Dems and "Change" [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Vaevictis

1/8/2008, 05:35 PM

Ditto with a tax increase. Only thing is, the fools who scream for higher taxes usually don't end up with more tax revenue since they end up hurting the economy and putting people out of work.

Eh, I've heard that meme a million times. But, I've never actually seen hard data showing where the boundaries are. I'll agree that the Laffer curve exists, but any discussion of the issue pretty much devolves into "I think it looks like this. Oh yeah?! I think it looks like THIS! NO WAI, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS!@#!@#$%@!$"

... and on top if it, the damn thing probably shifts around. We had some crazy economic growth in the middle part of the last century, and some crazy high marginal tax rates. And then those same tax rates existed under the horrible conditions of the 70's, and the economy took off coinciding with Reagan's tax cuts. Then we had that recession in 1990ish, and increased tax rates under Bush I, and then we had those great years in the 90's. Now we have these wonderful Bush tax cuts that some people credit for our current "boom" (although, more savvy people wonder about the effect of dumping crazy amounts of government borrowed cash into the economy...).

Yeah, I've heard that meme. And I think it grossly oversimplifies the situation.

Civicus_Sooner

1/8/2008, 06:20 PM

I don't hear any ideas that sound like "change" from either party.Huckabee (Whom isn't my fav) has offered up totally abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a national sales tax (essentially). Things like food and energy would be excluded. The more you buy (richer folks) the more you pay. I like it.

McCain is talking about ending Corp. Taxes all together and having an alternative minimum tax. Something like 50k and below you pay 12% if you make 100K and up you pay like 25%.

I'm for ending the entire IRS, H&R Block, tax "the rich" industry. Just imagine how many millions are spent every year, IN addition to paying your taxes, just to get them filled out. It's out of control.

Civicus_Sooner

1/8/2008, 06:21 PM

double post

Ike

1/8/2008, 06:41 PM

Huckabee (Whom isn't my fav) has offered up totally abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a national sales tax (essentially). Things like food and energy would be excluded. The more you buy (richer folks) the more you pay. I like it.

McCain is talking about ending Corp. Taxes all together and having an alternative minimum tax. Something like 50k and below you pay 12% if you make 100K and up you pay like 25%.

I'm for ending the entire IRS, H&R Block, tax "the rich" industry. Just imagine how many millions are spent every year, IN addition to paying your taxes, just to get them filled out. It's out of control.

Everybody likes the "FairTax" as it is called on paper. Numerous problems arise however when you start talking about implementing it.
Sample Problem 1) Cheating on taxes. It will happen, and it will happen a lot...especially when the rate is at something like 25-30% as they have proposed. The nice thing about withheld income taxes is that they eliminate a whole lot of cheating that went on before they were implemented. With sales taxes right now only being at the 6-7% level, its not really worth the risk to cheat. triple or quadruple that, and for some, it will be. In a similar vein, the 'black market' will see a huge increase in business.

Sample Problem 2) What do we do with the old people? A lot of retired and retiring people have set up tax-free savings under the assumption that income taxes remain the norm. Are we now going to demand that they be taxed on that money? That doesn't seem fair.

What about home purchases? 30% of a 200,000 (which in my area is about the minimum you are going to pay for a house with an intact roof) is 60,000. Thats a huge increase in the cost of buying a home.

There are a bazillion ways that a national sales tax can have unintended bad consequences. It all sounds nice on paper, because we tend to think about it only in terms of things we might get at best buy, and the fact that for those things, its likely that the elimination of business taxes could lower the price of the item enough to offset the huge increase in taxation. But the story doesn't end there. There are so many other types of sales that go on in this country, and each and every one of them has to be examined, and they aren't all easy problems to sort out.

I'll admit that it sounds good, and maybe even looks good on paper...but people say the same thing about communism too...

mdklatt

1/8/2008, 06:46 PM

Huckabee (Whom isn't my fav) has offered up totally abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a national sales tax (essentially). Things like food and energy would be excluded. The more you buy (richer folks) the more you pay. I like it.

The less money you have, the higher percentage of your income you "spend", which means the so-called Fair Tax doesn't sound very fair to me. Laffer curve abuser talking points notwithstanding, nobody is going to turn down a raise because they'll have to pay more taxes. But if you tax consumption, you're discouraging spending. It doesn't sound like such a great idea to tie government revenue to a mechanism that discourages the generation of said revenue--unless you're an anarchist, I guess.

Not only is it a non-starter conceptually, but the implementation details also suck donkey balls. For starters, the government would send everybody a rebate check every month to cover a "basic standard of living". Never mind how to determine a "basic standard of living", imagine the bureaucracy involved in that. It gets even better. If you abolish the IRS, how are going to enforce the sales tax laws?

Jerk

1/8/2008, 06:55 PM

The less money you have, the higher percentage of your income you "spend", which means the so-called Fair Tax doesn't sound very fair to me.
So, it's more "fair" to tax those who work harder and are more productive?

What about the flat- tax idea? What would be unfair about that?

SoonerStormchaser

1/8/2008, 07:04 PM

mdklatt

1/8/2008, 07:09 PM

So, it's more "fair" to tax those who work harder and are more productive?

For a supposedly Christian country, we sure do like to pick on poor people. Being poor is not always synonymous with being lazy. Neither is "fair" and "right". If you live paycheck to paycheck, you'll effectively be paying 23% of your income in taxes. The more you make, the more that percentage drops. So why should the people who can least afford it be paying the highest rate?

What about the flat- tax idea? What would be unfair about that?

Would the tax be on all forms of income--investments, inheritance, etc. as well as earned income? That's certainly preferable to the Fair Tax idea.

Jerk

1/8/2008, 07:20 PM

For a supposedly Christian country, we sure do like to pick on poor people. Being poor is not always synonymous with being lazy. Neither is "fair" and "right".

No, not all poor people are lazy. This is not about poor people. It's about a system that should be equitable and fair, and more simple. It shouldn't punish anyone. It shouldn't reward anyone.

Would the tax be on all forms of income--investments, inheritance, etc. as well as earned income? That's certainly preferable to the Fair Tax idea.

It wouldn't matter as long as everyone paid the same rate on money that they earned, whether it be through income, investment, inheritance, whatever. Take away all the tax credits, deductions, write-offs, and just tax everyone, say, 20% on their annual earnings. No need to hire an accountant to do your taxes, or go through thousands of code to figure out how much you owe.

mdklatt

1/8/2008, 07:20 PM

Steve Forbes proposed this "flat tax" back in the '96 elections...he got his *** handed to him as a result.

Anytime someone mentions a higher rate of tax on ANYTHING, they automatically lose their electibility factor due to the fact that Americans cannot fathom that raising taxes in one area while abolishing it in another area actually might be better for them...they just see that higher number and freak!

Flat tax, Fair Tax, it's all smoke and mirrors. The government needs a certain amount of money to do what we ask it to do. We pay for the government. The only way you can lower taxes is to raise them on something else, somebody else, or some future time. The only real way to lower taxes is to reduce government spending, but since that's apparently no longer part of the Republican platform that's never going to happen.

mdklatt

1/8/2008, 07:28 PM

It wouldn't matter as long as everyone paid the same rate on money that they earned, whether it be through income, investment, inheritance, whatever.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. But I still don't see what's so wrong with a progressive tax. If you reduce the rate on everybody at that top, you have to increase the rate on everybody at the bottom. You're effectively redistributing wealth upstream.

Big Red Ron

1/8/2008, 08:32 PM

Taxing income, then taxing dividends from investments and then taxing the estate after one dies is morally wrong.

Vaevictis

1/8/2008, 08:41 PM

OTOH, you could also argue that failing to tax estates and allow the rise of an aristocracy is not what we want either.

(... and really, I'm not saying it doesn't have a place, but you have to be careful about slipping morality into taxation. That path pretty much always leads straight to communism.)

mdklatt

1/8/2008, 08:49 PM

Taxing income, then taxing dividends from investments and then taxing the estate after one dies is morally wrong.

What's so moral about being rich?

Big Red Ron

1/8/2008, 09:03 PM

What's so moral about being rich?Nothing. However, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." in the Declaration of Independence. That's actually based on the original philosophy put forth by John Locke. "Life, liberty and estate (or property)."

When you work for earnings, they are yours. Some would argue that your earnings and freedom to control it for yourself, without government interference is an unalienable right of every human being in the United States.

Big Red Ron

1/8/2008, 09:07 PM

Vaevictis

1/8/2008, 09:17 PM

Care to expand on your position? At first glance, claiming that something is immoral from a Constitutional perspective... well, it makes absolutely no sense to me.

Big Red Ron

1/8/2008, 09:28 PM

Care to expand on your position? At first glance, claiming that something is immoral from a Constitutional perspective... well, it makes absolutely no sense to me.If you don't understand my point after reading the post right above that one then I doubt I have the time explain it to you.

Vaevictis

1/8/2008, 09:35 PM

If you don't understand my point after reading the post right above that one then I doubt I have the time explain it to you.

Well, you did say "Constitutional perspective", which is a completely different animal than what you're talking about in the post you're referencing.

Big Red Ron

1/8/2008, 09:38 PM

Well, you did say "Constitutional perspective", which is a completely different animal than what you're talking about in the post you're referencing.I'm sorry I didn't realize that you weren't aware that the two documents are very much related. From a purely constitutional perspective you could argue all federal taxes are unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment.

Vaevictis

1/8/2008, 09:59 PM

I'm sorry I didn't realize that you weren't aware that the two documents are very much related. From a purely constitutional perspective you could argue all federal taxes are unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment.

The Constitution is law. It ain't ethics, it ain't morals, and it sure ain't philosophy. You don't see flowery speech appealing to the inalienable rights of man, nor does it appeal to the Creator which granted them. It does not appeal to the Laws of Nature, nor does it make the claim that governments are created by Man to serve Man. It does not claim that Man has the right to overthrow governments when they overstep their bounds.

