALONG TO THE CONSUMER!!!!

I pay over $200 in taxes just on phone and internet service per month....that is $2400 a year that I have to recoup in income....Who do you think pays?

Forget your sterile Econ 101 textbook and get in the real world.

[Rollo]

Maybe in the land of Rainbow and Unicorns where you live but in the USA Corporations pay taxes whether you make a profit or not. Licenses, Permits, Assets, Property Taxes, impact fees, environmental fees....ALL TAXES. ALL PASSED ALONG TO THE CONSUMER!!!!

None of those are Income Tax. Well done.


I pay over $200 in taxes just on phone and internet service per month....that is $2400 a year that I have to recoup in income....Who do you think pays?

Forget your sterile Econ 101 textbook and get in the real world.

I'm an accountant. I live in the real world. It's my job to file people's tax returns. I filed 1120s.
None of the "taxes" that you pay on your phone and internet service per month are "passed on" Corporate Income Taxes. None. Not even a single penny.

This isn't about Econ 101. This is about the fact that your country is in deep deep dire doo-doo because you have a country of people all gaming the system and no-one's got the guts to do anything about it. You have a country which has run 53 consecutive deficits and nobody wants to pay, including yourself.
Think 1776 and "no taxation without representation", except that as soon as you got representation it just shortened to "no taxation".

Take heed, the piper is coming; you will have to pay eventually.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

[Bob Riebe]

None of those are Income Tax. Well done.




"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Any tax, what ever it is called, including penalties, put on a corporation by the government, get pushed onto the consumer.
To say otherwise is foolishness.

As to your quote, what else would a narcissistic Keynesian liberal say?
He was so full of himself, the truth was never considered.

[ArrowsFA1]

As, some might say, are those who would describe the statements therein as 'far left' — evidence of how skewed some political compasses have become. Nonetheless, I think your sentiment is basically accurate, although some here who claim to know me better than I know myself have described me as being on the far left.
A bit of fun - The Political Compass - Test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)

[chuck34]

None of those are Income Tax. Well done.



I'm an accountant. I live in the real world. It's my job to file people's tax returns. I filed 1120s.
None of the "taxes" that you pay on your phone and internet service per month are "passed on" Corporate Income Taxes. None. Not even a single penny.

This isn't about Econ 101. This is about the fact that your country is in deep deep dire doo-doo because you have a country of people all gaming the system and no-one's got the guts to do anything about it. You have a country which has run 53 consecutive deficits and nobody wants to pay, including yourself.
Think 1776 and "no taxation without representation", except that as soon as you got representation it just shortened to "no taxation".

Take heed, the piper is coming; you will have to pay eventually.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

I've tried to stay out of this as these discussions pretty much go no where. But your statement

None of the "taxes" that you pay on your phone and internet service per month are "passed on" Corporate Income Taxes. None. Not even a single penny.
Needs some clairfication. I'm holding back on what I really think that statement says about you because you must be smarter than that, so maybe you want to issue a clairfication.

You can't really think that anthonyvop, or any business, just "eats" the $2400 a month phone bill, can you? Come on, as an accountant you should know as well as anyone that that cost is factored into what the business needs to charge for their good/service. For you to flatly state that business don't factor in all costs, including taxes and fees, would be wrong on so many levels that you must have ment something different, and I'm just mis-understanding you.

[Gregor-y]

Unless your primary newspaper is the Inquirer, I have not heard of your supposed news stories.
So the only spots that are on, are the ones you may be seeing.

Can you add anything to this thread that is not simply attacking another poster?
I think there's a level of comprehension that's either missing or being ignored.

[Bob Riebe]

I think there's a level of comprehension that's either missing or being ignored.Well--you should try harder.

[Rollo]

Needs some clairfication. I'm holding back on what I really think that statement says about you because you must be smarter than that, so maybe you want to issue a clairfication.


Form 1120 is the U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return.

When a Corporation works out its profits it calculates:

Revenue
less the Cost of Revenue (Purchases and Mfg exp etc.)
to give Gross Profit

It then calculates:
Other Incomes
less Expenses
and then arrives at Net Profit

Corporation Income Tax is assessed on Net Profit.

Mr Vop original statement:

#8 The Corporate Tax is just a thinly disguised Sales Tax. We just pass it along to the consumer.
Is therefore impossible.

Corporate Tax is a post profits tax. If a business makes a loss and not a profit, how is it even possible for a business to pass on an expense which it never even generated?
Assuming the statement is true, then do you take away Corporate Tax as an expense before arriving at the Net Profit figure to work out what the assessed amount of Corporate Tax is? Of course not. Corporate Tax is a post-profits tax.

Mr Vop's statement is therefore not only illiogical but if you assume it to be true, impossible.

[ArrowsFA1]

There's an interesting graphic here (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/the-fine-print-on-the-debt-deal/) showing the differing views of Democratics and Republicans toward cuts in 18 areas of federal spending. The defense budget has the largest partisan split of any area.

[chuck34]

Form 1120 is the U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return.

When a Corporation works out its profits it calculates:

Revenue
less the Cost of Revenue (Purchases and Mfg exp etc.)
to give Gross Profit

It then calculates:
Other Incomes
less Expenses
and then arrives at Net Profit

Corporation Income Tax is assessed on Net Profit.

Mr Vop original statement:

Is therefore impossible.

Corporate Tax is a post profits tax. If a business makes a loss and not a profit, how is it even possible for a business to pass on an expense which it never even generated?
Assuming the statement is true, then do you take away Corporate Tax as an expense before arriving at the Net Profit figure to work out what the assessed amount of Corporate Tax is? Of course not. Corporate Tax is a post-profits tax.

Mr Vop's statement is therefore not only illiogical but if you assume it to be true, impossible.

You completely miss something in your own calculation sheet. The "less Expenses" part is the key. Taxes such as expected corporate income tax, taxes on phone bills, federally mandated testing, etc. are all included in expenses. So if expenses go up, net profit goes down. This is not good. Companies do not accept that, they raise prices to offset their now higher expenses.

Let's take a theoretical company that makes widgets. When the company adds up all their expenses (materials, labor, overhead, taxes, mandated testing, etc.) they see that each widget they produce costs them $10. Now let's say that they want to make 10% profit on each widget sold. They have to sell them for $11 right. Now the federal government (or state/local for that matter) comes along and says your corporate tax is going to go up by 6%. So now the tax portion of said companies expenses has gone up by 6%. Without knowing how big a portion of that $10 is made up by taxes it is hard to know exactly how much the companies expenses have gone up, but it is a non-zero number. For the sake of argument let's say it's $0.01 (a penny per widget). Now this company makes 1,000,000 widgets per year. So in this theoretical case you are expecting the company to just eat $10,000 in profit per year?


Looks like Starter is on the same page. :D

[Mia 01]

Work, and pay your taxes.

[Rollo]

You completely miss something in your own calculation sheet. The "less Expenses" part is the key. Taxes such as expected corporate income tax, taxes on phone bills, federally mandated testing, etc. are all included in expenses. So if expenses go up, net profit goes down. This is not good. Companies do not accept that, they raise prices to offset their now higher expenses.

No they are not.

"expected" Corporate Income Tax (otherwise called a Provision) will appear on a Balance Sheet but not a Profit and Loss Statement.
A Provision can also be defined as the "liability of uncertain timing and uncertain amount".

Whilst I do concur that Companies will raise prices to offset their expectation of now higher taxes, they can not "pass on" an uncertain expense which they have not yet incurred. It is impossible.
A 6% increase in Income Tax will probably result in an increase in the price of goods as Companies try to maximise their profits, but are they really going to increase prices by the full 6% knowing they with an increased sales price they're going to sell less items?
No, a company will try to work out the new price level where it expects to maintain it's greatest profit level. Market Forces have a far greater degree of influence on the new price rather than increased taxes which are a post-profits event.

A Sales Tax on the other hand is directly passable because it is a direct tax at the point of sale. Any Consumption Tax/GST/VAT/Sales Tax is a certain amount ; payable at a certain time.

Your argument is akin to: "All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog".

[Rudy Tamasz]

Rollo, your reasoning is perfectly perfect on the formal side yet is shamelessly deceptive when it comes to the essence of things. Companies do factor in all uncertain expenses and even potential risks like currency exchange rate fluctuations. You can trace that if you compare the dynamics of consumer prices with the trends of economic uncertainty. It is as simple as that. If you are thirsty you drink liquids. If a company expects an increase in expenditures it raises prices.

Judging by your previous posts you are really smart. You do yourself no favours when your are trying to be a smarta$$ instead of just being smart.

[chuck34]

No they are not.

"expected" Corporate Income Tax (otherwise called a Provision) will appear on a Balance Sheet but not a Profit and Loss Statement.
A Provision can also be defined as the "liability of uncertain timing and uncertain amount".

Whilst I do concur that Companies will raise prices to offset their expectation of now higher taxes, they can not "pass on" an uncertain expense which they have not yet incurred. It is impossible.
A 6% increase in Income Tax will probably result in an increase in the price of goods as Companies try to maximise their profits, but are they really going to increase prices by the full 6% knowing they with an increased sales price they're going to sell less items?
No, a company will try to work out the new price level where it expects to maintain it's greatest profit level. Market Forces have a far greater degree of influence on the new price rather than increased taxes which are a post-profits event.

A Sales Tax on the other hand is directly passable because it is a direct tax at the point of sale. Any Consumption Tax/GST/VAT/Sales Tax is a certain amount ; payable at a certain time.

Your argument is akin to: "All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog".

You are obviously really good with spread sheets. Real world? Maybe not so much. You say that companies can not "pass on" the higher corporate taxes. But then you say they will raise their prices to re-coup their increased expenses. What the heck to you call that if not passing on their costs? Then you say that the company will not pass on (excuse me raise their prices) by the full amount of the now higher tax. Well if they choose to do it your way, said company has just lowered their profits. Ok maybe this time they can get away with it. But what do you think happens next time Feds decide to raise taxes again because afterall those greedy "millionaires and billionaires" just aren't paying enough? Or what if instead of raising corporate taxes they decide that now we need to do some more testing on widgets, ya know 'cause those greedy evil corporations are trying to kill us all, that's how they make a profit apparently? Do they pass on (excuse me again) raise their prices by those costs, or would you have them eat those costs as well? When does it stop? When the companay is no longer making a profit, or when they are bankrupt and asking for a bailout?

Then you go on to say that increased taxes are a post-profit event. Well then if Rollo is doing my books I won't have to worry about that because shortly I won't have any profits to worry about.

[anthonyvop]

None of those are Income Tax. Well done.

