Dr. Kamerschen, Ph.D. thoughts on taxes

[thicknasty]

> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
>
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>
> So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
> "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
> They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
>
> And so:
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
> The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>
> Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
> "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
> "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
> "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
> "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
> The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
>
> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
>
> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

 

[Tech]

 

[Bulkboy]

found this on another site...


Taxes are a complicated matter -- does this Bar Stool Economics deal with the difference between income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc? No, it doesn't -- it approaches the matter in a simple, easily digested way that only focuses on one way of looking at the issue, which happens to support the concept of trickle-down economics.

Trickle-down economics is based on the theory that wealthy people spend money in the economy and therefore (to use one of McCain's favorite terms from the debate tonight) "spreads the wealth" through the economy. We have seen that doesn't work because the wealthy are getting wealthier and the middle class and the poor simply lose ground.

They're losing ground for several reasons -- not because they're freeloaders or aren't working hard, but because their incomes have not gone up while their taxes have either increased or simply stayed level as inflation increases. This results in less buying power for the dollars they earn and an overall loss of income for them.

Meanwhile, the rich become richer because a) they can reduce taxes via various types of tax shelters, deductions and plain old loopholes and b) they put their money into investments that grow and keep producing wealth. While saving is something to encourage for all Americans (since we save less than any other industrialized country as a whole), all that extra money going to the rich is NOT going directly into the economy to help stimulate growth, but rather is going into stocks and other investments where it helps a publicly traded corporation raise capital.

Ah, you say -- isn't that a good thing? Won't that company hire more people? No, not especially -- some might, but others might use the money to acquire other companies (often eliminating jobs in the process), pay their own employees more (not usually the workers, more often management, especially at the highest levels), or to simply build up cash reserves. The key to corporate success is to provide the greatest stock price and dividends to shareholders -- and that means keeping costs down, of which payroll & benefits for employees is a favorite target.

This process is overseen by the CEO, who very often is being paid an astronomical salary totally disproportionate to the value they bring to the company, while workers are paid just enough (and sometimes less) to get by.

Don't get me wrong -- a good CEO is worth a substantial salary, but American corporations lead the world in avarice with CEO salaries running some 400-500 times what workers make, as opposed to other capitalist countries where they only range as high as 25-50 times what workers make. So what, you might ask? Well, a CEO making a paltry 25 million annually could probably live quite well off of, say, 3 million a year and the company would have an extra 22 million each year to help increase worker salaries, help develop the company or even to distribute to shareholders.

All that being said, reality is that CEOs still make a killing and very often receive these insane salaries and bonuses as they're laying off tens, hundreds or even thousands of middle class American workers.

Those laid off American workers still need to pay sales tax on their purchases, as small as they might be in these troubled times, put gas in their cars, put food on the table and pay their property taxes so their kids can go to decent schools and avoid having their house sold in a tax sale.

Meanwhile, the CEO chooses which estate to visit for the weekend in which car with which driver.

Since we realistically will need to raise taxes to pay off our national debt and keep our national infrastructure growing (or just plain safe) regardless of what kind of spending limits we put on our country (we need to end our wars first as they're really the biggest drain on our finances right now), who can best afford to pay the higher taxes -- the middle class or the wealthy?

I think the wealthy can afford additional taxes that could go towards developing jobs that will repair our infrastructure, develop a green economy that will produce even more jobs and exportable products & services in a time when we are at an all-time high export deficit, provide healthcare to every citizen who needs it and help fix our schools.

While this is even a relatively simple approach that incorporates my own political & economic philosophy, the point is that taxation is a pretty complicated discussion, and while you may not have the time to go take a course or study up on different tax models & their corresponding impacts, it is not an issue you can solve or even attempt to illustrate with a parable about 10 guys drinking beer.



point being, if u want to defend rich peoples right to buy a gulfstream 2 private jet instead of a gulfstream 3(south park) then so be it, but i dont think it makes alot of sense. fact is this. 20% of the american population control 80% of the wealth, obviously they could and should contribute more to the society in which they were given the opportunity to become so rich in the first place. do anyone actually think its fair that a CEO who drives his company into the ditch, takes out 40 million dollars while workers gets fired and struggles to put food on the table. or does anyone think that this CEO worked 400 times as hard as say a professor who makes 100 k a year? im not saying u should be punished hard for being successful. ur entitled to large amounts of ur earnings so u can live a good life, but at the same time it makes sense to contribute more. i know if i made 40 million a year, i wouldnt mind one bit to pay alittle extra knowing that society benefited from it.