The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, isn't about law. In fact, it is itself an illegal act, an act of high treason against the signatory's sworn liege. And there you do see flowery speech appealing to the inalienable rights of man, or to the creator which granted them. It does appeal to the Laws of Nature, and it does make the claim that man has the right to revolt.

And since we're being snarky, I'm so sorry that you haven't read either of them recently enough to see the massive difference between the two.

The reason I initially asked was because the Constitution, as law, is as morally and ethically perfect as the politicians who made it; hence, any attempt to derive actual morals from it (ie, from a "Constitutional perspective") is an act of pure idiocy. I was trying to be a little more polite by putting it a little more gently, but hey, if you prefer it this way, I'm happy to accommodate.

Big Red Ron

1/8/2008, 10:17 PM

The Constitution is law. It ain't ethics, it ain't morals, and it sure ain't philosophy. You don't see flowery speech appealing to the inalienable rights of man, nor does it appeal to the Creator which granted them. It does not appeal to the Laws of Nature, nor does it make the claim that governments are created by Man to serve Man. It does not claim that Man has the right to overthrow governments when they overstep their bounds.

The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, isn't about law. In fact, it is itself an illegal act, an act of high treason against the signatory's sworn liege. And there you do see flowery speech appealing to the inalienable rights of man, or to the creator which granted them. It does appeal to the Laws of Nature, and it does make the claim that man has the right to revolt.

And since we're being snarky, I'm so sorry that you haven't read either of them recently enough to see the massive difference between the two.

The reason I initially asked was because the Constitution, as law, is as morally and ethically perfect as the politicians who made it; hence, any attempt to derive actual morals from it (ie, from a "Constitutional perspective") is an act of pure idiocy. I was trying to be a little more polite by putting it a little more gently, but hey, if you prefer it this way, I'm happy to accommodate.You sir need a little bit of a history lesson. You are arguing the semantics of a single word, "morally."

I cited the 10th amendment, which states and I paraphrase from the top of my head, "All rights not specifically given to the Federal Government are left to the states." You may think that's passé. I do not.

I feel sorry for people like you. You have no understanding of how the Declaration and the Constitution came about and how they are related.

The words written by Jefferson in the Declaration, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" covers a much broader spectrum of rights, in my opinion and others', including the guarantees of the Bill of Rights *ahem* which is in the constitution, such as free speech and the right to a fair trial.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has ruled constitutional cases based on their interpretation of the individual meaning of the phrase, "Life, liberty and the Pursuit of happiness."

For example Meyer V. Nebraska which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment as guaranteeing, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness, and, consequently, a right to privacy.

I could go on but you bore me with your ignorance.

jeremy885

1/8/2008, 11:05 PM

Oh god, you guys ****ed up a completely good South Park thread. Here I was comparing dems and the American voting public with homeless zombies and you guys are bringing up the 14th amendment.

:mad:

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 11:24 AM

When you work for earnings, they are yours. Some would argue that your earnings and freedom to control it for yourself, without government interference is an unalienable right of every human being in the United States.

Agreed, but as Vaevictis pointed out, you really don't want go down the morality road when talking about capitalism. Capitalism takes advantage of our inherent greed, which is why it works. But it's at least a little bit immoral.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/9/2008, 11:55 AM

Yeah, that's what I was saying. But I still don't see what's so wrong with a progressive tax. If you reduce the rate on everybody at that top, you have to increase the rate on everybody at the bottom. You're effectively redistributing wealth upstream.Dude, a flat tax is the only fair tax. Everybody pays the same rate. What could be fairer? If you make more money than the next guy, you pay more tax....DUH!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/9/2008, 11:58 AM

What's so moral about being rich?Did you really say that, or WHAT?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/9/2008, 12:07 PM

Agreed, but as Vaevictis pointed out, you really don't want go down the morality road when talking about capitalism. Capitalism takes advantage of our inherent greed, which is why it works. But it's at least a little bit immoral.You can call it greed, but it's economic self interest, and it's the foundation of why capitalism works, and all other economic approaches don't work. It's not human nature for socialism to work, because it stifles incentive to produce and succeed. Under socialist regimes, things just don't get done like they could if there are incentives for success and reward. You lefties won't see the obvious.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 01:00 PM

Dude, a flat tax is the only fair tax. Everybody pays the same rate. What could be fairer?

Don't confuse arbitrary with fair. What's inherently fair about everybody paying the same percentage for something? If McDonald's priced Happy Meals at some fixed percentage of your paycheck you probably wouldn't call that fair. If the turnpike charged tolls based on the value of your car, you wouldn't call that fair. So obviously "fair" is subjective. So why is a progressive income tax fair? Because the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, so they should have to kick in more for the privilege.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 01:09 PM

You can call it greed, but it's economic self interest, and it's the foundation of why capitalism works, and all other economic approaches don't work.

Read again, Tuba, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

Maybe you can direct me to where in the Bible it says that greed...er economic self interest is good. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but only because I'm not trying to justify it moral grounds.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/9/2008, 01:16 PM

Don't confuse arbitrary with fair. What's inherently fair about everybody paying the same percentage for something? If McDonald's priced Happy Meals at some fixed percentage of your paycheck you probably wouldn't call that fair. If the turnpike charged tolls based on the value of your car, you wouldn't call that fair. So obviously "fair" is subjective. So why is a progressive income tax fair? Because the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, so they should have to kick in more for the privilege.You're STARTING to get it! The fairest taxation possible would be where everyone pays the same AMOUNT.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 01:18 PM

You're STARTING to get it! The fairest taxation possible would be where everyone pays the same AMOUNT.

Even you don't believe that horse****.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/9/2008, 01:21 PM

Even you don't believe that horse****.It would be the fairest way to tax. Second fairest is flat tax.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 01:28 PM

It would be the fairest way to tax. Second fairest is flat tax.

The more money you have, the more you benefit from society. Thus, the more you should contribute to keep it going. That is fair.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/9/2008, 01:31 PM

The more money you have, the more you benefit from society. Thus, the more you should contribute to keep it going. That is fair.I know you see that happens with a flat tax. "Progressive" taxation is simply punitive.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 01:37 PM

I know you see that happens with a flat tax.

Nope, now we're back to fair vs. arbitrary. A flat tax is arbitrary, but not necessarily fair.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/9/2008, 01:52 PM

Nope, now we're back to fair vs. arbitrary. A flat tax is arbitrary, but not necessarily fair.Carry on. To me it's fair. You like punitive taxation as punishment for economic success and I don't. Nuff said!

Mongo

1/9/2008, 02:21 PM

Read again, Tuba, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

Maybe you can direct me to where in the Bible it says that greed...er economic self interest is good. I don't have a problem with capitalism, but only because I'm not trying to justify it moral grounds.

I thought we had separation of Church and State to protect us from the Christians' morals getting legislated.

and when did you get religious?

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 02:41 PM

To me it's fair.

The objective definition of fair is that you get what you pay for. Prove me to that your benefit from society is proportional to your income. That is, demonstrate that somebody earning $500,000 gets exactly 10 times the benefit from society as somebody making $50,000. If you can't do that, a flat tax is just as arbitrary as any other kind of tax. The advantage of a flat tax is it's (theoretical) simplicity, not it's fairness.

You like punitive taxation as punishment for economic success and I don't. Nuff said!

Economic success doesn't happen in a vacuum. The more money your parents have, the more likely you are to be successful. Joe Blow, Podunk HS valedictorian, is most likely going to end up at State U. Carter P. McSnootywether IV, D student at Snobington Prep, is going to an Ivy League school. Let's ask the Rockefellers and the Carnegies if they'd prefer a level playing field for everybody or a progressive tax.

mikeelikee

1/9/2008, 02:52 PM

For the most part, klatt, the wealthy benefit from their own hard work and ingenuity, not from "society". As such, their efforts should not be inordinately penalized. I'm all for a waiver of taxes on those making less than, say $40,000/year. Beyond that, the consumption tax is just fine, IMO.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 03:01 PM

I thought we had separation of Church and State to protect us from the Christians' morals getting legislated.

and when did you get religious?

I didn't. Notice that I'm not the one trying to justify lower taxes for the rich on moral grounds. Capitalism works because it appeals to our greedy, selfish instincts, but isn't the point of Christianity to rise above those instincts? I find it hard to believe that the answer to WWJD? is be a hedge fund manager (but wouldn't he totally kick *** at that?)

Mongo

1/9/2008, 03:05 PM

I didn't. Notice that I'm not the one trying to justify lower taxes for the rich on moral grounds. Capitalism works because it appeals to our greedy, selfish instincts, but isn't the point of Christianity to rise above those instincts? I find it hard to believe that the answer to WWJD? is be a hedge fund manager (but wouldn't he totally kick *** at that?)

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree to some extent, but Christ also hated the practices of the tax collectors.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 03:07 PM

For the most part, klatt, the wealthy benefit from their own hard work and ingenuity, not from "society".

Boy, that's some serious wishful thinking. Are you saying that Bill Gates is like a jillion times smarter and harder working than everybody else? Just like every other brazillionaire, he's benefited from luck and duplicity as much as his own ingenuity.

Mongo

1/9/2008, 03:09 PM

The Lord said invest in wheat. He has big plans for rain and sunshine

sooneron

1/9/2008, 03:11 PM

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 03:32 PM

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree to some extent, but Christ also hated the practices of the tax collectors.

Wow, that's certainly convenient for all the Bishops who participated in the Council of Nicea, seeing as how they probably had a lot of church wealth to protect. Some might even say it's too good to be true.... ;)

mikeelikee

1/9/2008, 05:22 PM

Boy, that's some serious wishful thinking. Are you saying that Bill Gates is like a jillion times smarter and harder working than everybody else? Just like every other brazillionaire, he's benefited from luck and duplicity as much as his own ingenuity.