I never said INCOME tax. I said Corporate Tax. Epic fail on your part



"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

And...is selfishness bad?

[anthonyvop]

I'm an accountant. I live in the real world. It's my job to file people's tax returns. I filed 1120s.
None of the "taxes" that you pay on your phone and internet service per month are "passed on" Corporate Income Taxes. None. Not even a single penny.

Funny but the phone and internet service bills to my companies all have taxes levied.....Those are taxes on corporations...that makes them, pay attention now, Corporate Taxes.

By admitting you are an accountant it is now obvious way you would be in favor of corporate taxes as they provide you income. So any argument in favor on your part is just SELFISHNESS & GREED on your part

[Rollo]

I never said INCOME tax. I said Corporate Tax. Epic fail on your part


Really?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120.pdf

Comprehension question - what do the words say on the top of an 1120? Think hard.

[chuck34]

Really?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120.pdf

Comprehension question - what do the words say on the top of an 1120? Think hard.

All hail the 1120, the form on which a company exists, the end-all-be-all of corporations, the only factor in determining the profitability of a company.

I bow to your superior logic, and of course the superiority of the 1120 form.

[anthonyvop]

Really?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120.pdf

Comprehension question - what do the words say on the top of an 1120? Think hard.

Hmmmm.....You post a link to a IRS form! SO?

I still never said "INCOME" tax. I said Corporate Tax. They come in all shapes and sizes. When I create a Corporation I pay a tax. When my corporation pays it's phone Bill there is a Tax. To have a business license I the Corporation pays a tax. Shall I go on?

[Dave B]

I think America is about to lose its AAA credit rating as the markets lose confidence. :s

[Rollo]

U.S. loses AAA credit rating from S&P | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF20110806)
The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.
S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

[anthonyvop]

U.S. loses AAA credit rating from S&P | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF20110806)
The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.
S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

The only person that is happy about that news is Jimmy Carter. It is official. he isn't the worse President in U.S. History. Obama is the unchallenged worse..and he still has a year and half to go to cause more havoc.

And to those on the left who want to throw out lame excuses remember this famous liberal US President?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lYvxMG9q7wc/TKWdGRvzEhI/AAAAAAAABxg/3bsY3FMeROc/s1600/buckstops_copy.jpg

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/images/buckstopsherefrontsmall.jpg

[Dave B]

Got bad credit? Not enough cash until next pay day? There's always wonga.com :p

[ArrowsFA1]

The only person that is happy about that news is Jimmy Carter. It is official. he isn't the worse President in U.S. History. Obama is the unchallenged worse..and he still has a year and half to go to cause more havoc.
It's noticeable that people like to have a bogeyman to blame all the ills of the world on. In the UK it's all Gordon Brown's fault and in the US it's all Barack Obama's.

Anyone would think they as individuals were responsible for this global economic crisis, and can control & direct events.

[markabilly]

The only person that is happy about that news is Jimmy Carter. It is official. he isn't the worse President in U.S. History. Obama is the unchallenged worse..and he still has a year and half to go to cause more havoc.

And to those on the left who want to throw out lame excuses remember this famous liberal US President?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lYvxMG9q7wc/TKWdGRvzEhI/AAAAAAAABxg/3bsY3FMeROc/s1600/buckstops_copy.jpg

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/images/buckstopsherefrontsmall.jpg


You forgot the Teabagger Party; those folks deserve more "credit" as much or more than obama (who inherited the mess left by the republicans and Bush) for their backward thinking about taxation and the deficit. There are two ways to reduce the deficit, and they certainly are not going to vote for what is now necessary--Increased taxation.

To vote otherwise is as unpatriotic as it gets.

[markabilly]

Treasury bonds, once indisputably seen as the safest security in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as Britain, Germany, France (http://www.reuters.com/places/france) or Canada.


what a political joke by S&P!!!!!


Never in the history of the credit ratings have the credit ratings ever been cut for US treasuries.

Never.

Meanwhile folks are still buying those treasury bonds like no tommorrow.

S&P--"****ting & pissing" for political reasons.

we need a new dance to be called the teabagger boggie....

[anthonyvop]

You forgot the Teabagger Party; those folks deserve more "credit" as much or more than obama (who inherited the mess left by the republicans and Bush) for their backward thinking about taxation and the deficit. There are two ways to reduce the deficit, and they certainly are not going to vote for what is now necessary--Increased taxation.

To vote otherwise is as unpatriotic as it gets.

You may disagree with the Tea Party philosophy(and you would be wrong in this case) but please refrain from the Homophobic Insults. It is childish and fairly insulting.

[anthonyvop]

There are two ways to reduce the deficit, and they certainly are not going to vote for what is now necessary--Increased taxation.

To vote otherwise is as unpatriotic as it gets.

What an arrogant and inane statement. How would being against higher taxes unpatriotic?

Is it unpatriotic to demand that our politicians stop spending like drunken sailors?
Is it unpatriotic to want people to be able to keep the rewards of their own production?
Is it unpatriotic to want to stop wasting money on the lazy?
Is it unpatriotic to want our government to act like us and live withing its means?

One silly trick of the left is to pretend to wrap themselves in the flag when they actually hate what this country really represents. The rights of the Individual!!!

[markabilly]

the most silly tick of all is to pretend to be a patriot, while living off the infrastructure and getting all the tax breaks that folks who actually do the work, do not get.


Refusing to support you country by paying taxes is just as unpatriotic as refusing to serve in the miltary



Sorry. I did not know the tea party has a bunch of gay people in its ranks.........

[anthonyvop]

the most silly tick of all is to pretend to be a patriot, while living off the infrastructure and getting all the tax breaks that folks who actually do the work, do not get.


Refusing to support you country by paying taxes is just as unpatriotic as refusing to serve in the miltary



Sorry. I did not know the tea party has a bunch of gay people in its ranks.........

So not wanting your money taken by force to be used to fund the lazy and private industry is unpatriotic? Who Knew?

BTW Lower Middle class have more tax breaks than the wealthy. The wealthy pay more in Taxes and a Higher percentage. The infrastructure is paid for by the wealthy in licenses, permits and user-fees.

Of course nobody has ever produced for me a logical reason for a progressive tax rate where the wealthy pay a higher percentage. The only reasons I have hear is either that "They Can" which is immoral and just plain jealousy which is criminal.

[anthonyvop]

The liberal's(Like Markabilly) quick list of who is at fault here:

Bush
S&P
Millionaires & Billionaires
Tea Party
Bush
Jets
Boehner
Paul Ryan
McConnell
Bush
Limbaugh
Moody's (as soon as they announce a downgrade)

The real culprits:

No budget
Out of control spending
A poor economy
Failed stimulus
A democrat congress that spent with no budget
"Affordable homes"
Obama

[markabilly]

well now,

i got them calling me a left winger

i got them calling me a red necker

i got them calling me a right winger

but better all that than to be a teabagger

[anthonyvop]

well now,

i got them calling me a left winger

i got them calling me a red necker

i got them calling me a right winger

but better all that than to be a teabagger

Nah...Your just a childish, moocher!!!!

[Rollo]

Of course nobody has ever produced for me a logical reason for a progressive tax rate where the wealthy pay a higher percentage. The only reasons I have hear is either that "They Can" which is immoral and just plain jealousy which is criminal.

Who actually derives the greatest benefit from the economy in terms of distribution of incomes and wealth, why shouldn't the people who derive the greatest benefit from the stability of the system be liable for the greatest amount of tax?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Of course nobody has ever produced for me a logical reason for a progressive tax rate where the wealthy pay a higher percentage. The only reasons I have hear is either that "They Can" which is immoral and just plain jealousy which is criminal.

You can only become wealthy by living in a civilised society. So the greater economic gain you've achieved from living in a civilised society, the greater your duty is to maintain that society with your taxes.

[Bob Riebe]

You can only become wealthy by living in a civilised society. So the greater economic gain you've achieved from living in a civilised society, the greater your duty is to maintain that society with your taxes.
That idea is silly at best.

[Bob Riebe]

You can only become wealthy by living in a civilised society. So the greater economic gain you've achieved from living in a civilised society, the greater your duty is to maintain that society with your taxes.That idea is silly at best.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That idea is silly at best.

Fantastic input to the debate there! :up:

[anthonyvop]

what a political joke by S&P!!!!!


Never in the history of the credit ratings have the credit ratings ever been cut for US treasuries.

Never.

Meanwhile folks are still buying those treasury bonds like no tommorrow.

S&P--"****ting & pissing" for political reasons.

we need a new dance to be called the teabagger boggie....

Do you even have one single shred of evidence to back up that claim???? Besides, of course, you wanting it to be true.

[anthonyvop]

You can only become wealthy by living in a civilised society. So the greater economic gain you've achieved from living in a civilised society, the greater your duty is to maintain that society with your taxes.

Do you seriously believe that?

[BDunnell]

Do you seriously believe that?

If he does, do you believe he should be put in prison as a CRIMINAL who does not believe in FREEDOM?

[anthonyvop]

If he does, do you believe he should be put in prison as a CRIMINAL who does not believe in FREEDOM?


Nobody should be put in prison for any Belief.

Now if they try to take away another person's freedom without due process than that is a criminal act and should be punished most severely.

[Roamy]

I don't really get deficit spending. - But I guess we have defined that better than anyone. I don't see a chance until we change the tax code to a flat tax. The IRS and BullSh!t accountants have to give it up.
That obviously is the problem. We have created many layers of welfare and it is time to recognize the "White Collar" moochers. Now would be a good time to hit the bottom and then rebuild. But I don't think we can ever rebound with only two political parties. Instead of advancing we are heading in the direction of another civil war. These people hate one another and it is growing worse. It is also spurred by the many talk shows and cable news stations. Disagreements are one thing but the hatred and insults among us now can only lead to further deterioration of our economic and moral fabric. And why I am at it congress persons spend millions to be re-elected for a job that pays low 6 figures - Gee maybe there could be a problem here as well.

[Malbec]

I can understand why the US government under either party refuses to tax corporations or the rich to the levels they were in the 70s and earlier, after all they know who they need to turn to when they need their warcoffers loaded up prior to an election campaign.

I can also understand the need for the Republicans to pander to the Tea Party and its ridiculously short termist tax cutting agenda, after all many Republicans fear losing support to the Tea Party across the US.

But how long will average Americans, and I mean both the poor and more importantly the middle class, take the increasing pain that the recession has brought them?

They face poorer job security, lower pay, lower benefits, higher expenses and living costs and face a future with a smaller pension where their offspring will have little chance of matching their parents' living standards unless they are the lucky few who get a top end job in finance or the high tech industries.