 

[Ironslave]

They're losing ground for several reasons -- not because they're freeloaders or aren't working hard, but because their incomes have not gone up while their taxes have either increased or simply stayed level as inflation increases. This results in less buying power for the dollars they earn and an overall loss of income for them.

...and who is responsible for this??

Spoiler

Please watch this, you and everyone else should have paid closer attention over a year ago.

The rest of the article is communism.

point being, if u want to defend rich peoples right to buy a gulfstream 2 private jet instead of a gulfstream 3(south park) then so be it, but i dont think it makes alot of sense.

Why not? What about the company that builds the jets? Now you are punishing them. Sure, they get a $500 tax credit or whatever nonsense Obama proposes, but because of these massively high taxes on the rich, now he's not going to buy a jet, and the company that builds it loses out on millions.

fact is this. 20% of the american population control 80% of the wealth, obviously they could and should contribute more to the society in which they were given the opportunity to become so rich in the first place. do anyone actually think its fair that a CEO who drives his company into the ditch, takes out 40 million dollars while workers gets fired and struggles to put food on the table. or does anyone think that this CEO worked 400 times as hard as say a professor who makes 100 k a year? im not saying u should be punished hard for being successful. ur entitled to large amounts of ur earnings so u can live a good life, but at the same time it makes sense to contribute more. i know if i made 40 million a year, i wouldnt mind one bit to pay alittle extra knowing that society benefited from it.

Bulkboy, how much have people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet done for society on their own? Have they put people out of work, and hogged all the money? Or, have they employed millions upon millions of people, and given probably hundreds of million dollars to charities.


Without going into a big debate, I'd like to keep this short... just answer me this, if you saw someone on the side of the road, would you help them out of the goodness of your heart?

 

[Bulkboy]

Why not? What about the company that builds the jets? Now you are punishing them. Sure, they get a $500 tax credit or whatever nonsense Obama proposes, but because of these massively high taxes on the rich, now he's not going to buy a jet, and the company that builds it loses out on millions.

i said "have to buy a gulfstream 2 instead of a gulfstream 3" what i meant by that is that a guy with 200 million dollars wont really be affected by a minor tax increase, he will still be able to buy whatever he wants. and it is a myth that the rich pay massively high taxes. they dont, most of the super wealthy make their money through capital gains, and the capital gains tax aint high at all, i think its around 15% in the us, here in norway i believe its slightly higher, and we still have lots of super rich people. what u fail to understand is that companies are dependent of public services as well. companies are not well served with a weak middle class, because then they will loose their customer base. companies are also well served with a good infrastructure, good education systems etc. if the reality had been that companies only went where taxes were super low then u would see all the companies establishing in tax paradises in the third world etc. they dont.

Bulkboy, how much have people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet done for society on their own? Have they put people out of work, and hogged all the money? Or, have they employed millions upon millions of people, and given probably hundreds of million dollars to charities.


Without going into a big debate, I'd like to keep this short... just answer me this, if you saw someone on the side of the road, would you help them out of the goodness of your heart?

IS, u think i want to take all the money from rich people? that is just not true, i realize that inventive good business people who hire workers are great. but at the same time it makes more sense to put alittle more on the tax burden on those who have reached a level of comfort where they can affod to pay alittle more back to the society then regular people who struggle to make ends meet. to me that is just common sense.

its worth noticing that Alan Greenspan, the main proponent for deregulation and free financial markets now goes out and admits that his libertarian ideology is flawed! why? because CEO's were gladly willing to toss their shareholders interest out the window in order to aquire short term profit when they knew the bubble had to burst. do u honestly think its fair that someone who drives a company in the ditch makes millions upon millions of dollars from it? is that fair to you?

does he deserve 400 times more income than a doctor or professor? is it right to give these guys tax breaks instead of the ordinary worker?

as to ur question, ive seen people lying on the side of the road before, and ive walked by, saying to myself "i cant make much of a difference" i know this is flawed, because following that logic, noone would help. im glad there are people out there who invest their life in helping others. am i one of them? no im not. but it does not prevent me from voting for a political course that makes life easier for people whos in trouble, instead of making it harder and creating more of them. that is what bushs policy has done, and that is why i support barack obama, because i dont believe any country is well served with wiping out their middle class, creating a bottomless gap between the rich and the poor.