Are you a recent convert to the religion of victimology, or have you always been a believer? I work for a company that operates as a meritocracy, and I'm fine with it. It's the antithesis of socialism, thank God.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 06:40 PM

I work for a company that operates as a meritocracy, and I'm fine with it.

I don't have a problem with meritocracies, but US society is not a strict meritocracy no matter how Horatio Alger stories you read. If you are born poor you have a lot more to overcome than somebody who's born into wealth. I'm not saying it can't be done, but don't pretend that such a disparity doesn't exist.

usmc-sooner

1/9/2008, 07:04 PM

I don't have a problem with meritocracies, but US society is not a strict meritocracy no matter how Horatio Alger stories you read. If you are born poor you have a lot more to overcome than somebody who's born into wealth. I'm not saying it can't be done, but don't pretend that such a disparity doesn't exist.

and what's unfair about that? If I work hard I expect it to pay off for my kids. I hope to accumulate much wealth so I can help my kids. I've worked with underpriveledged kids and it's not as hard as you think for them to achieve success, the bigger problems is that many accept and conform to social excuses for failure, such as gangbanging and laziness.
I'm sorry but this country is set up for anyone to succeed and do well if they just put forth an effort.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 07:25 PM

and what's unfair about that? If I work hard I expect it to pay off for my kids. I hope to accumulate much wealth so I can help my kids.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't care if you make money, have money, or were born into money. What I'm saying is that 1) the Fair Tax is patently unfair, and 2) a mythical flat tax does not guarantee fairness.

I'm guessing that everybody who supports the Fair Tax, or the Flat Tax, or whatever, just happens to be in a group who will (theoretically) see their tax burden go down. Hey, sounds fair to me! As the saying goes, if your problem is how much you pay in taxes, then you don't have a problem.

usmc-sooner

1/9/2008, 08:10 PM

I don't have a problem with that. I don't care if you make money, have money, or were born into money. What I'm saying is that 1) the Fair Tax is patently unfair, and 2) a mythical flat tax does not guarantee fairness.

I'm guessing that everybody who supports the Fair Tax, or the Flat Tax, or whatever, just happens to be in a group who will (theoretically) see their tax burden go down. Hey, sounds fair to me! As the saying goes, if your problem is how much you pay in taxes, then you don't have a problem.

I honestly don't know what the fair tax is? I've heard people talk about but I don't know what it is.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 08:21 PM

I honestly don't know what the fair tax is? I've heard people talk about but I don't know what it is.

Apparently Huckabee has taken up the cause. From what I understand, the Fair Tax is the replacement of all federal taxes by a sales tax on everything. The rate that gets thrown around is 23%, but that is built into the price of everything, not added on. So, what costs $100 now would cost $130 not $123. Supposedly, the increased price of everything will be made up for by the fact that you aren't paying income tax. In fact, supporters claim that everybody will pay less in taxes than they do now, yet the government will get the same amount of revenue.

usmc-sooner

1/9/2008, 08:31 PM

In fact, supporters claim that everybody will pay less in taxes than they do now, yet the government will get the same amount of revenue.

how?

LosAngelesSooner

1/9/2008, 08:40 PM

I'm sorry I didn't realize that you weren't aware that the two documents are very much related. From a purely constitutional perspective you could argue all federal taxes are unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment.You COULD...but you'd lose.

This has already been done and the courts found that federal taxes ARE Constitutional. The whole "Fed Income Taxes are unconstitutional and therefore you don't have to pay them" argument is an urban legend at this point.

Snopes it.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 08:41 PM

how?

EXACTLY!

I think that little bit of smoke and mirrors revolves around the idea that businesses will be able to lower prices because they are no longer paying income tax. So, the price increase due to sales tax will be offset by lower prices. That's probably true, but then how can it be revenue neutral to the government? The government gets all of its money from us. There is no way to reduce the total amount of taxes we pay without reducing government revenue.

I've only looked at this a tiny little bit, so my understanding of it may be way off. There are plenty of Fair Taxers on here who can set me straight.

mdklatt

1/9/2008, 08:44 PM

This has already been done and the courts found that federal taxes ARE Constitutional.

Aha! But how do the courts get paid? TAXES! How can we trust the people who benefit from taxes when they tell us taxes aren't illegal??

:les: IT'S ALL A BIG LIE!

LosAngelesSooner

1/9/2008, 09:05 PM

Aha! But how do the courts get paid? TAXES! How can we trust the people who benefit from taxes when they tell us taxes aren't illegal??

:les: IT'S ALL A BIG LIE!MY GUY SHOUTS BETTER THAN YOURS!!! [hairGel]

Big Red Ron

1/9/2008, 10:23 PM

You COULD...but you'd lose.

This has already been done and the courts found that federal taxes ARE Constitutional. The whole "Fed Income Taxes are unconstitutional and therefore you don't have to pay them" argument is an urban legend at this point.

Snopes it.Actually it's not. The courts serve at the whims of those whom we elect, good or bad. Nothing it above reproach with regard to our freedoms, as laid out by the Declaration and Constitution, except freedom itself.

It might not be the majority opinions of the current crop of politicians in power today, whether they be Republican or Democrat. Make no mistake, there are more and more people that are coming around to my line of thinking, which isn't original at all, as it's based on philosophies that are centuries old. The current quasi - socialist society we've created since Franklin D. Roosevelt's so called "New Deal" isn't sustainable for the long haul. It's been proven time and again in geopolitical history.

The real beauty and uniqueness of the United States of America's constitution is that it allows for protection of the minority, whether it be social status or philosophical perspective. Protection of the minority (me in this case) from the tyranny of the majority (you in this case), while intentionally allowing for institutional, legal avenues to make the changes necessary to change our destinies is pure genius.

It will take time and effort but things will change, simply because the current system is doomed to failure.

One of my heroes, Fredrick Douglas puts it better than I...
http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/OWP/8050C_a.jpg

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

Big Red Ron

1/9/2008, 10:51 PM

Not exactly a new idea and as it has been pointed out in this thread, it has many flaws. The black/gray market will grow exponentially if the fair tax were to be imposed- now you have the mob all back in it's prohibition era glory. Of course, I didn't pay tax on my wife's engagement/wedding rings. ;)

Another issue is that if I am taxed so heavily on stuff, I'm willing to bet that I won't spend as much and that could harm the economy and growth of local industry. The uber wealthy will still by what they want, but even they will get away with not paying tax due to loopholes or buying out of country (more economic probs) and smuggling those items into the US.No, srsly, I get your points but higher tariffs on imported goods would help our economy and alleviate any abilities for "gray and black" markets.

But you really think those gray and black markets could amount to the loopholes in our 6000 page income tax laws?:D

Harry Beanbag

1/10/2008, 07:37 AM

Apparently Huckabee has taken up the cause. From what I understand, the Fair Tax is the replacement of all federal taxes by a sales tax on everything. The rate that gets thrown around is 23%, but that is built into the price of everything, not added on. So, what costs $100 now would cost $130 not $123. Supposedly, the increased price of everything will be made up for by the fact that you aren't paying income tax. In fact, supporters claim that everybody will pay less in taxes than they do now, yet the government will get the same amount of revenue.

What about the working poor? People who work but don't make a lot of money and basically don't pay any taxes now. This would seem to affect them a lot. They would actually be paying taxes instead of being exempted.

jeremy885

1/10/2008, 10:16 AM

mdklatt

1/10/2008, 10:19 AM

What about the working poor? People who work but don't make a lot of money and basically don't pay any taxes now. This would seem to affect them a lot. They would actually be paying taxes instead of being exempted.

This is where the Fair Tax implementation gets really goofy. Everybody would get a rebate check every month from the government to cover the tax on a basic standard of living. Yes, let's replace the mostly automatic system of payroll deductions with one where the government is mailing out a brazillion checks every month. I bet Dean supports the Fair Tax. And who is "everybody"? Every single person? Every head of household? Everyone who isn't a dependent? Everyone who makes less than a certain amount? How much would the monthly rebate be for? Is it indexed to inflation? Does it account for regional cost of living differences? Even with a rebate, a sales tax would effect the poor disproportionately.

mdklatt

1/10/2008, 01:14 PM

I just read this favorable opinion of a national sales tax:

http://www.slate.com/id/2181833/

It's a theoretical treatment only, and doesn't address the specific problems that have been brought up by opponents of the Fair Tax proposal.

LosAngelesSooner

1/10/2008, 03:00 PM

Actually it's not. The courts serve at the whims of those whom we elect, good or bad. Nothing it above reproach with regard to our freedoms, as laid out by the Declaration and Constitution, except freedom itself.

It might not be the majority opinions of the current crop of politicians in power today, whether they be Republican or Democrat. Make no mistake, there are more and more people that are coming around to my line of thinking, which isn't original at all, as it's based on philosophies that are centuries old. The current quasi - socialist society we've created since Franklin D. Roosevelt's so called "New Deal" isn't sustainable for the long haul. It's been proven time and again in geopolitical history.

The real beauty and uniqueness of the United States of America's constitution is that it allows for protection of the minority, whether it be social status or philosophical perspective. Protection of the minority (me in this case) from the tyranny of the majority (you in this case), while intentionally allowing for institutional, legal avenues to make the changes necessary to change our destinies is pure genius.

It will take time and effort but things will change, simply because the current system is doomed to failure.

One of my heroes, Fredrick Douglas puts it better than I...
http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/OWP/8050C_a.jpg

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Everything you just said doesn't change the fact that, right now, federal income taxes ARE Constitutional and the idea that you don't have to pay them and that the government can't make you is a fallacy.

Maybe that will change in the future, but right now...it's a myth.

Vaevictis

1/10/2008, 03:53 PM

You are arguing the semantics of a single word, "morally."

