What should the progressive tax rate be?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's stupid to want our country to continue to function?

No, it's stupid to insist that continuing to waste so much money is the only way to function.

Quote:

To be able to pay our bills, while still supporting our social system? Because that all relies on progressive taxation, and higher levels then we currently pay.

No it doesn't, you are begging the question. I argue that the American government can work just fine (but with the need to trim some of the fat) without raising taxes.

Instead of raising taxes I argue that we should lower the bills and you are merely not willing to cut the spending I am willing to cut but that doesn't mean we can't have a perfectly functioning government without the spending you oppose cutting.

That is something reasonable people can disagree on (and for example I'm perfectly willing to admit that your way can work too, I just think it is stupider than my way) but to insist that your way is the only way to make it work is partisan blindness.

The American government can function just fine without the taxation you want, it will just not function exactly how you would like it to.

Quote:

I don't understand the argument that says such a person is in fact not free, because it doesn't square with their real-world experience in the slightest.

I think this is a logomachy that is pointless to the main points either of us made in this thread and am not that vested in trying to get you to "understand" (you must really mean "agree", as the point was a simple one to understand) with it.

I just told you, I think he is a minority shareholder in his production and that this isn't true freedom.

Okay, I'll ask you to give a serious answer to this question: how would you close our 1.3 trillion dollar deficit without raising taxes? Specifically.

I contend that lowering the bills isn't and won't ever be enough. And what more, that in an era of historically low taxation, it's foolish to say this is the only way to solve the problem.

You mischaracterize my position. I am in fact in favor of cutting spending, and not just on the military - cutting spending across the board. However, I don't pretend that this will be enough to solve the problem WITHOUT also increasing taxes. I have this opinion because I have spent long hours and evenings running the numbers on this, Robert.

For years here on A2K I have consistently maintained that only a combination of spending cuts and tax increases will restore us to fiscal sanity.

I'm willing to hear your or anyone's explanation, with numbers and actual analysis, of how we could balance the budget without raising taxes. In fact, I'd LOVE to hear that explanation.

Well, the real problem for your position isn't that I don't want our government changed in that way, it's the the majority of Americans don't want government changed that way. Polling on this issue is clear.

Why not just call them 'slaves to the government,' then? It's no less ridiculous than what you are positing.

The big difference between you and I is not that you have run the numbers and I haven't but that I am willing to make bigger cuts than you are.

Freedom and slavery are not the only options. Beyond being subjective I don't think it's binary, I think there is a spectrum of more and less freedom. Furthermore, "slavery" is the opposite of only one meaning of "freedom".

In any case, I reiterate that this is a logomachy that is pointless to this argument. I don't see where you intend to go with this even if I were to agree with you.

I don't remember what thread that was, but I'd be happy to review the conversation there if you do.

Do you contend that you have, in fact, ran the numbers? Studied this in depth?

The only point is to highlight the ridiculousness of referring to millionaires as 'economically not free.'

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't remember what thread that was, but I'd be happy to review the conversation there if you do.

It was this very thread.

Quote:

Do you contend that you have, in fact, ran the numbers? Studied this in depth?

Of course, just this weekend I spend hours reading and researching the Congressional Progressive Caucus' proposal.

Why do you assume that I haven't? Do you think you are the only one who ran the numbers or something? Or do you really think that is the only conclusion that anyone can draw from looking at the numbers?

Quote:

The only point is to highlight the ridiculousness of referring to millionaires as 'economically not free.'

I don't equate riches with freedom. The degree of control over the individual is what I consider freedom. I personally don't think it's "ridiculous" but feel free to your opinion on it, either way I don't see it as very relevant.

Thanks. I did in fact re-read this thread. I thought you were referring to some other, more convincing argument that you had made elsewhere.

No, but it's pretty clear that I'm the only one who ever wants to talk about them or even attempts to engage in factual discussion of these issues! I literally can't find anyone to take up the other end of the argument, who isn't coming from a purely emotional perspective.

I harbor no illusions about being able to convince you, but I think I was as specific as you have ever been on the matter (if you've gone into greater detail point me to it) and if you want to get more specific I'm fine with that but you never even responded to the last time I posted about it to you here so I'd rather you give me a specific question than the open-ended one you already asked me months ago on this thread.

Which you are correct, I didn't respond to, for which I apologize. But I'll pick up the argument from here: even counting all the cuts you wanted to make, and counting GENEROUS amounts of money saved by those cuts, you still couldn't close the deficit. Let alone pay off the yearly 100 billion in interest on the debt! So when I argue that you cannot balance the budget by cutting spending alone, I don't see anything in your counter-argument that proves me wrong, because the things you listed simply wouldn't balance the budget.

There was about 25-30% of the deficit unaccounted for by your proposed cuts. To which you said, 'I'll cut other places until that amount is cut as well.' Which is fine and dandy, but it's not all that specific.

They are also political fantasies. I agree that it's possible to envision a world in which things were completely different than they are today, and that we wouldn't have any debt in that world. But we live in this one. And in this world, we're not cutting defense by 75% and axing homeland security completely. We're not going to transform into a single-payer or socialized health system and we certainly aren't going to get rid of SS (not that it would save any money off the deficit at all).