 

[Bulkboy]

Warren buffett on taxes.

guess he is a socialist as well

 

[Ironslave]

i said "have to buy a gulfstream 2 instead of a gulfstream 3" what i meant by that is that a guy with 200 million dollars wont really be affected by a minor tax increase, he will still be able to buy whatever he wants. and it is a myth that the rich pay massively high taxes. they dont, most of the super wealthy make their money through capital gains, and the capital gains tax aint high at all, i think its around 15% in the us, here in norway i believe its slightly higher, and we still have lots of super rich people. what u fail to understand is that companies are dependent of public services as well. companies are not well served with a weak middle class, because then they will loose their customer base. companies are also well served with a good infrastructure, good education systems etc. if the reality had been that companies only went where taxes were super low then u would see all the companies establishing in tax paradises in the third world etc. they dont.

But look at the system you're advocating. Somewhere like in Canada pays up to 50% for the capital gains tax! Overall the income tax is around 46%, it's just absurd.

What I fail to understand? lol, please. You're advocating taking their earned money, giving it back to the people who gave it to them, and then hoping they give it back to them again? Again, you completely refuse to admit the role of government intervention in causing these crisis', and for hurting the middle class.

IS, u think i want to take all the money from rich people? that is just not true, i realize that inventive good business people who hire workers are great. but at the same time it makes more sense to put alittle more on the tax burden on those who have reached a level of comfort where they can affod to pay alittle more back to the society then regular people who struggle to make ends meet. to me that is just common sense.

You posted an article where it said a CEO making 25 mil a year would be fine making 3 million a year and giving out the rest to everyone else. That's communism.

Those in society who struggle to meet ends meet are in many cases, those who have been lazy, combined with the effects of the government intervention who have driven prices for pretty much everything up.

its worth noticing that Alan Greenspan, the main proponent for deregulation and free financial markets now goes out and admits that his libertarian ideology is flawed! why? because CEO's were gladly willing to toss their shareholders interest out the window in order to aquire short term profit when they knew the bubble had to burst. do u honestly think its fair that someone who drives a company in the ditch makes millions upon millions of dollars from it? is that fair to you?

does he deserve 400 times more income than a doctor or professor? is it right to give these guys tax breaks instead of the ordinary worker?

LOL, claiming that this crisis was a result of the free market or deregulation is plain wrong and ignorance. You can debate the merits of one over the other, sure, but this was NOT deregulation, and claiming so makes your argument wrong. Greenspan completely abandoned his libertarian ideology, and he was probably THE major cause of these bubbles with his policies. Again, arguing the merits of regulation vs degregulation is fine, but claiming that this era was one of degregulation is 100% wrong.

Should a CEO who drives his company in a ditch make millions? Hell no. This means his company sucks, and he sucks as a leader, so his company should suffer. You were the one who advocated these bailouts, so, it's your policies where companies were able to drive their companies into the ditch, yet when they did, the government was there as a safety net, then was able to give them billions of dollars in handouts. Look at AIG, they took taxpayer bailout money and spent it on spa treatment! If there was true deregulation, these companies would not have invested like they did, and none of it would have happened. Say what you will about people like Ron Paul, but he pretty well predicted all this to a tee.

as to ur question, ive seen people lying on the side of the road before, and ive walked by, saying to myself "i cant make much of a difference" i know this is flawed, because following that logic, noone would help. im glad there are people out there who invest their life in helping others. am i one of them? no im not. but it does not prevent me from voting for a political course that makes life easier for people whos in trouble, instead of making it harder and creating more of them. that is what bushs policy has done, and that is why i support barack obama, because i dont believe any country is well served with wiping out their middle class, creating a bottomless gap between the rich and the poor.

This is exactly the answer I was looking for. And this is the difference between kind hearted conservatives, and kind hearted socialists (note, I do consider you kind hearted, which is why I said that. But, like I am a libertarian-leaning conservative, you are a socialist-leaning liberal. It's not meant as an insult, those are the truths).