Your extremely loose use of the word "morally" should raise eyebrows; as I mentioned, it's pure idiocy to attempt to derive morality from law. If you were to do so, you might draw the conclusion that say, it's more moral for a daddy to rape his daughter than it is for a stranger to do so, as there are laws in some jurisdictions that have a lesser penalty for the former.

Trust me, I know some history with respect to the founding of our country. Not perfectly mind you, but yeah, I get the point with respect to the Enlightenment philosophers and how they informed the folks who put pen to paper and authored the Declaration, the Federalist papers, the Constitution, etc.

At issue is the fact that you claimed that you cannot reconcile certain things morally with the Constitution, and then you go back and claim that it should be clear that what you meant was that you cannot reconcile those things with the philosophical ideas that informed the creation of the Constitution.

What you meant and what you wrote are two very different things, and you should not be surprised when someone says, "Wait, what do you mean by that?"

I cited the 10th amendment, which states and I paraphrase from the top of my head, "All rights not specifically given to the Federal Government are left to the states." You may think that's passé. I do not.

Good for you. Maybe you want to read a little further and take a look at the 16th amendment, ratified 1913, which states:

"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."

Being an amendment, it has the effect of... changing the meaning of what was previously in the Constitution. So frankly, unless you want to make the argument that the 16th amendment was improperly ratified (like some people), any arguments against the Constitutionality of an income tax are null and void unless you can somehow show that a subsequent amendment has done so, or that the amendment itself does not actually authorize to tax income (good luck with that, by the way).

and what's unfair about that? If I work hard I expect it to pay off for my kids. I hope to accumulate much wealth so I can help my kids.

There's nothing wrong with this on an individual basis. But with respect to society in extreme cases, it can lead to ... undesirable results. One of the main arguments for the estate tax was to try to prevent the emergence of an economic aristocracy.

I think it's fair to say that it's failed. IMO, we pretty clearly have one. There are some very rich families who simply inherit their money and power from a very successful ancestry, and many of these families wield a disproportionately large amount of power within our nation.

I must once again stress that individually it is normal and even laudable to try to leave every advantage to your kids in order to raise them up. But taken to an extreme, it may have an adverse effect on society as a whole.

how?

Part of the argument is that the reduced administrative costs associated with paying taxes will spread throughout the system, resulting in savings for everyone. It's not so much that the amount of taxes you pay will go down, it's that the total burden imposed upon you by taxation will go down.

I would say that this is theoretically possible, but I don't know whether it would work in practice.

Vaevictis

1/10/2008, 03:54 PM

(bugger, double post)

Harry Beanbag

1/10/2008, 05:46 PM

Dude, they get money back. It's called the Earned income credit.

Dude, I know they do now, but if the tax system as we know it is eliminated, I would assume EIC would go away to (or change forms). That was my question.

Harry Beanbag

1/10/2008, 05:47 PM

This is where the Fair Tax implementation gets really goofy. Everybody would get a rebate check every month from the government to cover the tax on a basic standard of living. Yes, let's replace the mostly automatic system of payroll deductions with one where the government is mailing out a brazillion checks every month. I bet Dean supports the Fair Tax. And who is "everybody"? Every single person? Every head of household? Everyone who isn't a dependent? Everyone who makes less than a certain amount? How much would the monthly rebate be for? Is it indexed to inflation? Does it account for regional cost of living differences? Even with a rebate, a sales tax would effect the poor disproportionately.

I understand now. Total cluster****. :)

Big Red Ron

1/11/2008, 12:33 AM

You people...

nevermind.

sooneron

1/11/2008, 03:57 PM

No, srsly, I get your points but higher tariffs on imported goods would help our economy and alleviate any abilities for "gray and black" markets.

But you really think those gray and black markets could amount to the loopholes in our 6000 page income tax laws?:D
I agree to an extent with the higher tariffs- (esp on Chinese goods as it seems they are trying to dumb down the kids of the US of A with lead ridden toys). Not to mention, the black market would involve a LOT of smuggling these goods into the country. Do you think any sort of tax was paid on fake dvds?

Another thing that popped into my head. Would employers/companies start trying to lower pay due to the fact that we are no longer taxed on it? Keep in mind they would be paying more for office furniture/ supplies etc. I would guess rent as well since the property owner is paying more to buy the place due to the increase in tax.

JohnnyMack

1/11/2008, 04:23 PM

People who make Y are ALWAYS going to complain that people who make Y x 2 or Y x 3 should pay more (%-wise) in taxes. Why exactly should they do that again? I seriously don't understand tax brackets.

Vaevictis

1/11/2008, 07:37 PM

People who make Y are ALWAYS going to complain that people who make Y x 2 or Y x 3 should pay more (%-wise) in taxes. Why exactly should they do that again? I seriously don't understand tax brackets.

For most people, it boils down to "they can afford it better than the less wealthy." If you don't have income tax brackets that increase as you go up the pay scale, you'll have to increase them for everyone on the lower end to make up the difference.

It really depends on the way you approach the issue, just like half-full or half-empty. Is it, "the wealthier are paying more" or "the poor are paying less." Is it a punishment for the wealthier people, or tax relief for the poorer people?

There are some people -- like Warren Buffet -- who think that the wealthy owe more to society because they receive more from it. Buffet's comment is that he has a peculiar talent which just happens to be very well rewarded by the way our society is structured, and that because it rewards him so well, he owes it more. He illustrates this by observing that if you were to dump him in a third world agricultural economy, he'd probably still be dirt poor (if he was alive at all).

JohnnyMack

1/11/2008, 09:49 PM

sooneron

1/11/2008, 09:59 PM

For someone at his level, maybe.

Let's say you have two buddies in high school. They both come from similar middle class, socio-economic backgrounds. We'll call them John & Scott. John and Scott both graduate from high school, John works hard and is 4th in his class, gets accepted to someplace like Duke while Scott, who never really worked that hard ends up at the local Community College before dropping out to work at O'Reilly full-time as an assistant manager. John gets his degree, interns with Firm A and works his way up to making a nice living with the house in Connecticut, the 2.5 perfect kids, etc. all the while Scott, not the hardest or most motivated worker is now working as a janitor at a school so he can have summers off to spend time playing gigs with his local band. Are you telling me that John should pay a higher percentage than Scott? John busts his ***, works for what he has and is in turn rewarded with a higher tax burden? I call bull****. That's what I hate, the have-nots wanna whine and have the man take it easy on them while the haves are the haves because they worked for it.
That's a mighty big assumption that the haves got it through hard work. I don't want to sound proletariat here, because I'm not, but some haves are where they are because they screwed a bunch of people over, frivolously sued someone, ran up a ****load of debt and filed chapter 11 etc. This is an increasing sector of the upper class. I am not saying that everyone that is successful has done that, but a lot have. Especially these days- ask anyone in Houston. According the gub'ment, it all boils down to what chunk you can lose to them and not miss it as to start a militia or revolution.
Thusly, I am not sure where I stand on this. Of course, by factoring to the square foot, I doubt that many here pay what I pay in property taxes.

SanJoaquinSooner

1/11/2008, 10:09 PM

higher tariffs on imported goods would help our economy

No. Higher tariffs (raising taxes) would be bad for the economy.

1. Paying a higher price for something means less spending on something else.

2. A huge part of what we import is for industrial use. If industrial costs go up, so will prices.

3. The last thing we need is inflation. Protectionism will lead to double digit inflation.

4. Other countries would respond with tariffs on our products and services. 48% of revenue generated by the S&P 500 companies come from exports. It's been on an upward trend for a while. In fact exports have been what has kept us out of a recession this long in spite of the housing/construction bust.

5. I agree with Thomas Jefferson. Tariffs are bad. I believe in freedom of the consumer to choose what to buy with his own hard-earned money. We don't need politburo bureaucrats inhibiting our freedom by placing punitive taxes on our purchases.

JohnnyMack

1/11/2008, 10:12 PM

SCOUT

1/11/2008, 10:15 PM

That's a mighty big assumption that the haves got it through hard work. I don't want to sound proletariat here, because I'm not, but some haves are where they are because they screwed a bunch of people over, frivolously sued someone, ran up a ****load of debt and filed chapter 11 etc. This is an increasing sector of the upper class. I am not saying that everyone that is successful has done that, but a lot have. Especially these days- ask anyone in Houston. According the gub'ment, it all boils down to what chunk you can lose to them and not miss it as to start a militia or revolution.
Thusly, I am not sure where I stand on this. Of course, by factoring to the square foot, I doubt that many here pay what I pay in property taxes.

I would like to see a link to the study substantiating the portion of your post prior to "This is an increasing sector of the upper class."

My Grandparents came to the US in the early 1900's. One Grandfather was a barber and my Grandmother was a seamstress. My other Grandfather worked in the Remington Arms as a machinist and my Grandmother was a stay at home Mom. They all worked hard their entire lives, saved money and provided a better life for their kids. My parents and my wife's parents have done the same. My life has been better than that of my parents which was better than that of their parents. My goal is to provide a better life for my children.

Why should I pay more in taxes because my family has worked for generations to achieve what we have achieved?

Jerk

1/11/2008, 10:50 PM

Why should I pay more in taxes because my family has worked for generations to achieve what we have achieved?
Because People Hate You and They Want What You've Got.

It's the foundation of Marxism.

Too many people have figured out that they can vote themselves goodies. Unless something drastic happens, this is unreversable.

The only good news is that socialism is doomed to fail. You have people pulling the wagon and people riding in. Once there are too many people riding and not enough pulling, it all collapses. The best thing to do would be to deny the 'right' of people to vote who are on entitlements (not including SS, because people pay into that).

The dumb arse sheep will continue to vote for security over liberty, and this is why the US was intended to be a Republic, not a democracy.