Going on and on about how the rich deserve to pay less tax is missing the point. Unequal societies where the don't haves have little chance of joining the haves creates societies that are unstable.

And yes I've heard the old argument that those who receive government handouts are lazy and don't deserve help but they also include the working poor who earn too little to survive and those who have held jobs their entire lives but have seen their livelihoods snuffed out thanks to the recession. In what way do they deserve to see their handouts cut further, especially when money given to them is pumped straight into the economy as they spend it on living expenses.

The world is full of governments that need to slash deficits but can't be motivated enough to do anything about it, societies that evade tax or bring political pressure to bear so that the rich don't get taxed highly. Guess what, the markets are sniffing those countries out and undermining them one by one. Greece yesterday, Italy today, who's next? The credit rating downgrading ought to be a warning. The US can get involved in this kind of petty pointscoring thats been hijacked by the Tea party that makes them the laughing stock of the world but there's a heavy price to pay.

[Bob Riebe]

Fantastic input to the debate there! :up: You got the reply your silly rhetoric deserved-- no, it probably actually deserved far worse.
As much as Obama wants it to be, the U.S. is not yet a socialist stink hole.

[Bob Riebe]

If he does, do you believe he should be put in prison as a CRIMINAL who does not believe in FREEDOM?No he should have been in the Monty Python Pantomime Horses episode.

[Bob Riebe]

I don't really get deficit spending. - But I guess we have defined that better than anyone. I don't see a chance until we change the tax code to a flat tax. The IRS and BullSh!t accountants have to give it up.
That obviously is the problem. We have created many layers of welfare and it is time to recognize the "White Collar" moochers. Now would be a good time to hit the bottom and then rebuild. But I don't think we can ever rebound with only two political parties. Instead of advancing we are heading in the direction of another civil war. These people hate one another and it is growing worse. It is also spurred by the many talk shows and cable news stations. Disagreements are one thing but the hatred and insults among us now can only lead to further deterioration of our economic and moral fabric. And why I am at it congress persons spend millions to be re-elected for a job that pays low 6 figures - Gee maybe there could be a problem here as well.
Voters, voted these people in--Rinos, Liberal Socialists, and other such debri and let them hire garbage that stays in Washington and never gets fired-- that is the only place any blame lies, period.

[Bob Riebe]

I can understand why the US government under either party refuses to tax corporations or the rich to the levels they were in the 70s and earlier, after all they know who they need to turn to when they need their warcoffers loaded up prior to an election campaign.

I can also understand the need for the Republicans to pander to the Tea Party and its ridiculously short termist tax cutting agenda, after all many Republicans fear losing support to the Tea Party across the US.

But how long will average Americans, and I mean both the poor and more importantly the middle class, take the increasing pain that the recession has brought them?

They face poorer job security, lower pay, lower benefits, higher expenses and living costs and face a future with a smaller pension where their offspring will have little chance of matching their parents' living standards unless they are the lucky few who get a top end job in finance or the high tech industries.

Going on and on about how the rich deserve to pay less tax is missing the point. Unequal societies where the don't haves have little chance of joining the haves creates societies that are unstable.

And yes I've heard the old argument that those who receive government handouts are lazy and don't deserve help but they also include the working poor who earn too little to survive and those who have held jobs their entire lives but have seen their livelihoods snuffed out thanks to the recession. In what way do they deserve to see their handouts cut further, especially when money given to them is pumped straight into the economy as they spend it on living expenses.

The world is full of governments that need to slash deficits but can't be motivated enough to do anything about it, societies that evade tax or bring political pressure to bear so that the rich don't get taxed highly. Guess what, the markets are sniffing those countries out and undermining them one by one. Greece yesterday, Italy today, who's next? The credit rating downgrading ought to be a warning. The US can get involved in this kind of petty pointscoring thats been hijacked by the Tea party that makes them the laughing stock of the world but there's a heavy price to pay.
Where did you get your copy of the Democratic Party scare tactic talking points?

You are reciting the same, now worn out, class warfare bs, that seems, at least at this moment, to be totally failing the Democrats.

The good and bad things is, as long as they, or people such as you, keep reciting this drivel, the liberals politics will remain a cluster-f, even as the Republican Rinos continue to cave in like a house of cards.
It is actually starting to look like something resembling real chaos, is the only thing that change the downward spiral of the U.S. of A.

[BDunnell]

You got the reply your silly rhetoric deserved-- no, it probably actually deserved far worse.

Great stuff, Bob! Keep it up!

[markabilly]

You can only become wealthy by living in a civilised society. So the greater economic gain you've achieved from living in a civilised society, the greater your duty is to maintain that society with your taxes.

That should obvious, unless you are an idealogue---the teabagger idealogues are no different than the marxists that used to run around with their skewed view of the world and what uptopia should look like.

The biggest moochers of all are the big banks, corporations and folks like AIG, who recieved the big bailout, and then from the very same companies they put into this mess, their increased multi-million bonsuses.


Oh it is a great utopian philiospohy to go on and on about freedom, cut government spending and so on, while blaming all the problems on money spent on the poor people who make do on a miminal payout that keeps them from starving and dying in the streets; Nevertheless, it is a very appealling philiosophy.

But that is no different than the speeches from marxists who blamed capitalism for everything, while espousing 'to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities", and so on, to try to force the world to fit their point of view.

Meanwhile with your heroes of the tea party leading the way, the econmy has now started down a path that if not changed immediately, will lead to a massive second recession that will be worst than the first, because we have limmited our abilty and blown our wad on having more money to stimulate the economy.

Meanwhile Vpop is happy becuse he can blame a man that he don't like---which is so funny, as unlike McCain, Obama is a bought boy who espouses the liberal democratic philosophy, but Obama has always been saying "yes" out the backdoor to the filthy rich wall street types who have bankrolled him while in the senate and now in the white house. :rolleyes:


Rome is now burning worse than ever.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The reasonable ones among us don't want the rich to pay less tax than us. We just want them to pay the same tax. A flat tax is fair for all. If you make 10 times as much as I do, then you pay 10 times as much tax. Not 20 or 30 or more as many lefties want. If you make half of what I do, you pay half the tax.
.

When I was 14 years old I would have agreed with you. But as I've got a job and started earning myself I have noticed that the marginal untility of income isn't constant. After you factor in other things like the basic costs of living and other taxes, a flat tax on income becomes regressive.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You got the reply your silly rhetoric deserved-- no, it probably actually deserved far worse.
As much as Obama wants it to be, the U.S. is not yet a socialist stink hole.

Fantastic input to the debate there! :up:

[markabilly]

Where did you get your copy of the Democratic Party scare tactic talking points?

You are reciting the same, now worn out, class warfare bs, that seems, at least at this moment, to be totally failing the Democrats.

The good and bad things is, as long as they, or people such as you, keep reciting this drivel, the liberals politics will remain a cluster-f, even as the Republican Rinos continue to cave in like a house of cards.
It is actually starting to look like something resembling real chaos, is the only thing that change the downward spiral of the U.S. of A.

Happy about that chaos, are we???

Obama is a democrat hypocrite. He esposues the philosphy to get votes, but has and will always try his best to take care of the fat wall street types, to get his contributions to be prez..

As someone said during watergate, don't watch the mouths, watch the money.

We just went through a massive banking crisis brought on by the elimination of many prior regulations that served well after the great depression. As a senator, McCain strongly opposed these changes for years as a senator. Much to the irritation of the bankers and wall street. Nevertheless, those changes happenned.

Meanwhile as a senator, Obama, with his hand out, followed and voted exactly the way the Wall street folks wanted. He has continued this path today at the white house.

When watching the money, consider that McCain (whose overall political philiospohy is about as conservative as any realistic candidate that year---indeed more conservative than Bush senior or junior-Jr fought against him by labelling him correctly as a far right winger back when Jr ran for the job the first time--) never got anymore than 5 to 10 percent of the Wall Street contributions that Obama got when running for president.

McCain never had a real chance of winning, because of his overall very conservative philosophy, his beatings and torture during the war that made some question his sanity, and his horrible appearance on tv** but he was the only candidate who understood what wall street needed to have as regulations to keep those rich boys in check.

meanwhile Obama paid lip service to the Democrates, but let this stupid debt ceiling bill pass without any new taxes and other methods to increase revenue. He ignores the american job problem--where jobs are leaving this country, so that american fat corporations can cut their costs and increase their profits, while unemeployment constinues to climb


so (1)the Left got what they wanted. A mulatoo president.

(2)Wall street got what they wanted--a yes man to their economic desires

(3) The idustrial miltary complex got what it wants--someone more than happy to go blasting Libiya and Syria and anywhere else, with those billion dollar weapons to be replaced at tax payer expense, now that we seem to have what we wanted with Iraq---Bin Laden dead--so we need some new boogie men to chase after

(4) conservatives got what they want, someone they can throw rocks at and blame for the current mess..........


America gets screwed and pays the price for all of it.



** that is what the race for prez is all about--the TV image. McCain and Biden looked horrible on tv--meanwhile Sarah Palin and Obama were outstanding. One reason the liberal press hates palin is that they see this appearance and realize that she is a powerful presence when it comes to politics--both she may be clueless, but that is not the TV image. And that is where the republicans dropped the ball during the last race.

[markabilly]

When I was 14 years old I would have agreed with you. But as I've got a job and started earning myself I have noticed that the marginal untility of income isn't constant. After you factor in other things like the basic costs of living and other taxes, a flat tax on income becomes regressive.

obvious.

Let's see here, realistically speaking, the super rich might pay as much as 30% on "real income" in income taxes after a number of income hiding procedures have been implemented, maybe.

While the poor pay little or no income tax....but that is not the true story, as they pay property taxes at the same percentage as the rich, and they pay sales taxes. Indeed, they pay a higher percentage of sales taxes from their income than do the rich.

But the real question: would Vpop rather pay ten percent of $20k per year or 30% of a million dollars per year.......one choice leaves him with barely enough money to fill his car with gas, buy health insurance, buy groceries and some clothes, and pay the rent......the other leaves him with barrely enough to buy that yacht.....

[markabilly]

good new for Chaos Bob, the stock market is taking a big crunch, appearantly thanks to the downgrade

[CaptainRaiden]

These John McCain supporters were opposing Obama during his campaign for his "socialist" views:

4h3cJQJkc_o

Wonderful definition of socialism. :up:

[markabilly]

These John McCain supporters were opposing Obama during his campaign for his "socialist" views:

4h3cJQJkc_o

Wonderful definition of socialism. :up:
only thing mc cain was clearly correct was the financial institution regulations

obama sold out on that a long time ago

[Rollo]

When I was 14 years old I would have agreed with you. But as I've got a job and started earning myself I have noticed that the marginal untility of income isn't constant. After you factor in other things like the basic costs of living and other taxes, a flat tax on income becomes regressive.