You walk by and think "oh, I'm only one person, so I can't help them, and I don't think anybody else will either." In turn, you whine and complain, and leave it up to someone else to do something. Making things even worse, you hope that the government takes it from the very rich people and not you! So instead of helping out, you hope that someone else helps them out, using the money from someone else again. Think about how absurd that is. Tell me, do you do charity work yourself? Do you foster homeless children? If not, why not? Instead of waiting for someone else to do it, why don't you do it yourself?

On the other hand, I know how much one person can make a difference, and I still have faith in humanity that there are those out there who will help infinite times more than government. To illustrate this, let's look at hurricane Katrina.

Give this an honest watch, it's from John Stossel's "Politically incorrect guide to politics", which I posted, but surprising nobody, you didn't watch. It's only 6 and a half minutes.

Now look at what Brad Pitt, and other celebrities did. Combined with the Habitat for Humanity volunteers, they went down, and just did it.

Also, let's look at the money government spent. Billions were awarded, yet billions of the money went missing! Big government tried to give them a huge grant, but looking at this article, less than half of it has even yet been spent! And that that has been, about half of that went to the people that needed it.

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2007/08/10862.php

 

[Ironslave]

Warren buffett on taxes.

guess he is a socialist as well

Yes.

http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2006/07/04/warren-buffet-socialist-dragoon/

The term "socialist" in describing his policies aren't meant to be an insult, it's the truth.

 

[Bulkboy]

But look at the system you're advocating. Somewhere like in Canada pays up to 50% for the capital gains tax! Overall the income tax is around 46%, it's just absurd.

What I fail to understand? lol, please. You're advocating taking their earned money, giving it back to the people who gave it to them, and then hoping they give it back to them again? Again, you completely refuse to admit the role of government intervention in causing these crisis', and for hurting the middle class.

in the US right now the capital gains tax is 15%, under obama that will go up to 20% which is still just as low as it was during reagan and the same rate bush proposed cutting it too in 2001. ive never advocated a 50% tax on capital gains, where do u get that from? here in norway it is 28% and i think that is appropriate. u fail to understand that cutting taxes is only effective to a certain point. cutting the capital gains tax in canada from 50 to 30 would probably be effective. cutting it in the US to below 15% probably wouldnt make much of a difference other than taking revenues from the government that it needs to provide services.

ur making this only a principal issue. u obviously feel a great need to defend the super wealthy from the "brutal taxation". this is horseshit, the widening gap between the middle class and the super wealthy in the US indicates this clearly. never have we had more billionairs or millionairs. having lots of rich people in itself is not a problem. but u dont build a society from the top and down. u build it by giving everybody the opportunity to succeed. now can everybody become super rich? offc not, but everybody who is willing to stand in a job and work their ass off deserve to have a decent life. this is not the case in the US today, alot of people have 2 or 3 jobs and still spend every waking hour worrying about how to pay the bills. thats not what the american dream was ever about, and that is where a politician like obama can make a difference.

You posted an article where it said a CEO making 25 mil a year would be fine making 3 million a year and giving out the rest to everyone else. That's communism.

stop tossing the term communism around everywhere, its ignorant to say the least and it destroys a good debate. if ure gonna call me a commie, then im gonna call u a libertarian nut case with no sense of reality. its just as appropriate. first off, here in norway for instance, top leaders make lots of money, about 8-10 times as much as their employees. thats still little compared to the US where top leaders make 40-50 times as much as their employees. now is this fair? does that leader work 40-50 times as hard as his employees? obviously not, the thing is they invest in stock bonds, and when the stock goes up they can take out giant profits for themselves. this is not right and u know it. also, how is it fair that a leader who does a crappy job takes out a 50 million parachute while his workers gets fired. to me, regulating this like we have done in norway has nothing to do with communism. its simple fairness and common sense. nobody deserves to make such radical amounts of money by doing a crappy job. offc a top leader is entitled to a good salary, but just like everyone elses salary is regulated his should be too.