The same people who accuse the government of failing to build sound levees in New Orleans are the first to tell you that they can run the health care system. Good luck with that. It's all about giving the poor the same access to quality care as the rich. Guess what? The rich will be able to fly their learjets out of country and pay good doctors for their care, and the politicians who create the system will exempt themselves, and the middle class will be fooked.

Mongo

1/11/2008, 10:54 PM

I better not get taxed on the money me and the wife get from her parents when they are gone. I have put up with enough of the inlaws' **** that I deserve every nickel that is owed

Mjcpr

1/11/2008, 10:56 PM

Unless they have A LOT of money, you won't.

Mongo

1/11/2008, 10:57 PM

Unless they have A LOT of money, you won't.

they do. that is why I got married:D

should I off them now so it doesnt get ginormous? cause I could do that

Mjcpr

1/11/2008, 10:58 PM

You'd be stupid not to kill them then.

Jerk

1/11/2008, 11:00 PM

I have a pic of a welfare lady in Louisiana. She has a nice new home and a wide-screen, hi-fi, hi def TV. I don't have a f***ing hi-def wide screen TV. Our poor would be rich compared to most of the worlds' people. Yet we're expected to stagnate our economy and bankrupt our government for people, who for the most part, made bad decisions in their life.

Mongo

1/11/2008, 11:01 PM

Trade your guns in for a flat panel:D

<running out of gun range>

Mjcpr

1/11/2008, 11:02 PM

Way to get him riled up, Mongo.

Jerk

1/11/2008, 11:05 PM

Trade your guns in for a flat panel:D

<running out of gun range>

I can't trade in any guns. I'm too worried that Nurse Ratchet will ban them after she takes the throne in 2009.

Jerk

1/11/2008, 11:28 PM

Let's just pretend she's white so we can remove the racial aspect.

SRSLY, I know how liberals think, but this has nothing to do with race.

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/12/alleged-slum.jpg

http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/12/housing_officials_claim_surplu.html

Keep working. People who don't want to work depend on you.

Vaevictis

1/11/2008, 11:38 PM

For someone at his level, maybe.

I have to disagree. It's for anyone at just about any level in the USA. Even the poorest in the USA are usually rich compared to their counterparts in the third world.

Are you telling me that John should pay a higher percentage than Scott?

Depending on the exact parameters, sure. There's a rate I think is too high, but the general principle is fine with me.

John busts his ***, works for what he has and is in turn rewarded with a higher tax burden? I call bull****.

John is also rewarded with more money in his pocket and a better lifestyle. A lifestyle that he probably wouldn't be able to achieve in a third world country all other things being equal.

And speaking about the USA specifically, he's paying less in taxes than he would in... well, pretty much any other first world country (except maybe, iirc, Japan), and a very low rate compared to recent US history (last 70 or so years).

John doesn't really have much to complain about. He busts his ***, sure, but he lives a lifestyle as high as or higher than anyone in the world working a similar job, and enjoys a low tax rate relative to similar countries and historical rates.

Now that said, I understand that for you it's the principle. And that's fine. But, back to my point, it just depends on your point of view. I personally think it silly to begrudge paying out more if you're earning more -- and it's not like you have to give it to the government. There are plenty of ways to funnel it to a charity of your choice. I guess I agree with Buffet. :)

Jerk

1/11/2008, 11:45 PM

There are plenty of ways to funnel it to a charity of your choice. I guess I agree with Buffet. :)

You can also funnel it overseas.

JohnnyMack

1/12/2008, 10:42 AM

John is also rewarded with more money in his pocket and a better lifestyle.

Because he worked hard and earned it!!!!

So your answer is to not work so hard?

That's the American Dream baby! Work hard so you can give more of it lazy people! Woot! I'm in!

usmc-sooner

1/12/2008, 11:18 AM

I better not get taxed on the money me and the wife get from her parents when they are gone. I have put up with enough of the inlaws' **** that I deserve every nickel that is owed

I thought there was an inheritance tax. I'd have them put it in a trust so you don't have the cost of a probate.

jeremy885

1/12/2008, 01:27 PM

2. A huge part of what we import is for industrial use. If industrial costs go up, so will prices.

I agree with your other points, but unless your counting oil, I think it's mostly consumer products (What industrial items do we import from China)?

SanJoaquinSooner

1/12/2008, 02:34 PM

I agree with your other points, but unless your counting oil, I think it's mostly consumer products (What industrial items do we import from China)?

In 2006, “industrial supplies and material” and “capital goods (except automotive)” comprised nearly 55 percent of all imports. Those are the purchases of U.S. companies, not consumers. They are raw materials, components, and other intermediate goods used in the production of final products in the United States.

From Page 7 of http://www.freetrade.org/files/pubs/pas/tpa-035.pdf which cites the Bureau of Economic Analysis

Frozen Sooner

1/12/2008, 02:40 PM

I thought there was an inheritance tax. I'd have them put it in a trust so you don't have the cost of a probate.

The inheritance tax kicks in on estates worth more than $1.5 million net of all debt. Needless to say, this isn't an incredibly common phenomenon.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 02:50 PM

Because he worked hard and earned it!!!!

So your answer is to not work so hard?

That makes absolutely no sense at all, and you know it. Even if you're getting taxed at a higher marginal rate, you're still taking home the vast majority of your earnings in that bracket.

That's the American Dream baby! Work hard so you can give more of it lazy people! Woot! I'm in!

Depending upon the details, it's possible to pay a higher percentage of your income in taxes in the lower income tax tiers than you do in the higher income tax tiers. Remember, income tax isn't the only tax you pay.

IIRC, FICA, is 7.65% for the first $97k. That's matched by the employer -- which, IMO, comes out of your earnings too, so it's just that you never see it. Hence, for your first $97k, you're getting taxed a flat 15.3% on your income, PLUS your marginal income tax rates. Now, toss in other regressive taxes such as sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and you'll find plenty of people on the lower end of the spectrum paying just as high a percentage of their income as people on the upper end.

Except for the people on the extreme upper end, that is. People on the extreme upper end have a tendency to have large portions of their income get taxed as long term capital gains, which are taxed at a rate which is lower than just about anything else.

jeremy885

1/12/2008, 03:00 PM

In 2006, “industrial supplies and material” and “capital goods (except automotive)” comprised nearly 55 percent of all imports. Those are the purchases of U.S. companies, not consumers. They are raw materials, components, and other intermediate goods used in the production of final products in the United States.

From Page 7 of http://www.freetrade.org/files/pubs/pas/tpa-035.pdf which cites the Bureau of Economic Analysis

You forgot the next sentence. "Thus, access to foreign produced components, materials, and sources of energy..." It's including oil in industrial supplies. I didn't know running my car was considered manufacturing, but then again these are the same people who wanted to add burger makers at McDonalds as manufacturing jobs.

Chuck Bao

1/12/2008, 03:37 PM

I'm getting the impression that all of you people arguing for supply side economics are already rich.

And, I'm getting the feeling that most economists on CNBC are just doing their best to talk up the economy.

A few are saying that it's already too late. If you spend more by tax cuts, it's not staying locally and adding to jobs. No, instead it's just worsening the trade deficit and personal debts. In effect, a reckoning is coming through devaluation of wages, unemployment and a simultaneous increase in prices.

How else can anyone explain the unusual candor of Bernanke?

Policiticians, as always, are way behind the curve. Democrats may be better at fixing it than the pro big business Republicans.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 07:40 PM

Democrats may be better at fixing IT than the pro big business Republicans.Democrats are good, better and best at raising taxes and increasing govt. spending than republicans (although some republicans do it too, and try to out-democrat the democrats at social spending)
Republicans almost never win elections by promising to outspend and out-tax democrats. It's a given that outspending and taxing is what democrats do as their norm.

Chuck Bao

1/12/2008, 08:27 PM

Rush, what I'm arguing is about new realities, not old stereotypes.

It would be so great if it were so black and white. But, those who offer the unpopular fixes, like Ron Paul, are shot dead in the water by the status quo and anything different is typically seen as a threat to the wealth people.

Count me among those who don't think that the US economy can just simply grow out of the current problem through tax cuts.

We can argue all day and night about optimum tax rates, but I'm embarrassed if children go to bed hungry or people die in our health care system because they don't have money.

I used to be encouraged by the flow of trade and competitive advantages and the higher standard of living in Asia and the growing middle class in Asia and their demand for democracy and capitalism and the American way of life.

But, the financial systems, markets and supposedly really smart people totally failed us.

Greed may drive capitalism, and I agree that's a good thing, but greed does some really bad things too!

SanJoaquinSooner

1/12/2008, 08:46 PM

You forgot the next sentence. "Thus, access to foreign produced components, materials, and sources of energy..." It's including oil in industrial supplies. I didn't know running my car was considered manufacturing, but then again these are the same people who wanted to add burger makers at McDonalds as manufacturing jobs.

oil is included in industrial supplies because consumers don't buy crude oil. Obviously companies purchase crude oil to manufacture gasoline. you're right, imported oil is a huge chunk, but that doesn't take away from my point that industry imports a huge amount of supplies and capital goods.

2007 industrial supplies (including oil) $600 billion imports

capital goods (excluding autos) $418 billion imports

consumer goods $442 billion imports

about 20 to 25% of oil is for industrial non-transportation use.

I don't know what % is used for business-use transportation, but with public transit, truck shipping, jet fuel, etc, - a significant amount.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 08:48 PM

Democrats are good, better and best at raising taxes and increasing govt. spending than republicans (although some republicans do it too, and try to out-democrat the democrats at social spending)
Republicans almost never win elections by promising to outspend and out-tax democrats. It's a given that outspending and taxing is what democrats do as their norm.

Yeah. Republicans increase spending and the deficit instead.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 09:04 PM

Count me among those who don't think that the US economy can just simply grow out of the current problem through tax cuts.