Not only does the the marginal untility of income decrease in general with a corresponding increase in incomes, but the average marginal propensity to consume also decreases.
Giving tax breaks to people on lower incomes has similar effects to permanent stimulus packages. In general, so called "Flat Taxes" as well as "Consumption Taxes" are regressive precisely because people who earn less incomes will spend more of it proportionally in order to survive.

For fiscal year 2009 in the US:
- The top 20% earned 49.98% of all income
- The top 8% earned 28.50% of all income
- The top 3% earned 17.50% of all income
Also:
- The bottom 80% earned 50.02% of all income

To design a "fair" taxation system would logically require that the top 20% would pay 49.98% of all income taxes and that the bottom 80% would pay 50.02% of all income taxes, no?
However, if you look though the actual statistics from the IRS, the top 20% only paid 25.80% percent of income taxes because of tax concessions for the rich whilst, the bottom 80% actually paid 74.20% percent of income taxes despite only earning 50.02% of income. How is that fair?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me - In what way, is it unfair? A flat tax requires people to pay more as their income rises and that is in DIRECT ratio to the increased income. Somewhere earlier in this thread someone (Tony Vop maybe(?), and as much as I hate to agree in part with him) that's like you going to the grocery store and, because you can afford it, you get charged more at the checkout. That's stealing from the rich. Some others back up this thread have muddied the waters a bit by complaining about the rich getting all the tax breaks. A key part of a flat tax is that there are NO, NONE, NADA tax breaks for anyone.

Do you understand what 'marginal utility of income' means? Why do people in favour of flat tax just choose to ignore it?

In response to the not so clever analogy of buying soup in a resturant: One glass of water in a desert will save your life, 100 more glasses of water have no use to one person, but will benefit 100 other people.

[BDunnell]

The problem is, and always has been, the bloated size of government and said goverment's propensity to expand into areas goverment was never suited to be.

A view often parroted, but generally without any concept of which these areas are, and forgetting the fact that the steady creep of legislation often comes about as a result of pressure for legislation on the part of the too-easily-outraged sections of society.

[Bob Riebe]

Do you understand what 'marginal utility of income' means? Why do people in favour of flat tax just choose to ignore it?

In response to the not so clever analogy of buying soup in a resturant: One glass of water in a desert will save your life, 100 more glasses of water have no use to one person, but will benefit 100 other people.Where do you come up with these absurd notions?
One glass saves ones life-- how, by some magic the one never needs to drink again; therefore the other one hundred are not needed?
Your statement is not only not clever, it is simply stupid.

[Bob Riebe]

A key part of a flat tax is that there are NO, NONE, NADA tax breaks for anyone.That will not happen. Taxes will start at point a, b or c, in any flat-tax system I have ever seen listed, as the cry of the poor-poor, will prevent a truly flat tax, plus, the fact that people will still have to deal with local and state taxes, making the so-called flat tax, not so flat.

The problem with starting at say ten thousand dollars, is at that point that person is paying one thousand dollars in taxes making that one to have a smaller income than one who only earns ninety five hundred a year.

It is still better than the class hatred driven system we have now.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Where do you come up with these absurd notions?
One glass saves ones life-- how, by some magic the one never needs to drink again; therefore the other one hundred are not needed?
Your statement is not only not clever, it is simply stupid.

It is only as stupid as the 'soup in a resturant' analogy.

So you are saying that the theory of diminishing marginal utility is stupid?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The problem with starting at say ten thousand dollars, is at that point that person is paying one thousand dollars in taxes making that one to have a smaller income than one who only earns ninety five hundred a year.



No it doesn't. The person earning over 10,000 would only pay tax on the part of their income that is over 10,000..

[Bob Riebe]

A view often parroted, but generally without any concept of which these areas are, and forgetting the fact that the steady creep of legislation often comes about as a result of pressure for legislation on the part of the too-easily-outraged sections of society.
The old gimme, gimme, gimme-- which turns out to be a fantastic voter buyer for those in office. It costs them nothing as they can just keep taking from the tax payers, to pay off the voters that keep them in office as voiced by the moron in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA

[BDunnell]

Where do you come up with these absurd notions?
One glass saves ones life-- how, by some magic the one never needs to drink again; therefore the other one hundred are not needed?
Your statement is not only not clever, it is simply stupid.

Why must your simple disagreement be laced with such quantities of venom?

[Bob Riebe]

No it doesn't. The person earning over 10,000 would only pay tax on the part of their income that is over 10,000..That is assuming everyone gets a ten thousand dollar deduction.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That is assuming everyone gets a ten thousand dollar deduction.

That is how personal allowance on income tax works in the UK.

[Bob Riebe]

Why must your simple disagreement be laced with such quantities of venom?Because the statement is stupid.
It is the equivalent of saying-"Oranges are round; therefore all round things are oranges."

Saying--One becomes wealthy by living in a civilized society; therefore the greater economic gain you've achieved from living in a civilised society, the greater your duty is to maintain that society with your taxes.-- is another absurd statement as it is based on what absolute rule?
Written by whom?
Where?

[Bob Riebe]

That is how personal allowance on income tax works in the UK.That is not how it works here.
If you break into another category, you pay strictly on the rate of that category starting at dollar zero.

The purpose of the flat tax is to - eliminate - deductions.

In the system now, deductions start with a personal deduction of x amount. Dollar zero starts when that is applied, then, depending on income, or type of income, one may or may not move dollar zero to a different level, if one qualifies of various other deductions.
The flat tax is supposed to do away with this, but as I said, the cry of the poor-poor, correct or incorrect, will make a true flat tax near impossible. Then we have state and local taxes.....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I understand what it means quite well. I don't agree that it is pertinant to the discussion. Why do people feel it's necessary to take someone who, for whatever reason, is better off then them and drag that person/s down to their level?

That is an exaggeration. Where has anyone said that?

[BDunnell]

Because the statement is stupid.

There you go again.

[BDunnell]

I understand what it means quite well. I don't agree that it is pertinant to the discussion. Why do people feel it's necessary to take someone who, for whatever reason, is better off then them and drag that person/s down to their level?

No-one is advocating that — not that grasping nuances is a strong point of those on the US right.

[Rollo]

I understand what it means quite well. I don't agree that it is pertinant to the discussion. Why do people feel it's necessary to take someone who, for whatever reason, is better off then them and drag that person/s down to their level?

Is that really happening?
The Gini coefficient which measures statistical inequality, in the case of the United States was it's lowest in 1967 and the trend suggests a more inequal society.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
This dragging down which you suggest simply isn't happening; quite the opposite.

Shouldn't people who have the greatest insurable interest in a system, contribute the most in premiums to that system? If it's true for motor insurance, health insurance, fire and building insurance, why do you suggest that it's not true when applied to the economy?

[anthonyvop]

Is that really happening?
The Gini coefficient which measures statistical inequality, in the case of the United States was it's lowest in 1967 and the trend suggests a more inequal society.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
This dragging down which you suggest simply isn't happening; quite the opposite.

Shouldn't people who have the greatest insurable interest in a system, contribute the most in premiums to that system? If it's true for motor insurance, health insurance, fire and building insurance, why do you suggest that it's not true when applied to the economy?

Why? Because when I pay a premium with for a product I do it willingly and for something I actually want or need. Now why should I be forced to pay so people can have free cell phones and pay off unions?

[Bob Riebe]

Shouldn't people who have the greatest insurable interest in a system, contribute the most in premiums to that system? If it's true for motor insurance, health insurance, fire and building insurance, why do you suggest that it's not true when applied to the economy?Washington politicians and employees, are all exempt, by Obama's presidential order, from having to use Obama's health care system under penalty of law.
They also have the most lucrative, retirement, and life health insurance system in the country.

Why are they exempt from what Washington has forced on non-government employees?
Answer that and you will get an answer for your question.

[Rollo]

Why? Because when I pay a premium with for a product I do it willingly and for something I actually want or need. Now why should I be forced to pay so people can have free cell phones and pay off unions?

This:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/la.jpg
Exactly. Why should you take an interest in the societal stability of the country? It's obviously better that businesses get looted, burned and destroyed anyway.

[anthonyvop]

Not only does the the marginal untility of income decrease in general with a corresponding increase in incomes, but the average marginal propensity to consume also decreases.
Giving tax breaks to people on lower incomes has similar effects to permanent stimulus packages. In general, so called "Flat Taxes" as well as "Consumption Taxes" are regressive precisely because people who earn less incomes will spend more of it proportionally in order to survive.

For fiscal year 2009 in the US:
- The top 20% earned 49.98% of all income
- The top 8% earned 28.50% of all income
- The top 3% earned 17.50% of all income
Also:
- The bottom 80% earned 50.02% of all income

To design a "fair" taxation system would logically require that the top 20% would pay 49.98% of all income taxes and that the bottom 80% would pay 50.02% of all income taxes, no?


How is that Fair? Really! How is making people pay more in Taxes only because they are more successful fair?

Awhile back I ask if it was OK for a restaurant to charge a person more for the same entree just because the person has more money? The same food. the same service but you pay more than the other guy because you make more money.
Would you accept that?

Fair would be that EVERYONE pays the same percentage no matter what the income!

[BDunnell]

Now why should I be forced to pay so people can have free cell phones and pay off unions?

We all have to do some things we don't like sometimes for the greater good.

[anthonyvop]

This:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/la.jpg
Exactly. Why should you take an interest in the societal stability of the country? It's obviously better that businesses get looted, burned and destroyed anyway.

So I should reward violent, criminal behavior?

[BDunnell]

So I should reward violent, criminal behavior?

Given that you have in the past admitted to criminal behaviour of your own, I find your protestation on that point a tad hypocritical.

[anthonyvop]

We all have to do some things we don't like sometimes for the greater good.

And what is the greater good? Encouraging people so suck on the teat of the public coffers or encouraging them to suck it up and get a job?
And yes there are plenty of jobs out there.
Where I live has a unemployment rate higher than the national average but I can go on and on about how businesses have a hard time finding workers who want to actually work.

[BDunnell]

And what is the greater good? Encouraging people so suck on the teat of the public coffers or encouraging them to suck it up and get a job?
And yes there are plenty of jobs out there.
Where I live has a unemployment rate higher than the national average but I can go on and on about how businesses have a hard time finding workers who want to actually work.

Laziness is not news to anyone, sadly.

[anthonyvop]

Given that you have in the past admitted to criminal behaviour of your own, I find your protestation on that point a tad hypocritical.

