Fear of a Black President

Foxfyre wrote:

Advocate wrote:
We have pretty much always had an ability-to-pay income tax system. That is what graduated rates provide. Since the wealthy have such a wildly-disproportionate share of the income and wealth, provided by the country's economic system, it is only fair that they pay a higher percentage.

I guess you guys would rather continue to borrow and spend, running up the national debt, until our fiat money is totally worthless.

And there you have it. The liberal point of view, non sequitur and all. Thanks for affirming my perception about that.

Foxy's learned a new word so just like a Repuglican meme you're going to hear it a lot. What she means is, "thank you for allowing me to confirm my own preconceptions".

Being a dyed in the wool conservative means you never have to think. All one needs to do is memorize talking points.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Advocate wrote:
We have pretty much always had an ability-to-pay income tax system. That is what graduated rates provide. Since the wealthy have such a wildly-disproportionate share of the income and wealth, provided by the country's economic system, it is only fair that they pay a higher percentage.

I guess you guys would rather continue to borrow and spend, running up the national debt, until our fiat money is totally worthless.

And there you have it. The liberal point of view, non sequitur and all. Thanks for affirming my perception about that.

Foxy's learned a new word so just like a Repuglican meme you're going to hear it a lot. What she means is, "thank you for allowing me to confirm my own preconceptions".

Being a dyed in the wool conservative means you never have to think. All one needs to do is memorize talking points.

The problem with their "talking points" is the simple fact that more of "us" are suffering from the mismanagement of our economy. They seem to be immune from all the problems that surrounds most of us such as higher cost of fuel and food, the increasing national debt, and our worthless dollar, but it'll eventually bite them in the behind where they'll begin to feel it too. I guess we'll just have to wait until that happens before they wake up from their conservative stupor.

What is amazing to me is the realization that all those defaults on homes, losing their homes, losing their health insurance, and paying more for almost everything hasn't hurt them - yet.

0 Replies

President John F. Kennedy wrote:

"No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and all of us are made better off whenever any one of us is made better off. A rising tide raises all boats."

Currently, we are a nation in which too many less wealthy Americans have increasingly sought to make themselves more wealthy by pulling down, fellow more wealthy Americans. This effort to pull fellow Americans down is lowering the tide for the boats of more and more Americans.

Today we have more evidence that we Americans are not ever made better off by pulling fellow Americans down, and none of us are made better off whenever any one of us is made worse off.

Pernicious envy of those doing better than ourselves can only result in all of us doing worse. Rooting for those doing better than ourselves can only result in more of us doing better.

Using government to steal from some and give some of what it steals to others, helps government increase its power, corruption, incompetence, and fraud.

I for one trust those pursuing profitable free enterprises far more than I trust those pursuing powerful government agencies.

If it weren't for the wealthy, few of us would have a way to support our families and become wealthier. I would not have been able to achieve my engineering and later aviation dreams if it weren't for those able to afford to purchase my engineering and aviation services.

Quote:

...
God spoke all these words, saying:
...
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

0 Replies

Conseratives
In reference to paying a graduated income tax being unfair than you would agree that paying less for the insurance on a bicycle but much more for a $50,000 cadillac is also unfair by the same reasoning. Right?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...
The problem with their "talking points" is the simple fact that more of "us" are suffering from the mismanagement of our economy. They seem to be immune from all the problems that surrounds most of us such as higher cost of fuel and food, the increasing national debt, and our worthless dollar, but it'll eventually bite them in the behind where they'll begin to feel it too. I guess we'll just have to wait until that happens before they wake up from their conservative stupor.

What is amazing to me is the realization that all those defaults on homes, losing their homes, losing their health insurance, and paying more for almost everything hasn't hurt them - yet.

What is amazing to me is your frozen mindset. You are simply unwilling to acknowledge that there are a very large number of true conservatives in America all suffering from the current economic downturn. You cannot believe that we blame the policies of those you support for causing our economic downturn. You cannot believe that your support of the government stealing extra taxes from some to subsidize others is a major cause of our economic downturn. You cannot believe that government restricting domestic drilling and lifting of crude oil is another major cause of our current economic downturn. You cannot believe that the policies of Democrats and too many Republicans are designed to downturn America's economy to the point it matches lesser economies.

Believe it or not, what you refuse to believe is true, all true. As many have observed: "be careful what you wish for, you might get it." You will have to pay the price along with the rest of us if your devotion to stupid ideas prevails. How many times do collectivist societies have to fail before you believe collectivist societies will always fail?