Greed may drive capitalism, and I agree that's a good thing, but greed does some really bad things too!Tax cuts stimulate growth and investment, create more jobs, add new people ot the tax rolls and INCREASE govt. revenue. It always works. There is an optimal tax rate beow which revenue would decrease, but we've not had it yet, and that rate would be surprisingly low, as people love a low tax rate, since it encourages them to produce things and grow the economy.

1stTimeCaller

1/12/2008, 09:16 PM

Because the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, so they should have to kick in more for the privilege.

I have no idea what this means. I must not be looking at that statementcorrectly.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 09:20 PM

There is an optimal tax rate beow which revenue would decrease, but we've not had it yet (...)

Can you conclusively back this claim up with evidence? Considering all the other variables at play, I'm betting you can't.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 09:41 PM

Can you conclusively back this claim up with evidence? Considering all the other variables at play, I'm betting you can't.We've not had a rate low enough where the economy failed to grow, and failed to increase revenue to the federal piggybank, to my knowledge.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 09:43 PM

We've not had a rate low enough where the economy failed to grow, and failed to increase revenue to the federal piggybank, to my knowledge.

So your evidence is basically in the form of "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Thought so.

JohnnyMack

1/12/2008, 09:45 PM

IIRC, FICA, is 7.65% for the first $97k. That's matched by the employer -- which, IMO, comes out of your earnings too, so it's just that you never see it. Hence, for your first $97k, you're getting taxed a flat 15.3% on your income, PLUS your marginal income tax rates. Now, toss in other regressive taxes such as sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and you'll find plenty of people on the lower end of the spectrum paying just as high a percentage of their income as people on the upper end.

<Jim Mora>FICA?!? FICA?!?!</Jim Mora>

I'm not talking about FICA here, I'm talking about this:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

And if you think that an $9 an hour Blockbuster employee who rents an apartment has the same tax burden as a Neurosurgeon (or that it's anywhere close for that matter) you're either utterly naive or just plain ignorant.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 09:47 PM

So your evidence is basically in the form of "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Thought so.I know you appear not believe in economic incentive provided by lowering taxes, and subsequent revenue growth to the govt.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 09:59 PM

I know you appear not believe in economic incentive provided by lowering taxes, and subsequent revenue growth to the govt.

I believe that there are ranges for which that is true and ranges for which it is not true. However, you claimed that we have yet to evar cross below the optimal tax rate. I was asking for some real evidence for causation, not just the correlative evidence you provided.

I would submit that while it's possible that tax cuts have been causitive in subsequent growth periods, it's also possible that in some of the cases the economy was heading in that direction anyway, or that in other cases the fact that the government borrowed a few trillion dollars and dumped it into the economy over a few years might have had something to do with it. And there are many other possible contributors to the growth you're citing. Unless you have some evidence directly showing causation on the part of the tax cuts, your claim remains unsubstantiated.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 10:04 PM

<Jim Mora>FICA?!? FICA?!?!</Jim Mora>

I'm not talking about FICA here, I'm talking about this:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

Yeah, I know what you're talking about. And I'm suggesting you step back and take a larger view of the tax code. Generally speaking, it appeared to me as if you were complaining about how people earning more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Is that not the case? Because that's what I inferred, well, I simply pointed out that it's not universally true.

And if you think that an $9 an hour Blockbuster employee who rents an apartment has the same tax burden as a Neurosurgeon (or that it's anywhere close for that matter) you're either utterly naive or just plain ignorant.

I don't recall having stated any such thing.

I believe the closest thing I said to that was that the lower income individuals can pay the same (or more) in terms of percentage of income, which is not quite the same thing.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 10:19 PM

I believe that there are ranges for which that is true and ranges for which it is not true. However, you claimed that we have yet to evar cross below the optimal tax rate. I was asking for some real evidence for causation, not just the correlative evidence you provided.

I would submit that while it's possible that tax cuts have been causitive in subsequent growth periods, it's also possible that in some of the cases the economy was heading in that direction anyway, or that in other cases the fact that the government borrowed a few trillion dollars and dumped it into the economy over a few years might have had something to do with it. And there are many other possible contributors to the growth you're citing. Unless you have some evidence directly showing causation on the part of the tax cuts, your claim remains unsubstantiated.I have never heard of a time when tax cuts have not produced increased economic activity, and to the magnitude that has shortly resulted in increased revenue to the fed govt.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 10:20 PM

I have never heard of a time when tax cuts have not produced increased economic activity, and to the magnitude that has shortly resulted in increased revenue to the fed govt.

You (basically) said that already. And as I said, that's not evidence for causation.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 10:33 PM

You (basically) said that already. And as I said, that's not evidence for causation.Do you believe it doesn't happen, or increase revenue happens for a reason other than the economy heating up?

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 10:43 PM

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 11:02 PM

What I'm saying is that you're attributing an increase in revenue to a single variable in a many, many variable system.

Unless you have eliminated all other possible causes (you haven't), then the mere fact that a revenue increase followed a tax cut is not sufficient to imply that the revenue increase was caused by the tax cut.Since it happens every time it's tried, I guess you don't want to admit it works. I didn't expect you to. It's the one variable that is always present in the scenarios.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 11:16 PM

Since it happens every time it's tried, I guess you don't want to admit it works. I didn't expect you to. It's the one variable that is always present in the scenarios.

Hey man, you're making some pretty strong claims here. All I'm asking for is evidence strong enough to back them up. Once again, if you want to claim causation, you have to show causation. So far, all you've shown is correlation.

Usually when you try to stimulate the economy with tax cuts, you have a reason for doing so, yes? Of course, our habit is to keep spending the same (or higher, as under the Reagan and Bush II administrations), which itself provides stimulation to the economy. There's also usually a time lag between the economy slowing down, the bill authoring and passage and actual implementation, right?

And let's never mind the fact that our economy consists of thousands and thousands of companies and businesses, and millions and millions of consumers, the existence of many of which span many of these tax cuts you're referring to.

So no, the tax cuts aren't the only common variable. And those are only the ones I can think of -- there are likely billions and billions of hidden variables that we can't even begin to account for.

I'm not saying that your claim isn't true, I'm just asking you provide evidence consistent with the strength of your claim.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 11:42 PM

Of course, you could just save us some time and admit that you don't actually have any evidence establishing causation. I knew that you don't before I ever asked for it.

I mean, if (as I understand it) pretty much the whole of the field of economics doesn't have that kind of evidence, how could you?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 11:47 PM

I'm not saying that your claim isn't true...Congratulations. It's more than i expected.

Vaevictis

1/12/2008, 11:49 PM

Congratulations. It's more than i expected.

And your total inability to support your claim is exactly what I expected.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/12/2008, 11:52 PM

And your total inability to support your claim is exactly what I expected.You could show some evidence to refute the correlations between lowering taxes and subsequent spikes in tax revenue... if you want.

Vaevictis

1/13/2008, 12:07 AM

You could show some evidence to refute the correlations between lowering taxes and subsequent spikes in tax revenue... if you want.

I expect that I could pick any given tax cut, and depending on which claim I wanted to make, I could find a time period that supports it.

Let's take the Bush 2001 tax cuts, for example.

If I want to show that they decreased receipts, I'd just cite years 2002 and 2003 and 2004 -- which were lower than the 2001 year. If I want to show that they increased receipts, I'd cite years 2004-Present.

(sources: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0455.pdf, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html)

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/13/2008, 12:19 AM

I expect that I could pick any given tax cut, and depending on which claim I wanted to make, I could find a time period that supports it.

Let's take the Bush 2001 tax cuts, for example.

If I want to show that they decreased receipts, I'd just cite years 2002 and 2003 and 2004 -- which were lower than the 2001 year. If I want to show that they increased receipts, I'd cite years 2004-Present.

(sources: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0455.pdf, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html)Look we can jaw back and forth. If you don't want to believe tax cuts cause tax revenue increases, THEN DON'T. I think you wish they didn't.

Vaevictis

1/13/2008, 12:33 AM

Oh, I believe that they do. At certain levels. And I believe tax increases cause revenue decreases. At certain levels.

However, I'm not running around saying that decreasing tax rates from current levels will result in increases in receipts. That's a damned strong, specific claim, and if you're going to make a claim like that, you should expect that someone is going to ask you for real evidence to back it up.

The fact is, you don't have any. The fact is, if anyone had conclusive evidence, they'd have published it long ago -- that's a PhD dissertation at least, and probably a Nobel prize too.

And on top of that, if we knew that the optimal tax rate for revenue generation was below where it is now, that's where we'd set it. Republicans would go for it because, hey, lower taxes, and Democrats would go for it because, hey, more money for social programs. But nobody knows where the optimal level lies, or even which direction it is. Not even you.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/13/2008, 01:26 AM

However, I'm not running around saying that decreasing tax rates from current levels will result in increases in receipts. (I, RLIMC, am saying that, of course)
And on top of that, if we knew that the optimal tax rate for revenue generation was below where it is now, that's where we'd set it. Republicans would go for it because, hey, lower taxes, and Democrats would go for it because, hey, more money for social programs. But nobody knows where the optimal level lies, or even which direction it is. Not even you.I think we should lower taxes, wait for a reasonable time for the effects to be realized, then, if the result is more tax revenue, lower them again, and go through the study process again. Continue lowering them until such a time that it's determined the revenues decrease to the govt. Stop lowering taxes at that point.
John Kennedy did it, Reagan did it. W did it. Results were positive for all three efforts. Congress doesn't seem inclined to try it on their own without the POTUS taking the initiative.
Heck, they might even think of downsizing government, too...HAHA!

Chuck Bao

1/13/2008, 02:04 AM

The economy is very different today than it was back then.

The key point issue is the effect of lower taxes on consumption and the effect on investment. We need the more productive investment in industrial production and the knock-on effect on employment and consumption. I'm not so sure this will happen this time.