And what criminal behavior is that? Please don't bring up the firearm issues as I have explained to you that those laws are invalid as they take away my basic Human rights.

Those rioters are violating the rights of others.

[anthonyvop]

Laziness is not news to anyone, sadly.

So should it be rewarded?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

How is that Fair? Really! How is making people pay more in Taxes only because they are more successful fair?

Awhile back I ask if it was OK for a restaurant to charge a person more for the same entree just because the person has more money? The same food. the same service but you pay more than the other guy because you make more money.
Would you accept that?

Fair would be that EVERYONE pays the same percentage no matter what the income!

Unfortunately the real world isn't a restaurant.

[Rollo]

How is that Fair? Really! How is making people pay more in Taxes only because they are more successful fair?

Awhile back I ask if it was OK for a restaurant to charge a person more for the same entree just because the person has more money? The same food. the same service but you pay more than the other guy because you make more money.
Would you accept that?

People don't derive the same benefits from the stability of the economy though do they? Your analogy is therefore a direct fallacy of of defective induction.


Fair would be that EVERYONE pays the same percentage no matter what the income!

Currently as a proportion people don't pay the same percentage no matter what the income. Currently the bottom 80% who derive 50.02% of all income pay 74.20% percent of all taxes.
This means that under current circumstances, you would advocate a lessening of the tax burden of the bottom 80% and an increase in the top 20%.
Do you mean to disagree with yourself?

[BDunnell]

And what criminal behavior is that? Please don't bring up the firearm issues as I have explained to you that those laws are invalid as they take away my basic Human rights.

I will bring them up as often as possible when relevant, as it is here since you were critical of criminal behaviour. Your explanation would not be valid in front of a court of law in any country in which you brandished a firearm without the appropriate licences. One cannot apply the laws of one's own land to those one may visit, no matter whether one objects to them. Therefore, if the incident you described actually occurred (and I don't believe it did), you are nothing but a common criminal.

[Rollo]

And what criminal behavior is that? Please don't bring up the firearm issues as I have explained to you that those laws are invalid as they take away my basic Human rights.


Under whose jurisdiction?

[anthonyvop]

Unfortunately the real world isn't a restaurant.

When it comes to Taxes i can't think of a better analogy.

[Rollo]

When it comes to Taxes i can't think of a better analogy.

We know. You've made that abundantly clear.

Inferiority manifests itself first of all in his limited ability to think, to work, and thereby to contribute more to the joint productive effort of mankind.
- Ludwig von Mises.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

When it comes to Taxes i can't think of a better analogy.

But it is a useless analogy because it fails to take into account basic economic theories.

[anthonyvop]

I will bring them up as often as possible when relevant, as it is here since you were critical of criminal behaviour. Your explanation would not be valid in front of a court of law in any country in which you brandished a firearm without the appropriate licences. One cannot apply the laws of one's own land to those one may visit, no matter whether one objects to them. Therefore, if the incident you described actually occurred (and I don't believe it did), you are nothing but a common criminal.

No. As a free man I am allowed to do as I please as long as I do not violate the rights of others. Under your beliefs one must do whatever the government says no matter what. Those who rise against despotic Governments are criminals under your belief system.
Those who rose up against Ceacescu...Criminals. Solidarity...Criminals.

Those who tore down the Berlin Wall should have been rounded up and shot

http://www.pictureworldbd.com/images/berlin%20wall/Berlin_wall%20(18).jpg

David Hasselhoff....Execute him.

http://api.ning.com/files/jfEhWpBgxOk4utiiqWqk9ienGw5OYe7Z1q86UWC2Jj95LcjluP p*KTOL2G1kVBB4uThOO5kE5L7hU8FYGaitZ7cVSZBdN31n/abc_david_berlin_091106_ms.jpg

[anthonyvop]

But it is a useless analogy because it fails to take into account basic economic theories.

And which ones are those?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And which ones are those?

Diminishing marginal utility. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

No. As a free man I am allowed to do as I please as long as I do not violate the rights of others.

Leaving aside my belief that your stance on this issue reveals you to not be entirely sound of mind, I believe it to be a right not to have illegally-armed Americans brandishing unlicenced firearms in my vicinity. I repeat my assertion — and this is not opinion, but plain, simple fact — that you are nothing more than a criminal, if the incident you described really took place.

Given your passionate belief in your own opinion on this subject, will you maybe (a) tell us where the incident took place, (b) the date and (c) remind us of the details. Then, perhaps, the legality of your actions could be tested.

[anthonyvop]

Diminishing marginal utility. :rolleyes:

That doesn't apply to my restaurant analogy....not even close

[Rollo]

Diminishing marginal utility. :rolleyes:

And the rest :D

The diminishing marginal utility of income, the economic return of income as opposed to the productive return of income, decreases in the average marginal propensity to consume, the process of wealth condensation through preferential attachment and the real-world failure of "trickle-down" economics...

[anthonyvop]

Leaving aside my belief that your stance on this issue reveals you to not be entirely sound of mind, I believe it to be a right not to have illegally-armed Americans brandishing unlicenced firearms in my vicinity.

You don't have a right to force people to agree with you. If I have a firearm(Always legal as i explained) and you don't like it too bad. I am not violating your rights just Like I don't have a right to keep people who think like you in my vicinity. Just because you have an irrational fear it isn't my problem....It is yours.

[BDunnell]

You don't have a right to force people to agree with you. If I have a firearm(Always legal as i explained) and you don't like it too bad.

How was your (alleged) possession of that firearm legal in Europe, exactly?


I am not violating your rights just Like I don't have a right to keep people who think like you in my vicinity.

So you would refuse to have someone in your vicinity not on the basis of any actions of theirs, but how they think? Blimey.

Gay marriage was illegal in many US states until recently. Would you have been in favour of gay marriage ceremonies going ahead in those states in defiance of the law, if gay people wishing to marry believed the ban to be in contravention of their human rights and basic freedoms?

[anthonyvop]

And the rest :D

The diminishing marginal utility of income, the economic return of income as opposed to the productive return of income, decreases in the average marginal propensity to consume, the process of wealth condensation through preferential attachment and the real-world failure of "trickle-down" economics...

"Yawn"

Still waiting for you to explain how that applies to my restaurant anaolgy.

I will ask again.

If you and someone else walked into a restaurant and ordered the same dish but the owners charged you more because you earn more money than the other is that FAIR?

Yes or No? This has nothing to do with Diminishing marginal utility or any other Econ 101 theory that only works in a vacuum and has been proven time and again to be not applicable to the real world.

So yes or no? Would you be happy paying more?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

"Yawn"

Still waiting for you to explain how that applies to my restaurant anaolgy.
?

That's the whole point! It doesn't apply and as this is what flaws the restaurant analogy. Economics in the real world is more complex than making a one-off purchase.

[Rollo]

"Yawn"

Still waiting for you to explain how that applies to my restaurant anaolgy.

I will ask again.

If you and someone else walked into a restaurant and ordered the same dish but the owners charged you more because you earn more money than the other is that FAIR?

Yes or No? This has nothing to do with Diminishing marginal utility or any other Econ 101 theory that only works in a vacuum and has been proven time and again to be not applicable to the real world.

So yes or no? Would you be happy paying more?

Your analogy is WRONG. The economy is not like your restaurant analogy because people do not derive the same benefits from the economy. People do not get "the same dish" in the first place. The question you ask therefore is irrelevant. Obviously if people got the same benefits then you'd want everyone to pay the same duh.

Are you proposing then, that everyone is paid an identical wage so that they can pay the same? Are you actually a communist?



This has nothing to do with Diminishing marginal utility or any other Econ 101 theory that only works in a vacuum and has been proven time and again to be not applicable to the real world.

Find me a reputable source which agrees with you.

[anthonyvop]

How was your (alleged) possession of that firearm legal in Europe, exactly?

I have already explained it




So you would refuse to have someone in your vicinity not on the basis of any actions of theirs, but how they think? Blimey.

Don't be silly


Gay marriage was illegal in many US states until recently. Would you have been in favour of gay marriage ceremonies going ahead in those states in defiance of the law, if gay people wishing to marry believed the ban to be in contravention of their human rights and basic freedoms?

I am for Gay Marriage. I am against the Government being in the Marriage business. Marriage is a spiritual commitment that the Government has no business being a part of.
I am in favor of Government sanctioned Domestic Partnerships for legal reason.

[anthonyvop]

Your analogy is WRONG. The economy is not like your restaurant analogy because people do not derive the same benefits from the economy. People do not get "the same dish" in the first place. The question you ask therefore is irrelevant. Obviously if people got the same benefits then you'd want everyone to pay the same duh.

Are you proposing then, that everyone is paid an identical wage so that they can pay the same? Are you actually a communist?

Seriously? I asked a simple question.

I will make it simpler. Is it OK for someone to charge you more for a product based on your income? All other things being equal..is it ok? Yes or no?




Find me a reputable source which agrees with you.

5 seconds on Google

Diminishing marginal utility meet the real world


Assumptions of Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility:

The law of diminishing marginal utility is true under certain assumptions. These assumptions are as under:

(i) Rationality: In the cardinal utility analysis, it is assumed that the consumer is rational. He aims at maximization of utility subject to availability of his income.



(ii) Constant marginal utility of money: It is assumed in the theory that the marginal utility of money based for purchasing goods remains constant. If the marginal utility of money changes with the increase or decrease in income, it then cannot yield correct measurement of the marginal utility of the good.



(iii) Diminishing marginal utility: Another important assumption of utility analysis is that the utility gained from the successive units of a commodity diminishes in a given time period.



(iv) Utility is additive: In the early versions of the theory of consumer behavior, it was assumed that the utilities of different commodities are independent. The total utility of each commodity is additive.


U = U1 (X1) + U2 (X2) + U3 (X3)………. Un (Xn)



(v) Consumption to be continuous: It is assumed in this law that the consumption of a commodity should be continuous. If there is interval between the consumption of the same units of the commodity, the law may not hold good. For instance, if you take one glass of water in the morning and the 2nd at noon, the marginal utility of the 2nd glass of water may increase.



(vi) Suitable quantity: It is also assumed that the commodity consumed is taken in suitable and reasonable units. If the units are too small, then the marginal utility instead of falling may increase up to a few units.



(vii) Character of the consumer does not change: The law holds true if there is no change in the character of the consumer. For example, if a consumer develops a taste for wine, the additional units of wine may increase the marginal utility to a drunkard.



(viii) No change to fashion: Customs and tastes: If there is a sudden change in fashion or customs or taste of a consumer, it can than make the law inoperative.