Albert Einstein wrote:

Insanity is repeating the samething over and over again expecting a different result.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Conseratives
In reference to paying a graduated income tax being unfair than you would agree that paying less for the insurance on a bicycle but much more for a $50,000 cadillac is also unfair by the same reasoning. Right?

Though I think most conservatives of all income levels probably favor a flat tax, most conservatives don't have serious problems with a graduated tax; i.e. a lower rate for those of very modest means versus a higher rate for the more wealthy. The concept is less repugnant when it is looked at as a sensible way to levy taxes and is applied uniformly in a reasonable way.

That is not the issue being discussed here, however. Conservatives object to the idea that it isn't fair that some people are so rich and some people are so poor, and that going after more--sometimes a lot more--of the rich people's money is an issue of fairness. Barack Obama stated this in just those term in one of the debates. When Charlie Gibbs pointed out that reducing the top tax rate on the highest income earners had actually increased treasury revenues, Obama stated that it wasn't a matter of tax revenues, it was a matter of fairness. The objection is that you simply cannot attempt to punish the rich for being rich without hurting the poor. This is a fundamental truth of economics that many liberals, including Barack Obama, do not seem to understand.

Comparing tax policy to the voluntary purchase of private insurance that is based on existing risk is so much of stretch that even saying that it is comparing apples to oranges doesn't compute. At least apples and oranges are both fruit.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

President John F. Kennedy wrote:

"No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and all of us are made better off whenever any one of us is made better off. A rising tide raises all boats."

Quote:

The Clubbing the Club For Growth. It's Just Too Easy.

The Club For Growth is an organization dedicated to making the rich richer through politics.

...

Today brings another post from them worthy of ridicule. It is their quote of the day from Arther Laffer which they picked up from another wingnut publication the Wall Street Journal. You all remember Laffer as the discoverer of the Laffer Curve and a father of supply-side economic, i.e. the re-branding the trickle down economics.

Here's the quote.

Pursuing your dream of prospering will benefit everyone . . . When I graduated from Yale University, we had a serious commencement speaker not like the one you are stuck with today. The commencement speaker was President John F. Kennedy. And the point I'm making today is the same point he made all those years ago. He said, "No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and all of us are made better off whenever any one of us is made better off." He concluded by using the analogy that "a rising tide raises all boats."

Never forget or be ashamed of the fact that pursuing your own self interest furthers everyone's interest. Without you, the poor would be poorer.

This inspired me to read JFK's 1962 Yale Commencement Address. I wanted to find the context of the quote. Guess what? JFK doesn't say this anywhere in his speech, but he does somewhat ironically say

For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

[jtt: added emphasis is mine. A telling quote, is it not?]

I thought I'd give Art the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps JFK said this at another time. You can find a collection of quotes by JFK here. The above quote isn't there. It turns out that only the right wing attributes this quote to Kennedy and most of the reference to it are by Laffer himself.

...

Art did get one thing right: he isn't a serious commencement speaker.

http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2008/06/clubbing-club-for-growth-it-just-too.html

Quote:

http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=3523

Wisdom for Graduates -- and for Politicians too
Posted by Jeff Dircksen - June 19, 2008

The "Notable & Quotable" in today's Wall Street Journal excerpts a commencement address given by Arthur Laffer at Mercer University:

...

Thoughts? Add Comment - Trackback

Arzan said on Jun 22 2008 at 10:26am
I just read Kennedy's commencement speech at Yale '62 and did not find any of the words that Arther Laffer quotes.. not sure what is going on here!

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkyalecommencement.htm

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Conseratives
In reference to paying a graduated income tax being unfair than you would agree that paying less for the insurance on a bicycle but much more for a $50,000 cadillac is also unfair by the same reasoning. Right?

Gad, that's dumb!

What true conservatives actually advocate is complying with the rule of law; for example, specifically complying with the tax law specified in the USA Constitution:
"Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

We advocate that because we know the USA Constitution states:
"Article VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Taxing all dollars of income at the same rate, regardless of whose dollar it is, when it was earned, how it was earned, how many other dollars are earned, how many other dollars are owned, would be a uniform tax rate.

For example: if the uniform tax rate on all dollars of income were 10%, then a person earning:
$1,000 would pay $100 tax;
$100,000 would pay $10,000 tax;
$10,000,000 would pay $1,000,000 tax;
$10,000,000,000 would pay $1,000,000,000 tax.

Paying less for insurance on a $100 bicycle than on a $50,000 cadillac is fair. The same insurance rate, say 10%, on both would produce a cost for insurance of $10 for the bicycle, and $500 for the cadillac.