Those in society who struggle to meet ends meet are in many cases, those who have been lazy, combined with the effects of the government intervention who have driven prices for pretty much everything up.

this is incredibly ignorant of you to say this. there are tons of people in the US today who works as hard as anybody else but still struggle to make ends meet. reason is that the last 20 years the real income of the average american have been at a standstill, while everything else has gone to the 20% richest. inflation isnt that bad in the US, its wages not being able to keep up with inflation. i mean minimum wage over there is 8 dollars, here in norway its around 18 dollars, even adjusted to prices thats an insane difference. the richest are doing better than ever while the middle class and poor struggle like never before.

LOL, claiming that this crisis was a result of the free market or deregulation is plain wrong and ignorance. You can debate the merits of one over the other, sure, but this was NOT deregulation, and claiming so makes your argument wrong. Greenspan completely abandoned his libertarian ideology, and he was probably THE major cause of these bubbles with his policies. Again, arguing the merits of regulation vs degregulation is fine, but claiming that this era was one of degregulation is 100% wrong.

how was this not deregulation? the bush administration during greenspan pushed forward for more deregulation of the financial markets from the very beginning. the predatory lending that occured is a direct result of deregulation and loosening of the rules. when greenspan himself goes out and admits that his libertarian ideology is FLAWED! i think that speaks pretty loud. i choose to trust him when he says that, i think he knows economics alittle better than you do IS, no disrespect

Should a CEO who drives his company in a ditch make millions? Hell no. This means his company sucks, and he sucks as a leader, so his company should suffer. You were the one who advocated these bailouts, so, it's your policies where companies were able to drive their companies into the ditch, yet when they did, the government was there as a safety net, then was able to give them billions of dollars in handouts. Look at AIG, they took taxpayer bailout money and spent it on spa treatment! If there was true deregulation, these companies would not have invested like they did, and none of it would have happened. Say what you will about people like Ron Paul, but he pretty well predicted all this to a tee.

but here is the thing. there are tons of examples of corporate leaders who do well while their company goes to hell. they take out giant sums of money while their workers gets fired. i have tried to say get this across to you, but everytime i do u call me a commie for even suggesting to regulate this better. but again its not communism, its simple fairness, or law and order if you will. what if i did a crappy job at a supermarket and got fired, and in the process took with me 5000 in cash. that would be called stealing. somehow u dont view it as that when corporate leaders do the exact same thing.

yeah i advocated these bailouts, i would rather have seen a goverment takeover rather than giving them money, that way the government could see it back to private later and maybe even make a profit. this was done here in norway during the bank crisis in the 80s.

reason why i advocate them is because its the only sensible thing to do, u live in this fairy tale world, where u dont even consider the consequenses of not stepping in. once again u let ur principles of a free market utopia get in the way of solutions. ur ideology has been tested, and it does not work, the market is bound to go down at some point that is true, but this crisis was a result of deregulation, by an irresponsible economic policy by the feds and the bush administration. i agree that one can not only blame this on the market, predatory lenders are partly to blame, along with the federal reserve slashing interest rates after the IT bubble in 2000 and the bush administrations deregulatory policy letting predatory lending happend. alan greenspan said it himself, he underestimated private individuals will to toss their shareholders on the fire in order to aquire short term profit.

This is exactly the answer I was looking for. And this is the difference between kind hearted conservatives, and kind hearted socialists (note, I do consider you kind hearted, which is why I said that. But, like I am a libertarian-leaning conservative, you are a socialist-leaning liberal. It's not meant as an insult, those are the truths).

You walk by and think "oh, I'm only one person, so I can't help them, and I don't think anybody else will either." In turn, you whine and complain, and leave it up to someone else to do something. Making things even worse, you hope that the government takes it from the very rich people and not you! So instead of helping out, you hope that someone else helps them out, using the money from someone else again. Think about how absurd that is. Tell me, do you do charity work yourself? Do you foster homeless children? If not, why not? Instead of waiting for someone else to do it, why don't you do it yourself?

haha! what now? are u really gonna generalize to this extent, honestly IS, this is ridicolous. ure gonna put a mark between left and right on who is most charitable? im not gonna participate in that, there are individuals both from the left and right who are willing to help, and that is great. i just said that i cant honestly sit here and say that i have helped every poor person ive seen on the street, i dont have the capacity to do it. but please, let me know of all the orphant children u have taken into ur home because of ur being a libertarian and me being to the left of you. and again im not socialist leaning, im more liberal then u are, but that doesent make me a socialist. that makes me a moderate, because the ideology ur portraying is one almost nobody follows in this day and age, thats the simple truth. me advocating a progressive tax system and a government regulating the market hardly qualifies as me being a socialist.

but answer me this IS. obviously u dont support a progressive tax system as u think it is to punishing to the rich. so how will you go about it? a flat tax? with a flat tax, the rich would still pay more than everybody else right? so i guess we are back to the removal of the income tax, which will take away about half of the revenues. now my question is this. what exactly should government cut back on when half of the revenues are gone? are u in favour of public education? pensions, medicare and medicaid? please let me know what government is supposed to do when the income tax is gone.