(ix) No change in the price of the commodity: there should be any change in the price of that commodity as more units are consumed.


Limitations/Exceptions of Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility:



There are some exceptions or limitations to the law of diminishing utility.



(i) Case of intoxicants: Consumption of liquor defies the low for a short period. The more a person drinks, the more likes it. However, this is truer only initially. A stage comes when a drunkard too starts taking less and less liquor and eventually stops it.



(ii) Rare collection: If there are only two diamonds in the world, the possession of 2nd diamond will push up the marginal utility.


Summing up, we can say that the law of diminishing utility, like other laws of Economics, is simply a statement of tendency. It holds good provided other factors remain constant.



Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility - Definition and Statement - Three Facts of Law - Explanation and Example - Schedule - Curve/Diagram - Limitations/Exceptions - Assumptions - Importance - Economicsconcepts.com (http://www.economicsconcepts.com/law_diminishing_marginal_utility.htm)

[Rollo]

Seriously? I asked a simple question.

I will make it simpler. Is it OK for someone to charge you more for a product based on your income? All other things being equal..is it ok? Yes or no?

No.

[Rollo]

Diminishing marginal utility meet the real world

Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility - Definition and Statement - Three Facts of Law - Explanation and Example - Schedule - CurveDiagram - LimitationsExceptions - Assumptions - Importance - Economicsconcepts.com (httpwww.economicsconcepts.comlaw_diminishing_marg inal_utility.htm)

Did you bother to read what you've quoted?

From your source:
The law equally holds good for money. It is true that more money the man has, the greedier he is to get additional units of it. However, the truth is that the marginal utility of money declines with richness but never falls to zero.

and...
For example, a person who earns $90,000 per month attaches less importance to $10. But a man who gets $1000 per month, the value of $10 to him is very high. A finance minister knowing this fact that the utility of money to a rich man is high and to poor man low bases the system of taxation in such a way that the rich persons are taxed at a progressive rate. The system of modern taxation is therefore, based on the law of diminishing marginal utility.

Thank you. Your source agrees what I said in the first place.


Everyone ideally would prefer to pay ZERO, it's human nature. Everyone is always going to game the system even if they earn very little; that fact is almost uncontestable.
Marginal taxation rates in principle apply to the next dollar. Poor people by the fact that they earn less income, will always find anything other than a progressive taxation system more burdonsome. Someone on $10,000 a year is always going to miss that next dollar than someone on $100,000 a year. That is the reason why progressive taxation rates exist.

[Bob Riebe]

We all have to do some things we don't like sometimes for the greater good.No, things are sometimes done for the greater good that are not liked, NOTHING should have to be done for others good, by force.
Stalin and Lenin might agree with you, but what are the chances they would ever have been the ones doing the disliked task for other involuntarily?

[Bob Riebe]

But it is a useless analogy because it fails to take into account basic economic theories.Economic theories are just that, theories, not fact, so why would the analogy not work?

[Bob Riebe]

How was your (alleged) possession of that firearm legal in Europe, exactly?



So you would refuse to have someone in your vicinity not on the basis of any actions of theirs, but how they think? Blimey.

Gay marriage was illegal in many US states until recently. Would you have been in favour of gay marriage ceremonies going ahead in those states in defiance of the law, if gay people wishing to marry believed the ban to be in contravention of their human rights and basic freedoms?That would be between the couple and whom ever made the law, others opinions are irrelevant, as far as legal proceedings, till a law is changed.

[Rollo]

Economic theories are just that, theories, not fact, so why would the analogy not work?

A bowl of soup is a set sum, single use product with an optimal sharing group of one.
The role of government within the economy fulfills none of these criteria.

[Roamy]

Leaving aside my belief that your stance on this issue reveals you to not be entirely sound of mind, I believe it to be a right not to have illegally-armed Americans brandishing unlicenced firearms in my vicinity. I repeat my assertion — and this is not opinion, but plain, simple fact — that you are nothing more than a criminal, if the incident you described really took place.

Given your passionate belief in your own opinion on this subject, will you maybe (a) tell us where the incident took place, (b) the date and (c) remind us of the details. Then, perhaps, the legality of your actions could be tested.

Unfortunately many many more of us need to be brandishing guns. This world is a cesspool and soon we will all be carrying guns. Of course unless you want to execute all the meth users which would real help the problem.

[Roamy]

So I have it. everyone under forty should quit investing in Social Security - They should be forced to buy treasury bonds. That would eliminate may evils

[markabilly]

No. As a free man I am allowed to do as I please as long as I do not violate the rights of others. Under your beliefs one must do whatever the government says no matter what. Those who rise against despotic Governments are criminals under your belief system.
Those who rose up against Ceacescu...Criminals. Solidarity...Criminals.

Those who tore down the Berlin Wall should have been rounded up and shot

http://www.pictureworldbd.com/images/berlin%20wall/Berlin_wall%20(18).jpg

David Hasselhoff....Execute him.

http://api.ning.com/files/jfEhWpBgxOk4utiiqWqk9ienGw5OYe7Z1q86UWC2Jj95LcjluP p*KTOL2G1kVBB4uThOO5kE5L7hU8FYGaitZ7cVSZBdN31n/abc_david_berlin_091106_ms.jpg

this crap along with dunnel's crap, has nothing to do with the economy. Typical tea party political crap.

Tea party is a group of traitors who have seriously damaged this country.

But hey, maybe we will get lucky with michell Bachman;---



there was a controversy over Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann signing a pledge put forth by social conservatives in Iowa that stated "black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA's first African American President."

Everyone who is black is thinking: "Yes sir, boss lady, we were better off when you owned us and had us in chains. Yes, keep us in chains and out of school so we do not learn how to read and write, or be free,or live the american dream........"




this is how stupid the republican party has become. Dumb and dumber, lead by the tea baggers.

Meanwhile rome contunues to burn.....................

[markabilly]

Obama gave a decent speech last night about putting the good of the country ahead of political party intersts.

Too bad nobody with the tea party will be listening.

I loved Buffett's comments about the rating meant nothing as the question was is he going to get paid? He has no doubt about that. Indeed, the recent deal proved his point. That should be the only issue when it comes to T-bills and bonds


meanwhile Rick Perry will be riding at the head of the tea party to save us all....... :rolleyes:

[Bob Riebe]

Obama http://foolstown.com/sm/nap.gif gave a decent speech last night about putting the good of the country ahead of political party intersts.
ROFLMAO--Put --Obama blames-- in Google, and you get what his speeches amount to. http://foolstown.com/sm/bud.gif

[Jag_Warrior]

Bill Maher: "We have a Democrat party with no b@lls and a Republican party with no brains."

And I fully agree with him on that one. Between the spineless Dems and the tea bagger led GOPers, predicting our fall from grace isn't all that difficult.

[Bob Riebe]

Bill Maher: "We have a Democrat party with no b@lls and a Republican party with no brains."

And I fully agree with him on that one. Between the spineless Dems and the tea bagger led GOPers, predicting our fall from grace isn't all that difficult.Yeah right- let's see, the Democraps had a super majority but never managed to pass a budget.
You have your adjectives switched mixed-up.

[markabilly]

Disagree with you on that. The establishment politicians - Republican and Democrat - have been spending this country into the poor house for many years. While lining their own pockets of course. The Tea Party, whatever other faults they may have, are the first organization to dig their heels in and say "enough". The fact that so many of them got elected this last time demonstrates a large number of the electorate agree.

The tea party is clueless, They are utopian idealogues who sprew forth, benefitting nobody but the rich. Yeah spending going up but then taxes are going down.. You think the teabaggers are going to support more taxation?????

Yeah, spending is a problem, but so is the lack of business regulation of banks to keep the system secure ---those regs that were done away with in the late 90's . Not one of those teabaggers will join in on that one.If the regs had been left alone, much of the 2008 crisis never would have happened......... Instead they are all busy wanting no regulation, forgetting that an economy by its very nature, is not free and independant but bound by rules of conduct and expecyations among people and government. That is the reality. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile the infrastructure is rotting while the really productive industrial and technical jobs (and those jobs ain't the ones at fast food places or working at walmart) are going bye bye overseas, permittting the fat corporations to increase their profits momentarily, while the newly unemployed burden our welfare system and fail to make their mortgage payments....... and the latter is paid for by increased deficit spending and stimulus that do not stimulate anything but fat cat pocket books.

Meanwhile, more profits for HP and so forth.

Mark did not lose his job, his job left him and went overseas somewhere..................

make them pay taxes on those cheap ass cut rate out sourcing crap, and it will stop,

wake up Starter, do not be trading in your chains for a new set that will be far heavier and more burdensome then the ones you already got/. :rolleyes:

But that is okay, if you wanna listen to the newist racist we have running for office, Michell bachmann, hey that is okay, that is your right.

Just better start learning to speak chinese as they already own too much of this country, but with the deficit in export and import, that is hurting far more than the government's deficit spending. Think of that when buying something tomorrow, because in all proabilitly, that something WILL BE MADE IN CHINA. :rolleyes:

[Bob Riebe]

The tea party is clueless, :Blah, blah, blah. This has become just another troll thread.

[555-04Q2]

The sun will still come up tomorrow :)

[markabilly]

Yes and we'll see it much better since we'll all be living outdoors in the park.

No you will not. It will be closed and locked up as part of cutbacks mandated by the Tea Party.

And will not be no soup kitchen. No money for that either. Hopefully you and any of your family don't die of starvation or disease, because trash pick up has been cancelled. No money for that either. But hey the budget is balanced. :D


PTL!! :D (that stands for praise the lord for all you heathen savages--don't worry about that, cause Bachmann and Rickie Peryy will cure you of that ignorance, before you starve to death)


All this worry over the deficit is misplaced. The deficit is a symptom of the crappy economy and failure to properly regualte banks, but not the cause that Tea Party wants to make it out to be (and the latest BS from S& P, who has decided they need to issue guidelines on what to do, or those *******s will cut the rating some more).

Hahaha S & P would flip out over what really needs to be done--start by taxing all their perks that they get for free as a result of their employment.....dealing with taxes on those jobs in the service industry that are shipped off to the salave market countries. close the leaky border....and on and on.....oh, no, please Mr. Bill, don't do it....

They are trying to put a bandage over skin cancer, and claim,"look ma, it is all fixed". :rolleyes:

[555-04Q2]

Yes and we'll see it much better since we'll all be living outdoors in the park.
:D :D :D

:laugh: :up:

[Bob Riebe]

No you will not. It will be closed and locked up as part of cutbacks mandated by the Tea Party.