0 Replies

Fox wrote: "...sometimes more, sometimes a lot more..." is a very subjective phrase with absolutely no meaning without actual numbers. What's "sometimes more" is never conclusive; it differs from observer to observer, and taxpayer to taxpayer. With its inherent subjectivity, your "fair tax" may not be fair to another taxpayer, but "giving tax breaks to the wealthy" is not subjective; it's reality. Even many wealthy people say they are willing to pay more income tax.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

... When Charlie Gibbs pointed out that reducing the top tax rate on the highest income earners had actually ...

Who is Charlie Gibbs?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fox wrote: "...sometimes more, sometimes a lot more..." is a very subjective phrase with absolutely no meaning without actual numbers. What's "sometimes more" is never conclusive; it differs from observer to observer, and taxpayer to taxpayer. With its inherent subjectivity, your "fair tax" may not be fair to another taxpayer, but "giving tax breaks to the wealthy" is not subjective; it's reality. Even many wealthy people say they are willing to pay more income tax.

Taxing the income of those earning the most at 35%, and taxing others with less income at 15%, is not giving the wealthy a tax break. It is giving the less wealthy a tax break.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Taxing the income of those earning the most at 35%, and taxing others of lesser income at 15% is not giving the wealthy a tax break. It is giving the less wealthy a tax break.

Cool. That sounds great. When do we get that?

0 Replies

In support of my above post.

Bill Gates Sr. Continues Income Tax Crusade

By Steven Gardner (Contact)
Wednesday, September 26, 2007

BREMERTON

A state income tax was a pretty popular idea in a room of about 180 people gathered along Bremerton's waterfront Wednesday.

The idea seems to get a lot of resistance just about everywhere else in Washington.

William H. Gates, the Bremerton High School graduate who became a distinguished Seattle attorney and father to the wealthiest man on the planet, told a group made up in large part by educators that Washington's tax system is more regressive than any other state.

California, Oregon and Idaho all have different formulas for levying taxes, but all three share the trait of having the wealthiest and poorest residents paying pretty close to the same percentage of their incomes to taxes.

Washington's heavy reliance on sales taxes, however, means the poorest pay about 16 percent of their incomes to state taxes, while those making more than $130,000 annually pay about 6 percent. "Is anybody here really excited about this picture?" he said.

Gates' address at the Kitsap Conference Center was sponsored by the League of Women Voters and Crossroads, a West Sound collection of school district, business and community advocates.

Gates became the figurehead of the state income tax discussion when former Gov. Gary Locke asked him to lead a study of how well the state's tax structure worked. The Washington State Tax Structure Study Committee concluded in 2002 that the current system was unfair to low- and middle-income residents and to businesses.

State Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor, said she was among those anticipating the study's results in 2002. Once it came out, however, the proposed alternatives lacked any grass-roots support and caused no action in Olympia. "I can only say to my extreme embarrassment that it sits on the shelf," she said.

In 2004, King County Executive Ron Sims sought the Democratic party's nomination and a major element of his platform was the state income tax. Sims got just less than 30 percent of the vote, losing to then-state Attorney General Chris Gregoire. While Sims' support for the state income tax might not be the only issue that doomed his campaign, Lantz said legislators who might have championed a shift in tax structure have been fearful of committing "political suicide."

Overcoming objections to the state income tax will take more conversations like the one Wednesday, Gates said.

He said if more people understood how bad the tax structure was, there would be more support for a massive change.

Gates referred to polls taken in Oregon about the same time the committee's study was released. Washington's high reliance on sales tax and no income tax is about opposite Oregon's income tax with zero sales tax formula. While committee members were clear Washington residents had little interest in major structure changes, Oregon residents told pollsters they had little interest in changing the structure there, "which goes to show that it isn't a matter of science or information or thoughtfulness, it's just a matter of not being comfortable with the devil you don't know and being comfortable with the one you do know," he said.

"There's a huge inertia about this kind of reform," Gates said.

Lantz said she tried to get legislators together just to discuss the ideas in the study, but the issue is so hot she couldn't even get them to do that.

Gates, whose son Bill founded Microsoft, presented graphics showing how much richer the wealthiest Americans have become over the past 25 years, while those in the lower 80 percent have not. He said the wealthiest should be carrying a bigger share of the burden of running the country and its schools. "There's no member of the family that does not agree with me on this," he said.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
Conseratives
In reference to paying a graduated income tax being unfair than you would agree that paying less for the insurance on a bicycle but much more for a $50,000 cadillac is also unfair by the same reasoning. Right?

Gad, that's dumb!

What true conservatives actually advocate is complying with the rule of law; for example, specifically complying with the tax law specified in the USA Constitution:
"Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

The word "taxes" seems to be missing in your bolded phrase, Ican. Do you figure that that might make some difference to your "argument"?