On the other hand, I know how much one person can make a difference, and I still have faith in humanity that there are those out there who will help infinite times more than government. To illustrate this, let's look at hurricane Katrina.

Give this an honest watch, it's from John Stossel's "Politically incorrect guide to politics", which I posted, but surprising nobody, you didn't watch. It's only 6 and a half minutes.

Now look at what Brad Pitt, and other celebrities did. Combined with the Habitat for Humanity volunteers, they went down, and just did it.

Also, let's look at the money government spent. Billions were awarded, yet billions of the money went missing! Big government tried to give them a huge grant, but looking at this article, less than half of it has even yet been spent! And that that has been, about half of that went to the people that needed it.

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2007/08/10862.php

i couldnt agree more about one person being able to make a huge difference. and i think everyone agrees that FEMA handled the new orleans catastrophe poorly. offc one should try to improve government efficiency and defeat corruption also in the government run sector. but lets remember, private building houses is one thing, but government provide infrastructure and more complicated tasks. we dont disagree about there being room for improvement within the government sector. what we disagree on is what the role of government ought to be.

u believe government is always, slow, inefficient and not capable of taking care of its tasks. i believe government have a role to play, and to take care of the areas where it does a better job than the private sector. i also believe most people agree with me about this, and thats why it looks like obama is winning this election

 

[Ironslave]

in the US right now the capital gains tax is 15%, under obama that will go up to 20% which is still just as low as it was during reagan and the same rate bush proposed cutting it too in 2001. ive never advocated a 50% tax on capital gains, where do u get that from? here in norway it is 28% and i think that is appropriate. u fail to understand that cutting taxes is only effective to a certain point. cutting the capital gains tax in canada from 50 to 30 would probably be effective. cutting it in the US to below 15% probably wouldnt make much of a difference other than taking revenues from the government that it needs to provide services.

What other services does the US government need to provide?

ur making this only a principal issue. u obviously feel a great need to defend the super wealthy from the "brutal taxation". this is horseshit, the widening gap between the middle class and the super wealthy in the US indicates this clearly. never have we had more billionairs or millionairs. having lots of rich people in itself is not a problem. but u dont build a society from the top and down. u build it by giving everybody the opportunity to succeed. now can everybody become super rich? offc not, but everybody who is willing to stand in a job and work their ass off deserve to have a decent life. this is not the case in the US today, alot of people have 2 or 3 jobs and still spend every waking hour worrying about how to pay the bills. thats not what the american dream was ever about, and that is where a politician like obama can make a difference.

Yes, it is principle, why should someone who earns their money, regards of how "hard" they work? It's almost impossible to discuss things with you, because you cherry pick and selectively ignore more than you respond to, but again, I will refer you to comments in other posts. I'll put them in bullet points, hopefully this makes it so you won't ignore them.

• The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year
  

Give them the opportunity to succeed? More like give them other people's success! Again, let's look at what would happen under the current proposed Obama tax plans.


A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.


- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

These are HANDOUTS. Not tax breaks, handouts.

Now, let's look at some other FACTS.

-The top 20 percent of earners already pay 69 percent of all federal taxes! They also pay 88 percent of income taxes. More than one third of Americans already pay no income tax, and under Obama, this would sky rocket to around 45%. You want these people who already pay the majority of taxes pay MORE?