There are so many negative factors - better investment alternatives abroad, the weakening dollar, the depressed property market, etc. - that lower taxes may not have the desired effect.

Vaevictis

1/13/2008, 03:48 AM

I think we should lower taxes, wait for a reasonable time for the effects to be realized, then, if the result is more tax revenue, lower them again, and go through the study process again. Continue lowering them until such a time that it's determined the revenues decrease to the govt. Stop lowering taxes at that point.

That might work, if you were to hold all other variables constant. You can't. The economy is in constant flux; what is the optimal rate today will not remain the optimal rate for any known period of time. Tomorrow, it might be higher, or it might be lower. And using your method, you wouldn't even know it. Hell, by the time you change the tax rate in either direction, the economy might have shifted such that the original rate is once again the optimal rate!

The method is a lot like trying to track an invisible hummingbird with a howitzer. You have no idea where the target is, and you can't aim fast enough to hit it anyway.

John Kennedy did it, Reagan did it. W did it. Results were positive for all three efforts.

You mean "results are believed to have been positive." There are about a bajillion other variables, and you do NOT know which of them, if any, were a factor, nor do you know the magnitude of effect they had.

I mean, there's absolutely no way that massively increased military spending had anything at all to do with it, right? We didn't get involved in a war in, say, Indo-China, or ratchet up some kind of Cold War, or go to war in the Middle East around those times, did we?

Frozen Sooner

1/13/2008, 06:03 AM

Wait, you mean that tax cuts followed by spending hikes tend to increase GDP?

Holy Cow, who would have ever thought that?

Keynes wept.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 08:07 AM

Because the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, so they should have to kick in more for the privilege.

I still have no idea what this means.

Does it mean a wealthy person is provided more safety from the military?
Does it mean that the roads a wealthy person drives on are smoother?
Does it mean a wealthy person can attend the opera or the Super Bowl when poor people can't?

Big Red Ron

1/13/2008, 12:05 PM

Turd_Ferguson

1/13/2008, 02:01 PM

Victis you might as well be as honest at RLIMC and change your name to Stewart Smalley is My Clone.
Fixed:D

Vaevictis

1/13/2008, 08:17 PM

Bill Richardson, Gov. of New Mexico and former Democratic Presidential Candidate has cut taxes across the board in New Mexico (Using the Kennedy, Reagan, Bush Jr. model) and low and behold state revenues went through the roof. More specifically, he cut the taxes on the highest rates (read, "The rich") and his state has had a sort of Renaissance.

Great, that's awesome. Now take a moment to read the conversation. The claim RLIMC made was that lowering of current national income tax marginal rates will result in increased revenues.

If you had read the thread (or maybe had a modicum of comprehension), you'd notice that I had already granted correlation in many cases. Which, once again, is what your example is. Correlation.

Correlation is not causation.

In fact, I've already granted that I believe that for certain taxation levels, a tax cut will result in increased revenue. I've already granted that I believe that for certain taxation levels, an increase will result in decreased revenues. (These statements apply at any given point in time, holding all other things equal.)

In other words, I do not disagree with the basic premise that there is a certain optimal tax rate (perhaps more than one) at which revenues are maximized. It's not hard to agree with that statement. Simple math tells you it is almost certainly so.

What I take contention with is the idea that RLIMC knows that if we were to reduce the tax rate, increased revenues would result. In order to make that claim, he's going to have to establish causality. So, I've asked him to do so. Of course, the best he can come up with -- you too, apparently -- is correlation. Correlation is not causation.

Let's assume you've established causality. Great. Now you have to come up with a method to determine what that optimal tax rate is.

Good luck with that. Like I said earlier, you're talking PhD dissertation and probably Nobel Prize territory here. If anyone has been able to establish causation or develop a method for determining the optimal tax rate at any given time, they'd have published it by now.

What RLIMC proposes in order to resolve this issue is essentially a tracking system; adjust your aim, measure the difference between you and the target, and repeat. In order for this to work, your feedback cycle -- the aim adjustment + measurement + subsequent aim adjustment -- has to be fast enough to converge to the optimal rate (ie, the system has to be tracking faster than the target is moving).

Considering how long it takes to implement a tax rate change throughout the system, how long it takes for the economy to react, and how long it takes to measure the response, I'm gonna say that I don't think RLIMC's method is going to work.

Even if you could develop a system that tracks fast enough, you'd have to continually randomly perturb the tax rate; you can't just settle on the initially found optimal rate because the optimal rate changes with time. Can you imagine how much fun it would be if your tax rate was changing on a weekly (or daily!) basis? (There are other reasons, too.)

So, once again, to make it simple: I'm not saying that lowering tax rates won't result in increased tax revenue. I am, in fact, saying that it's entirely possible. However, I am also saying that you really don't know. You believe.

Tax cuts stimulate growth and investment, create more jobs, add new people ot the tax rolls and INCREASE govt. revenue. It always works. There is an optimal tax rate beow which revenue would decrease, but we've not had it yet, and that rate would be surprisingly low, as people love a low tax rate, since it encourages them to produce things and grow the economy.

RLIMC claims to know. Correlative evidence is enough to support belief, but not a claim of certainty. For such a claim, you need much stronger evidence than mere correlation.

The fact is, you guys have no idea what the Laffer curve really looks like. NOBODY has any idea what the Laffer curve really looks like. Hell, for all you guys know, we're approaching a local maximum by decreasing tax rates, but there's a global maximum waaaay off to the right near 99%, and the iterative approach you guys are essentially using will NEVER, EVER find it.

This is one of MANY MANY reasons why your correlative evidence is completely insufficient for the claims you are making.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 08:21 PM

how do you know that the tax cuts are correlative and not a causation?

Vaevictis

1/13/2008, 08:30 PM

how do you know that the tax cuts are correlative and not a causation?

It's a description of the evidence. The tax cuts may be causitive, but the evidence that they've shown is not sufficient to establish the tax cuts as causitive; it's only enough to establish correlation.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 08:38 PM

Oh. Does it boil down to 'the figures don't lie but liars figure'?

I don't know jack squat about most of this.

I know that I like it when Uncle Sam sends me free money in the mail each year towards the end of May!!

Vaevictis

1/13/2008, 09:03 PM

Oh. Does it boil down to 'the figures don't lie but liars figure'?

I don't know jack squat about most of this.

Basically, "correlation" means that two events happen together, where as "causation" means that one happens because of the other.

Correlation is a much weaker form of evidence because there are often hidden events that you're not aware of that may be causitive factors. An extreme example might be (from Wikipedia):

Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime.

Obviously, the tax cut/increased tax revenue link is not quite as absurd as that example, but the absurdity illustrates the point that correlation is a weaker form of evidence that can lead to incorrect conclusions.

For the Kennedy/Reagan/Bush tax cuts, there are alternative hypotheses. As I mentioned, the fact that we entered into periods of greater military spending concurrently might be a hidden causative variable. IIRC, we also had huge deficit spending for each of those time periods, which may be causative.

As I mentioned, I'm not saying that tax cuts won't result in increased tax revenue. I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't support RLIMC's level of certainty. The fact is, we just don't have a good enough understanding.

If we did, and RLIMC's right, the government would set the tax rate to the optimal rate and be done with it. Republicans would go for it because, hey, tax cuts, and Democrats would go for it because, hey, more money for social programs. Everybody wins and wins big. The only thing they'd be fighting over is who gets credit.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 09:13 PM

Oh, I know the difference between correlation and causation. I correlate for a living.

Maybe RLIMC is right about lower tax rates being the causation?

Frozen Sooner

1/13/2008, 09:21 PM

Of course, revenues only looks at half the picture.

Take as granted that tax revenues have increased directly after tax decreases. Then note that after each of those tax decreases there have come large increases in deficit spending. At what point do we say:

1) That the increase in tax revenue came about as a result of increased spending as opposed to decreased taxes or

2) That the decrease in taxation is illusory as we are borrowing from future generations to pay for the tax cut. At some point the piper has to be paid, and if spending is increased by more than the increase in tax revenue, how is this an actual tax decrease?

Vaevictis

1/13/2008, 09:35 PM

Oh, I know the difference between correlation and causation. I correlate for a living.

Ah, okay. My bad.

Maybe RLIMC is right about lower tax rates being the causation?

I believe that there's causation there, I just don't believe that he knows any more than the rest of us.

The underlying premise of his argument is essentially based on the idea of the Laffer Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve), which is essentially a graph of tax rate v. tax revenue. The basic Laffer Curve has one global maximum, two global minima and that's it.

Supply-siders (RLIMC is one) argue that the global maximum occurs at a lower tax rate than we currently have.

The problem is two-fold: First, the Laffer Curve is probably not the basic curve with only one global maximum. It probably has many local minima and maxima. This means that we could be in a trough where reducing taxes will approach a local maximum -- but it won't necessarily be the global maximum. The other issue is that the Laffer Curve probably changes with time, depending on the state of the economy. What was the global maximum yesterday may not be the global maximum today.

The reason I'm carping on causality is that before you can even begin to establish what the Laffer Curve looks like, you have to establish that it exists; the pre-requisite for that is the establishment of causality.

Let's look at his original statement:

Tax cuts stimulate growth and investment, create more jobs, add new people ot the tax rolls and INCREASE govt. revenue. It always works. There is an optimal tax rate beow which revenue would decrease, but we've not had it yet, and that rate would be surprisingly low, as people love a low tax rate, since it encourages them to produce things and grow the economy.

He's basically claiming certainty, based on a construct that he can't even show exists.

Even if he could show that it exists, he'd have to show what it looks like to back up his assertions. And as I mentioned, that's a Nobel Prize right there -- so if someone had found it, I expect we'd know it.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 09:53 PM

gotcha.

Whatever keeps the gubmint sending me my free money in late May - early June is alright with me.