In this state the Democrap, Gov. closed the parks, but made sure retired politicians still received their retirement pay.
Of course thenon-retired gov. officials still received their money despite the gov. shut-down, it was called back-pay.

It is amazing, except, when one considers the source, that one is so afraid of the so called Tea party, which does not exist, but seems to bend over and kiss the buttocks of the Dem. who controlled both houses, and the Oval off
ice and LACKED the brains to pass a budget.

Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep....

[Gregor-y]

Just wondering, serious question. How much longer do you believe the country can go on spending money it does not have and has little hope of getting in the necessary quantities before it all collapses like a pile of cards?
I think the problem is we can pay for most things if we cut spending and raise taxes. Republicans painted themselves into a corner in 1992 over taxes and have only made their own room to maneuver smaller since then. That's why every argument you hear from them only mentions cuts, cuts which alone would be too severe for the population and hurt the economy as well. It appeals to people who think they can cut someone else's cake and keep eating their own, but no serious economist believes it. Nor the S&P, apparently; I guess they weren't paid to misrepresent things this time (or maybe they were paid by the Koch brothers to downgrade US credit). ;)

[Bob Riebe]

I think the problem is we can pay for most things if we cut spending and raise taxes. Republicans painted themselves into a corner in 1992 over taxes and have only made their own room to maneuver smaller since then. That's why every argument you hear from them only mentions cuts, cuts which alone would be too severe for the population and hurt the economy as well. It appeals to people who think they can cut someone else's cake and keep eating their own, but no serious economist believes it. Nor the S&P, apparently; I guess they weren't paid to misrepresent things this time (or maybe they were paid by the Koch brothers to downgrade US credit). ;)
One can pay for anything if one continues to take other peoples money as the one does not really care, it is not his/her money.
Until the cow runs dry.

[ArrowsFA1]

As a free man I am allowed to do as I please as long as I do not violate the rights of others.
What rights do others have that you would not violate?

[Gregor-y]

It's just as easy to renege on taxes when gutting spending as it is to increase taxes without reducing spending. Either one is cutting off the nose to spite the face, and Republicans have already staked out their position on the crazy side of cuts with no taxes (and no mention of considering it later), while Democrats look a lot more willing to make an agreement.

[Bob Riebe]

It's just as easy to renege on taxes when gutting spending as it is to increase taxes without reducing spending. Either one is cutting off the nose to spite the face, and Republicans have already staked out their position on the crazy side of cuts with no taxes (and no mention of considering it later), while Democrats look a lot more willing to make an agreement.The Democrats were silent about Bush's spending because he was spending like a Democrat. Now they are ready to make an supposed agreement, to keep spending up at the their levels, rather than reduce to where it should have been during Bush's years.

Basic incrementalism- one side gives and the other side takes.

The one side loses absolutely and the other side gets everything they want only more slowly.
That is not compromise, it is capitulation on one side, and theft on the other side.

So called compromise, is simply a basic street hustler scam and the Republicans are either too naive or incompetent to do anything about it.

[Roamy]

so the average life span in the us is 75 yrs old now they want to raise the retirement age to 70 - WOW the greatest country in the world = what a crock of sh!t. We just got caught in our own ponzi scheme

[Roamy]

while i am at it - all the states are broke and they are just blatantly ravishing the public with all their traffic violations. Every possible way to fine the public. you have to tip toe everywhere you go while the drug gangs get richer and richer as do the banker and oil companies

[Rollo]

Because of all that, my position is now a very hard line no new or increased taxes. That is, until all of the cuts have been enacted and put in place.

I have already mentioned this but for FY2011:

Total Receipts - $2,300bn

Total Mandatory Spending - $2,108bn
Interest on Existing Debt - $225bn

Shortfall - $333bn

That's without considering "Discretionary" Spending.
If every single cut were made which is currently legal, there would still be a shortfall. That means to say that if all "Discretionary" Spending was cut to ZERO, there is still a deficit.

The following Independent Agencies of the US Government need to have their budgets slashed to zero. Not just spending cut-backs but entirely dissolved.

- Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
- Federal Election Commission (FEC)
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
- Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- United States International Trade Commission (USITC)
- Postal Regulatory Commission and the
- Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
- National Credit Union Administration
- Consumer Product Safety Commission
- Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
- Federal Reserve System

That still wouldn't solve the deficit problem. All United States Federal Executive Departments of the US Government also need to have their budgets slashed to zero because they form part of the "discretionary" component of the budget.

- Department of State
- Department of Treasury
- Department of Defense
- Department of Justice
- Department of Interior
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Labor
- Department of Health & Human Services
- Department of Energy
- Department of Transport
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Housing & Urban Development
- Department of Education
- Department of Veterans Affairs

So then, even if you cut all of the Independent Agencies of the US Government, all of the United States Federal Executive Departments (Energy, Housing, Vet Affairs, Homeland Security, Treasury, State... etc etc etc), cut the entire Military Budgets, there is still a deficit.

That means also hacking into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
If Unemployment benefits were slashed to zero (which currently amounts to $61bn), and changes were made to pare Social Security Disability Insurance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, then about $102bn would be saved and the budget would be in actual surplus by $69bn (not Clinton's bollocks pretend surplus).

On those figures (not allowing for additional interest payments, and assuming an interest rate of 0%), the debt would be wiped out in FY2223.

As the population ages, that means that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid budgets are going to increase over time. Which makes any potential cuts and savings even harder to implement.


Show me the beef in the form of serious spending cuts - in place - and then we'll talk taxes. Which I fully acknowledge must be part of the solution.

The bottom line is that even serious spending cuts to the point of utter ridiculousness still aren't enough. There needs to be serious tax reform, and real tax increases as well.

QED.


so the average life span in the us is 75 yrs old now they want to raise the retirement age to 70 - WOW the greatest country in the world = what a crock of sh!t. We just got caught in our own ponzi scheme

Basically yes. Though to be fair, it's been brewing since 1958. You'd think that at least one administration woulda done something about it... nah.

[call_me_andrew]

so the average life span in the us is 75 yrs old now they want to raise the retirement age to 70 - WOW the greatest country in the world = what a crock of sh!t. We just got caught in our own ponzi scheme

A Ponzi scheme is designed to make money for people at the top. Social Security exists to help the people at the top break even.

Social security was never meant to be a retirement age. When it was first set at 64, the age was chosen because it was the life expectancy at the time. It was only meant as a safety net for people who had outlived their usefulness. The matter of whose fault it was that it was never adjusted with life expectancy is irrelevent; all that matters is how it gets fixed now.

[Roamy]

A Ponzi scheme is designed to make money for people at the top. Social Security exists to help the people at the top break even.

Social security was never meant to be a retirement age. When it was first set at 64, the age was chosen because it was the life expectancy at the time. It was only meant as a safety net for people who had outlived their usefulness. The matter of whose fault it was that it was never adjusted with life expectancy is irrelevent; all that matters is how it gets fixed now.

Then two things:
1. quit taking it out of peoples pay
2. people should have a means test to qualify

Also the Gov really had no right to borrow from the fund. They should have invested the fund and probably would not have a problem
But what do you expect from a guy who spends 5 million for and 140K job????
How much longer are you going to take this bullish!t from our elected ones???

[markabilly]

Just wondering, serious question. How much longer do you believe the country can go on spending money it does not have and has little hope of getting in the necessary quantities before it all collapses like a pile of cards?

Simple--when times are good, unemployment is low and getting lower, the governments (federal state and local) should be cutting back on their spending, trimiming deficits and all the rest.

When times are bad, employment rates are dropping, the governments must do just the opposite. To cut spending only makes the problems worse, increasing the downhill slide.



First problem of reality-when times are good, tax revenue is up and all the fed state and local governments spend, rather than cut and save.

Second problem--Governments start cutting when tax revenue goes down, especially state and local governments..."we can't afford to spend..." To cut spending only makes the problems worse, increasing the downhill slide

Hence the deficit and problems are a result of a bad economy, not the cause.


Thrid problem-which none of you have figured out--is that a few years before, when government spending was increased, the economy got good because the spending overall in the country increased, demand went up for goods and services made in the USA, companies were hiring and so forth.

But today's reality is those jobs are going overseas to China and elsewhere, indeed, jobs being lost here, were not initially due to the "bad economy", but to their flight overseas.

add in the inadequate banking and financial institution regulations, and here we are in the present mess.

so cutback spending or even the threat of it, causes panic and bad economy will follow. The S&P crap of cutback more spending or else, causes panic....... :eek:

Now is NOT the time for such talk. The need is for solutions to the banking industry and the job/industry flight over seas. Solve those problems properly, spend and cut as outlined above as it should be done---then the deficit disappears. :D

but now, we got to get all crossed eyed and stupid and do like the lemmings, go running off the cliff of cut spending and no new taxes.... :rolleyes:

[chuck34]

Simple--when times are good, unemployment is low and getting lower, the governments (federal state and local) should be cutting back on their spending, trimiming deficits and all the rest.

When times are bad, employment rates are dropping, the governments must do just the opposite. To cut spending only makes the problems worse, increasing the downhill slide.



First problem of reality-when times are good, tax revenue is up and all the fed state and local governments spend, rather than cut and save.

Second problem--Governments start cutting when tax revenue goes down, especially state and local governments..."we can't afford to spend..." To cut spending only makes the problems worse, increasing the downhill slide

Hence the deficit and problems are a result of a bad economy, not the cause.


Thrid problem-which none of you have figured out--is that a few years before, when government spending was increased, the economy got good because the spending overall in the country increased, demand went up for goods and services made in the USA, companies were hiring and so forth.

But today's reality is those jobs are going overseas to China and elsewhere, indeed, jobs being lost here, were not initially due to the "bad economy", but to their flight overseas.

add in the inadequate banking and financial institution regulations, and here we are in the present mess.

so cutback spending or even the threat of it, causes panic and bad economy will follow. The S&P crap of cutback more spending or else, causes panic....... :eek:

Now is NOT the time for such talk. The need is for solutions to the banking industry and the job/industry flight over seas. Solve those problems properly, spend and cut as outlined above as it should be done---then the deficit disappears. :D

but now, we got to get all crossed eyed and stupid and do like the lemmings, go running off the cliff of cut spending and no new taxes.... :rolleyes:

Honest question. When has what you outlined (increased government spending, and increased taxes) worked to bring us out of a recession/depression? I sure can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing it.

[Bob Riebe]

When times are bad, employment rates are dropping, the governments must do just the opposite. To cut spending only makes the problems worse, increasing the downhill slide.
:That is not only a lie, it is a damned lie, but government leeches know a large number of people are either to ignorant to know better or are leeches who live off of the goverment.