This is class warfare! Everyone who already IS willing to work their ass off in their job CAN make a decent living. Again, how many more teachers, doctors, engineers, architects do we need? Tons! Your talking about the "American Dream" is a joke. What do you think was THE main cause for the American Revolution? The founding fathers would literally be turning in their grave if they saw the shit going on, they didn't even want an income tax, nevermind massive redistribution of wealth.

stop tossing the term communism around everywhere, its ignorant to say the least and it destroys a good debate. if ure gonna call me a commie, then im gonna call u a libertarian nut case with no sense of reality. its just as appropriate. first off, here in norway for instance, top leaders make lots of money, about 8-10 times as much as their employees. thats still little compared to the US where top leaders make 40-50 times as much as their employees. now is this fair? does that leader work 40-50 times as hard as his employees? obviously not, the thing is they invest in stock bonds, and when the stock goes up they can take out giant profits for themselves. this is not right and u know it. also, how is it fair that a leader who does a crappy job takes out a 50 million parachute while his workers gets fired. to me, regulating this like we have done in norway has nothing to do with communism. its simple fairness and common sense. nobody deserves to make such radical amounts of money by doing a crappy job. offc a top leader is entitled to a good salary, but just like everyone elses salary is regulated his should be too.

Nut case? lol. I never once called you a communist, but you DID post an article that says that a CEO making 25 million a year would be fine making 3 million a year, while everyone else took his 22 million. Say what you want, but THAT is communism. You're taking it as a derogatory term (because communism has historically been associated with corrupt rule), but that's communism. Saying you have communist views is no different than saying I have libertarian or anarcho-capitalist views. Don't use another word like "nut case" again, as I never used a word like that towards you.

So what do you propose? Why should someone who works for their money be forced to give it back? Who's going to regulate this? What is the cut off? Who determines "how hard" someone works, and then pays them according to that? That's not liberty. Should New York tear down the statue of liberty and put up a communist star? The leaders of the company should make whatever the fuck they want, it's their company. It a CEO does a lousy job, workers will quit, and in turn his company will tank, and he loses everything. (except however, with systems that you advocate. In your systems, the CEO can take unnecessary risk for greed, and know he has government to bail him out with taxpayer money).

this is incredibly ignorant of you to say this. there are tons of people in the US today who works as hard as anybody else but still struggle to make ends meet. reason is that the last 20 years the real income of the average american have been at a standstill, while everything else has gone to the 20% richest. inflation isnt that bad in the US, its wages not being able to keep up with inflation. i mean minimum wage over there is 8 dollars, here in norway its around 18 dollars, even adjusted to prices thats an insane difference. the richest are doing better than ever while the middle class and poor struggle like never before.

It pains me that you still cannot begin, or are even willing to attempt to comprehend the role of government has caused this, so I will resort to posting cartoons in the hope that you can finally understand.

You're also using inflation in the wrong sense, If I'm reading it correctly. You're referring to the cost of goods, as opposed to the money supply. Wages are ALWAYS the last thing to go up when you fuck around and increase the money supply, and devalue the dollar, as the US government has done (and it's gonna get worse). So, again, it's because of things that you advocate which is the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution.

how was this not deregulation? the bush administration during greenspan pushed forward for more deregulation of the financial markets from the very beginning. the predatory lending that occured is a direct result of deregulation and loosening of the rules. when greenspan himself goes out and admits that his libertarian ideology is FLAWED! i think that speaks pretty loud. i choose to trust him when he says that, i think he knows economics alittle better than you do IS, no disrespect

I have no doubt that he knows economics better than I, there are no doubt many scientists who know more overall about things than I do, but doesn't mean I can't be right on key points, which I am on this.

Now, as to how it was NOT deregulation, once again, I will point you to articles which again, you chose to selectively ignore.

DO NOT IGNORE THIS!

ALSO DO NOT IGNORE THIS.

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/explanation-fannie-freddie-and-bailouts-35624.html


Also, since you won't even acknowledge anything that doesn't come from the left wing, I'm going to, in Joe Biden style , repeat,

DO NOT IGNORE THIS...

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/explanation-fannie-freddie-and-bailouts-35624.html

but here is the thing. there are tons of examples of corporate leaders who do well while their company goes to hell. they take out giant sums of money while their workers gets fired. i have tried to say get this across to you, but everytime i do u call me a commie for even suggesting to regulate this better. but again its not communism, its simple fairness, or law and order if you will. what if i did a crappy job at a supermarket and got fired, and in the process took with me 5000 in cash. that would be called stealing. somehow u dont view it as that when corporate leaders do the exact same thing.