We advocate that because we know the USA Constitution states:
"Article VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

0 Replies

From zompist.com:

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

For more, see Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman's informative little book, Take the Rich Off Welfare.

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
A government that can confiscate the property of the wealthy for no other reason that 'they don't deserve to be so wealthy' is a government that can and will take whatever it wants from you.

Under the constitution, a person whose property is confiscated is entitled to fair compensation.

Not in the world of the liberal in the USA. Most have no problem at all with the government forcibly confiscating wealth from Citizen A who honorably earned it and transferring it to Citizen B who didn't or using it to curry favor with Citizen B. If you scratch deep enough, the rationale is some version of it is not fair that some be wealthy while others are poor.

And in case somebody missed it in Economic 101, that which we earn through the sweat of our labor or which is otherwise honorably acquired is our property. Or it once was considered to be.

Therein lies the conservative's false argument. (Or Fox's version of it.) Taxation is NOT confiscation. It is taxation. You brought up Economics 101 Fox. I guess you must have slept through the entire class based on your arguments here.

Please provide an actual example of this mythical Citizen B that you made up, what money do they get that nothing was ever done to get it? Taxes go to pay for lots of things. One could argue about the value of every dollar paid out by the US government but then one could do that about every dollar one spends personally.

Your argument barely needs to be scratched Fox to show it makes no sense. The founders understood that taxes were required to run a government. You manufacture this "something for nothing Citizen B" that is not found anywhere in the reality of the US. Most of those on welfare have or will pay taxes at some point in their lives. You can not find me one Citizen B that has never paid or never will pay a dime but gets something from the govt. You might not agree with the value but it is false to argue there is nothing there.

0 Replies

parados, Excellent point; nobody who goes into a store to buy most things pay sales tax. If you consume fuel or most forms of energy, we all pay some form of tax. Fox's imaginary "B" person does not exist.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
Conseratives
In reference to paying a graduated income tax being unfair than you would agree that paying less for the insurance on a bicycle but much more for a $50,000 cadillac is also unfair by the same reasoning. Right?

Gad, that's dumb!

What true conservatives actually advocate is complying with the rule of law; for example, specifically complying with the tax law specified in the USA Constitution:
"Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

We advocate that because we know the USA Constitution states:
"Article VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Taxing all dollars of income at the same rate, regardless of whose dollar it is, when it was earned, how it was earned, how many other dollars are earned, how many other dollars are owned, would be a uniform tax rate.

For example: if the uniform tax rate on all dollars of income were 10%, then a person earning:
$1,000 would pay $100 tax;
$100,000 would pay $10,000 tax;
$10,000,000 would pay $1,000,000 tax;
$10,000,000,000 would pay $1,000,000,000 tax.

Paying less for insurance on a $100 bicycle than on a $50,000 cadillac is fair. The same insurance rate, say 10%, on both would produce a cost for insurance of $10 for the bicycle, and $500 for the cadillac.

The rule of the law ican?
Maybe you should actually READ the constitution. Then go read some of the court rulings on the income tax laws.

The rule of law does have standing in the case of the income tax. The problem is you don't have a clue what the rule or the law is.
You forgot one part of the constitution ican.

Quote:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

0 Replies

People Banned from commenting on the Constitution and constitutional issues.

[the following list is subject to amendment at any time]

Ican
MysteryMan
Antonin Scalia

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
... When Charlie Gibbs pointed out that reducing the top tax rate on the highest income earners had actually ...

Who is Charlie Gibbs?

MY thought as well.

Let alone where did Charlie Gibbs get his made up numbers from?

Reducing the taxes on the top income earners did NOT increase tax revenues in any demonstrable manner. Unless you go out 5 years and ignore the increases in population and inflation, there is NO increase after the reduction in top rates.

IN 2000 the federal revenues from personal income taxes was 1,004 billion

It wasn't larger until 2006 when it made it to 1,043. If we simply adjust for inflation and not population, the income in 2006 was only 883 billion in 2000 dollars. (Divide by the deflator of 1.18).

But just for the sake of argument. Bush's first budget wasn't 2000. 2001 was still Clinton's. So let's use the 2001 numbers.
In 2001 the federal revenues from personal income taxes were 994 billion. Again, we don't see that level until 2006. Adjust both by 2000 deflator and revenues in 2001 were 971 in 2000 dollars and still 883 revenue for 2006 in 2000 dollars.

Even for 2008 the inflation adjusted returns for federal income taxes are only going to produce 983 billion, barely above the 2001 numbers and no adjustment for population growth.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
Tables 1.3 and 2.1

0 Replies

Fear of a Black President

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know