[markabilly]

That is not only a lie, it is a damned lie, but government leeches know a large number of people are either to ignorant to know better or are leeches who live off of the goverment.

truth hurts that bad , don't it?

just say, momma, say it ain't sooooo.....

and momma say, that's right, it ain't sooooo, now close your eyes and dream of Michelle Bachmann in the shower.....




http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/blogpost/201108/Images/bachmann-newsweek.jpg?uuid=zHSpmMHTEeCeCpSGbSBlkA



but keep them hands where i can see them

[markabilly]

All of what you said is pretty much so and a good recap of the history.

The problem lies (mostly) in the fact that while times were good the Federal government spent like drunken sailors instead of being a little more frugal. And they spent out of proportion to the increased income from taxes.
etc.
what i say, u say.




As for American jobs, it's no different than the '80s & '90s when the Japanese were eating our lunch. Post WWII Jap products were just so much junk but they built the industries up so that by the '80s Jananese cars, electronics and optics rivaled anything in the world for quality - and at a lower price. And they beat American products on BOTH price and quality. The Chinese are doing much the same today. I blame manufacturing unions for much of that, though management has a large share of blame. The unions priced products too high for the world market. Those same $25 per hour union members were running to Walmart to buy their big screen TVs, clothes, etc. All of which are made in China, Taiwan, Viet Nam, El Salvadore, etc.


i have said that many times before................but problem stared in early 1970's with a very graadual erosion of the american industrial bases and infrastructure, has continued for some forty years.......to the point there is not much left, and with service jobs now going overseas, the problem is just worse and worse and wrose.

If this ain't fixed, the deficit will not matter one way or the other. Indeed, it will continue to get worse along with the trade imbalance.....


And if it is properly fixed, the deficit will go away........................




So, IMO, the situation has gone beyond being fixed by the method you've outlined.




you may be right. But if you are, then you better start speaking chinese and stake out your spot in the park

[markabilly]

Honest question. When has what you outlined (increased government spending, and increased taxes) worked to bring us out of a recession/depression? I sure can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing it.

numerous times. Two very clear examples was the great depression, that took WW2 massive deficit spending to bring this country out of it...

and prewar nazi germany, a country where in about 6 to 7 years went from totally destroyed, people starving, to a giint industrial base that let them march all over germany, until they got bomber back to the stone age.

[chuck34]

numerous times. Two very clear examples was the great depression, that took WW2 massive deficit spending to bring this country out of it...

Really? So the massive government (deficit) spending from '33 to '41 got us out of the Depression? No. But the massive government spending on the war did? Let's think about that for a bit. Could the fact that millions of able bodied men were now out of the work force and into the military have had anything to do with the lowering of unemployment? And can you reallly say that the hard times were over when many goods were rationed, others so scarce that the prices went through the roof, or just plain not availible? No, rationally the Depression didn't really end until after the war when government spending was cut way back.

And if you honestly think that government (read military) spending is the way out of this, shouldn't you be arguing for more war not less? Yep let's go bomb Iran, North Korea, Venezulea, Lybia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and any other place we can think of.


and prewar nazi germany, a country where in about 6 to 7 years went from totally destroyed, people starving, to a giint industrial base that let them march all over germany, until they got bomber back to the stone age.

So you want us to implement the tactics of Nazi Germany? If you don't work, off to the "labor" camp with you, seriously? Read up on the building of the autobahn some time and see how they left machinery idle for years so that more men would have to be used to build the roads by hand, just so the employment numbers would go up. There are plenty of other examples like that as well. Is that really the type of thing you are advocating for?

[markabilly]

Your first example is a poor one. The depression started in 1929 and, in spite of FDR's massive government programs, didn't end until toward the end of WWll. That's almost 15 years. This country will be a sorry place to be if this goes on 15 years.

actually in the inital stages, the programs were not as massive as they may appear as that is something of urban legend.

he took the white house in 1933----

by 1936, things had improved considerably, but then in 37, there was a recession, but a recovery in 38-39 brought about by increased spending. Then the big increase in spending really started as the country went to war, along with increased income taxes --although taxes had been increasing in other areas before then.

so we are talking about 6 to 9 years.



of course, that was when the increased spending did not result in people going to walmart to buy chinese made plasma screens or basic items like chinese made clothes, tools, and so forth

at present, we might be lucky if it only lasts 15 years


(and we also had reform of banking regulations in the early 1930's that served us very well. Then in the later 1990's we did away with that which permitted the meltdowns...something that is totally ignored in the current debates

[veeten]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/blogpost/201108/Images/bachmann-newsweek.jpg?uuid=zHSpmMHTEeCeCpSGbSBlkA


Ah, the new 'Sarah Palin'... now, with less 'down-homey'-ness. ;)

[Bob Riebe]

truth hurts that bad , don't it?

just say, ]Nice attempt to deflect from your bogus rhetoric by putting up a picture of Bachmann.
So you are correct the truth hurts or you would not use such silly tactics.

[Rollo]

Really? So the massive government (deficit) spending from '33 to '41 got us out of the Depression? No. But the massive government spending on the war did? Let's think about that for a bit.

Yes. Let's think about this for a second. The US economy GREW in the Spring Quarter of 1933.
Great Depression (economy) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/243118/Great-Depression)
In terms of causality, government spending DID break the depression.

If the government of the day had done nothing, then it's likely that the economy would have continued to shrink because that's where the trend lines for GDP were going. Government intervention did help to increase aggregate demand and the economy started to grow again.


And if you honestly think that government (read military) spending is the way out of this, shouldn't you be arguing for more war not less? Yep let's go bomb Iran, North Korea, Venezulea, Lybia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and any other place we can think of.

Well that has been more or less standing US Policy ever since Eisenhower.

Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
- Eisenhower's Farewell Address

[markabilly]

Industrial military complex----yep. Problem is that we have this habit of going off to war, but not getting anything from it. We spend a bunch of money in Iraq and unlike the Brits of old, get nothing. When GB (and French, et all) was making the world safe for Brits, they were doing colonies and sucking the life blood out of them. We have failed miserably at that, and now the chinese are busy buying up all the oil fields there.

meanwhile 911 did do away with $10 a barrel oil..................

And I am not really advocating any particular long term solution................just identifying the long term problems and saying we should not go crashing off a cliff just yet with all this let us cut deficit spending, not raise taxes and raise retirement age to 70 (hey that is my hard earned social security I have paid for too many years!!). It willl only make things worse.

However, the study of economics has become dominanted by numbers and numerical theories. They discovered you can draw graphs just like in physics, and create formulas, and so if engineers can successfully create models and apply them to the real world--WHY NOT ECONOMISTS????

The problem is that numbers do not lie in the short term but are meaningless in the long term.

Much like history....at the pass, 300 Spartans v. a million Persians. The numbers say it is an easy walk over, but it was not because of technology and tactics.

Alexander conquered the world, fighting battles where they were often out numbered three to ten times. Yet they won because the greeks had far better weapons and tactics to use them. Wicker shiilds are just not much protection compared to metal.

(and in Desert Storm I and II did we not see the same thing????) :eek:



But what happened to ancient Greece? A civilization with incredible science, math, medicine........all became dust. Guess supply was insufficient to meet the co-efficient of demand and their GPD fell slightly in the 4th quarter, leading to short selling or whatever..... :confused:




what actually happened was technology changes, climate changes, and all sorts of stuff.....(greece had more rain fall back then as did most of the middle east).

Same here. Technology has changed, the industrial bases has gone overseas, even the service jobs have gone overseas, and what worked well in the 1930's just does not work as well today.



So my ranting has to do with this sort of problems of erroding industrial bases and all sorts of related issues, including long term banking and fianacial reform, THAT HAS YET TO HAPPEN--- :rolleyes:



Indeed, if we had just kept that which we had from the 1930's through 1990, the country's finances would be far better off. But no, wall street greed got that done away with, and the only serious political candidate who ever made that an issue, was McCain. One would think Obama would be like a dog on a blood trail on those issues, but no, he is pushing national health insurance while very quietly taking care of the wall street fat cats as much as possible. After all, they paid for his election.



Meanwhile technology makes it possible to conduct business in the USA the same as in India, and the Chinese can hack their way into computers and steal all the technology secrets.....and on and on....

The math of economists just does not deal with these issues at all. And increasing or decreasing spending is not going to address those issues either.

Right now, cutting spending and not raising taxes just might succeed with putting us into a massive depression.....and increasing spending with additional taxes might see a continuation of the current recovery, but long term, that will not matter much anyway, if or until the other issues are addressed. :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

That's what I said, wasn't it?

The difference is the order in which it's done. You CAN NOT TRUST the politicians to do what's right. As soon as you increase taxes enough to take a little edge off the problem, they will find a way to kick the can of serious spending cuts down the road. They do it EVERY TIME. That's because they don't want to take the heat from the gimmie class and face the possibility of not getting reelected to their cushy, over paid jobs.


When it comes to the needed reforms ( or return of old laws) of Wall Street, Obama will definetly not be going there.

No way to win, so it seems.

[Rollo]

However, the study of economics has become dominanted by numbers and numerical theories. They discovered you can draw graphs just like in physics, and create formulas, and so if engineers can successfully create models and apply them to the real world--WHY NOT ECONOMISTS???

Think of the weather.
Weather systems are made of millions of variables which all add up to have broadly predicatable events. Weather follows nominally rational rules governed by physics.
Economics has to deal with a system also made up of millions of variables which usually produce predicatable events, but unlike the weather, instead of being governed by rational rules, it's governed by largely irrational people.

[Roamy]

what seems interesting to me is that all we hear is growth growth growth. But I don't hear anyone addressing the world population. - So I figure it the end you will need to have economies based on neutral population or we will simply distroy the planet.

[markabilly]

Think of the weather.
Weather systems are made of millions of variables which all add up to have broadly predicatable events. Weather follows nominally rational rules governed by physics.
Economics has to deal with a system also made up of millions of variables which usually produce predicatable events, but unlike the weather, instead of being governed by rational rules, it's governed by largely irrational people.


I am thinking of religion......

The difference between science and religion, is that science accepts failure as an indication of flaws and a failed theory.

Religion, the same as social "sciences" makes excuses for its failures......such as: the wrath of god struck him down, or he hated his father, which is why he is a serial killer, yayaddada......or irrational people keep screwing up my formulas............

[markabilly]

what seems interesting to me is that all we hear is growth growth growth. But I don't hear anyone addressing the world population. - So I figure it the end you will need to have economies based on neutral population or we will simply distroy the planet.

wait until science(you know, real science) figures out how to modify DNA to make us all immortal, or at least immune to dying of old age (gunshots being a different issue)