What are you talking about? If a corporate leader runs his company to the ground, the company should tank.

yeah i advocated these bailouts, i would rather have seen a goverment takeover rather than giving them money, that way the government could see it back to private later and maybe even make a profit. this was done here in norway during the bank crisis in the 80s.

reason why i advocate them is because its the only sensible thing to do, u live in this fairy tale world, where u dont even consider the consequenses of not stepping in. once again u let ur principles of a free market utopia get in the way of solutions. ur ideology has been tested, and it does not work, the market is bound to go down at some point that is true, but this crisis was a result of deregulation, by an irresponsible economic policy by the feds and the bush administration. i agree that one can not only blame this on the market, predatory lenders are partly to blame, along with the federal reserve slashing interest rates after the IT bubble in 2000 and the bush administrations deregulatory policy letting predatory lending happend. alan greenspan said it himself, he underestimated private individuals will to toss their shareholders on the fire in order to aquire short term profit.

Bulkboy, what happened when Enron, the largest energy company in america, tanked? Did the government step in and bail them out?

AGAIN, STOP F&*^$ing ignoring this!!
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/explanation-fannie-freddie-and-bailouts-35624.html

Once again, I have no problem with debating the merits of regulation, verses deregulation, but let me say this once again, Joe Biden style.

THERE WAS NO DEREGULATION!!!!!!!!!!!! I've never insulted you in this thread, but you're seriously either blind, or delusional if you claim this system was a deregulated one. There's no point in me wasting any more time debating you, because you cherry pick and ignore logic and facts when they are presented to you. What I advocate has been tried? Give me a break, you're wrong. It happened with Enron when they tanked, other, more efficient energy companies took over, and now it's an after thought. So, in a major example, I was right, so stfu.

haha! what now? are u really gonna generalize to this extent, honestly IS, this is ridicolous. ure gonna put a mark between left and right on who is most charitable? im not gonna participate in that, there are individuals both from the left and right who are willing to help, and that is great. i just said that i cant honestly sit here and say that i have helped every poor person ive seen on the street, i dont have the capacity to do it. but please, let me know of all the orphant children u have taken into ur home because of ur being a libertarian and me being to the left of you. and again im not socialist leaning, im more liberal then u are, but that doesent make me a socialist. that makes me a moderate, because the ideology ur portraying is one almost nobody follows in this day and age, thats the simple truth. me advocating a progressive tax system and a government regulating the market hardly qualifies as me being a socialist.

No, there's no mark between left and right like that, but it's a progressive theme. As for what I've done? Trust me, all I can say is this, wait and see, and I'm talking about weeks, not years.

but answer me this IS. obviously u dont support a progressive tax system as u think it is to punishing to the rich. so how will you go about it? a flat tax? with a flat tax, the rich would still pay more than everybody else right? so i guess we are back to the removal of the income tax, which will take away about half of the revenues. now my question is this. what exactly should government cut back on when half of the revenues are gone? are u in favour of public education? pensions, medicare and medicaid? please let me know what government is supposed to do when the income tax is gone.

What does the current income tax go to? Answer me this first.

Are you aware (well, I know you're not, but I thought I'd say it anyway) that the Department of Education funds a whopping 9% of public schools? Once again, 9%!

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2007-2008, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 91 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is a little under 9 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.

Once again, the typical argument "omg, no income tax? How can we have schools?!" is proven dead wrong. You didn't know it was 9%, you thought it was much higher.

u believe government is always, slow, inefficient and not capable of taking care of its tasks. i believe government have a role to play, and to take care of the areas where it does a better job than the private sector. i also believe most people agree with me about this, and thats why it looks like obama is winning this election

Not only do I believe it, history says it with pretty much EVERYTHING. You're also giving people WAY too much credit, as the majority of supporters for BOTH candidates left don't know anything. As someone who went down and worked for a campaign, and spoke to hundreds of people, so few were actually aware of anything. Look at the clips of the Obama supporters wanting Sarah Palin as VP, and the McCain supporters chanting "McCain, not Hussein".

Again, if you want to debate, don't continue to insist on making WRONG arguments. The problems of the current administration did NOT come from deregulation, as it did NOT deregulate.

 

[Flex]

lol, wow another big debate thread. Awesome.

I'll have to come back and read all this later.