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 10:20 PM

I still have no idea what this means.

The wealthier you are, the more you have to lose, and the greater interest you have in keeping society intact. How much is the fire department worth to a person with a $100,000 house? How much is the fire department worth to a person with a $1,000,000 house? If you drive a POS car, or can't even afford a car, you're not going to care too much about the condition of the roads. So unless the rich want crappy roads, they better pick up the slack.

Who really pulls the strings in the country? It's not the welfare queens who are voting for tax increases on the rich; most of them don't even vote. It's not one man, one vote--more like one dollar, one vote. Campaign contributions, lobbyists, connections...if the people that are most effected by the "death tax" wanted to do something about it, they could. There are as many rich Democrats as there are rich Republicans.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 10:30 PM

that still makes no sense to me.

As a 16 year old that worked 20 hours a week at $4.25/hr, the loss of my 1980 Olds Cutlass Supreme would have hurt me more than losing my current truck.

Mongo

1/13/2008, 10:45 PM

I have a wonderful idea. How about our government makes a special commitee and "drop box" for those who would like to give more than they currently are to the government.

the commitee will take all this extra revenue it is getting by these wonderful people willing to fork over 40%, 50%, or even more of their income to pay for extra stuff and social programs.

this way, the people that are wanting a socialist style of government will see some of the rewards they think will come from socializing America, while keeping those who do not want to pay extra in taxes can sit back and watch.

jeremy885

1/13/2008, 10:46 PM

Last time I did a MA tax return (02 I think) they gave you the option of paying a higher rate.

Mongo

1/13/2008, 10:48 PM

I think some people need to lead by example then, or STFU on telling people how they need to pay more in taxes

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 10:51 PM

Mongo

1/13/2008, 10:56 PM

I am talking about letting those donate a higher % of their income, or jump up a couple of tax brackets. that is what the socialist movement is lacking, solid leadership that is willing to step out and set a precedent on voluntary giving to the government

JohnnyMack

1/13/2008, 10:57 PM

I think you two need to stop blowing each other and get wimmen's back in your lives. Come down off that mountain. Mo's.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/13/2008, 10:58 PM

I don't see why you couldn't just not tell the IRS that they owe you a refund if you wanted to donate that much or you could tell them that you owe them money if you feel the need to and send them a check.You could do that. You could just tell them you now live in Canada, and are a citizen there, too. You could wish them well, and invite them up for some top-notch healthcare.

Mongo

1/13/2008, 11:00 PM

I think you two need to stop blowing each other and get wimmen's back in your lives. Come down off that mountain. Mo's.

there is room on the mountain for you too, come on up. but tommorow is Monday, a "pitch" only day for me

JohnnyMack

1/13/2008, 11:01 PM

I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay...

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:04 PM

As a 16 year old that worked 20 hours a week at $4.25/hr, the loss of my 1980 Olds Cutlass Supreme would have hurt me more than losing my current truck.

You're actually making an argument for a progressive tax structure. If you're poor, what you do have means disproportionately more to you than if you're wealthy. $100 means more to a person making $10,000 year than $1000 means to a person making $100,000 year, which means more than $10,000 does to a person making $1,000,000 year, etc.

Mongo

1/13/2008, 11:06 PM

You're actually making an argument for a progressive tax structure. If you're poor, what you do have means disproportionately more to you than if you're wealthy. $100 means more to a person making $10,000 year than $1000 means to a person making $100,000 year, which means more than $10,000 does to a person making $1,000,000 year, etc.

nice theory, but $5 means the same to me when i was making **** as a teacher and coach as to me now working in the oilfield

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:08 PM

I think some people need to lead by example then, or STFU on telling people how they need to pay more in taxes

You go first. Just kick in a few more tax dollars so that maybe one day we can get rid of that mean old death tax.

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:10 PM

nice theory, but $5 means the same to me when i was making **** as a teacher and coach as to me now working in the oilfield

Damn, didn't anybody else take an economics class in high school?

Mongo

1/13/2008, 11:11 PM

You go first. Just kick in a few more tax dollars so that maybe one day we can get rid of that mean old death tax.

the government sees enough of my money it is ridiculous, they'll have to make the IRS give me a hand job if they even want me to consider donating another nickel

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:12 PM

You're actually making an argument for a progressive tax structure. If you're poor, what you do have means disproportionately more to you than if you're wealthy. $100 means more to a person making $10,000 year than $1000 means to a person making $100,000 year, which means more than $10,000 does to a person making $1,000,000 year, etc.

Your post is the opposite of why you said folks in the upper tax brackets should pay more for fire departments and such.

What was the amount on the check you wrote to the City of Norman last year?

The check you wrote to cover the extras society has afforded you, or whatever the term was that you have been using?

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:14 PM

was it a large check?

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:14 PM

the government sees enough of my money it is ridiculous, they'll have to make the IRS give me a hand job if they even want me to consider donating another nickel

Well, if you think taxes are too high at the top then somebody is going to have to make up the difference.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:15 PM

or did you take the City Manager cash?

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:16 PM

how did you arrive at the amount that you sent them?

Mongo

1/13/2008, 11:17 PM

Well, if you think taxes are too high at the top then somebody is going to have to make up the difference.

what difference? I have no idea what that is? do honestly beleive that the government needs more of our money?

I think that they are just totally mismanaged with what is coming in

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:26 PM

Your post is the opposite of why you said folks in the upper tax brackets should pay more for fire departments and such.

No, I was making an argument that your fair share goes up the more money you have. Then you and your 1980 Cutlass Supreme made a case for how what's fair is skewed even more by relative income levels. Even though it was worth less than your current car, it meant more because you would have had more trouble replacing it.

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:31 PM

what difference? I have no idea what that is? do honestly beleive that the government needs more of our money?

I think that they are just totally mismanaged with what is coming in

The first thing we should do is quit subsidizing oil companies. :texan:

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:35 PM

so, how much did you write that check for?

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:35 PM

so, how much did you write that check for?

Are you talking to me?

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:37 PM

How much is the fire department worth to a person with a $100,000 house? How much is the fire department worth to a person with a $1,000,000 house?

It's worth the same to each.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:38 PM

Are you talking to me?

yes. How much extra did you send the City of Norman last year and how much extra are you going to send them this year?

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:39 PM

It's worth the same to each.

Yeah, um...no. Why do think insurance companies don't charge a flat fee?

jeremy885

1/13/2008, 11:41 PM

Actually, it would probably be worth more to the 100K person since they are less likely to have insurance.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:42 PM

Matt, how much extra did you send the City of Norman last year?

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:43 PM

yes. How much extra did you send the City of Norman last year and how much extra are you going to send them this year?

What does this have to do with anything? I'm not grumbling about taxes being too high...so that I means I should pay higher taxes?

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:45 PM

Because the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, so they should have to kick in more for the privilege.

how much did you kick in more for the privilege of the airport? You hold a pilot's certificate don't you?

You benefit from the airport more than Norm does don't you?

So how much did you kick in?

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:48 PM

how much did you kick in more for the privilege of the airport? You hold a pilot's certificate don't you?

You benefit from the airport more than Norm does don't you?

So how much did you kick in?

Airports are funded largely by taxes on aviation fuel. The more you fly, the more you pay. Many airports have landing fees. Again, the more you fly, the more you pay.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:48 PM

I didn't think you really believed in what you posted either.

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:49 PM

I didn't think you really believed in what you posted either.

And I still don't know what the hell you're talking about.

1stTimeCaller

1/13/2008, 11:53 PM

You posted this:

Because the wealthy benefit more from society than the poor, so they should have to kick in more for the privilege.

I asked you how much extra you kicked into the city coffers because you benefit more from society than most of the population of Norman, in terms of the airport.

Your answer was nothing. You don't seem to really believe in those that benefit from society should pay more.

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:55 PM

Actually, it would probably be worth more to the 100K person since they are less likely to have insurance.

We should establish libertarian subdivisions. You don't pay any property taxes, but you have to pay for all of your own roads, services, and schools. I bet they'd be really popular.

mdklatt

1/13/2008, 11:58 PM

I asked you how much extra you kicked into the city coffers because you benefit more from society than most of the population of Norman, in terms of the airport.

And I told you, people who fly pay the lion's share of the FAA budget through airport fees and fuel taxes. People who don't fly benefit from aviation and the FAA due to economic multiplier effects, the transportation of goods, and planes not colliding with each other and raining down on their houses.

1stTimeCaller

1/14/2008, 12:01 AM

weak.

sauce.

mdklatt

1/14/2008, 12:04 AM

weak.

sauce.

Do you really not understand that?

1stTimeCaller

1/14/2008, 12:05 AM

OK, I don't think I should kick in any extra for the privilege of being wealthy due to the economic multiplier effects and that everyone benefits from me providing the ability to find more hydrocarbons, cheaper.

Whew, I thought you were really going to want me to kick in even more that I currently do.

1stTimeCaller

1/14/2008, 12:07 AM

I understand it. It's kind of funny the stretching you are doing but I understand it.

mdklatt

1/14/2008, 12:13 AM

I understand it. It's kind of funny the stretching you are doing but I understand it.

You asked if people who use the airport pay more for the airport than people who don't. Yes, they do. What's "weak sauce" about that? Where's the stretching? The City of Norman doesn't pay for the airport, so why should I write them a check? In fact, the City of Norman doesn't even own the airport--OU does. I've paid OU plenty for the use of that airport over the years.

KABOOKIE

1/14/2008, 12:16 AM

I understand it. It's kind of funny the stretching you are doing but I understand it.

Close the airport down. I'll land on your driveway Bruce. :mad:

1stTimeCaller

1/14/2008, 07:17 AM

You asked if people who use the airport pay more for the airport than people who don't. Yes, they do. What's "weak sauce" about that? Where's the stretching? The City of Norman doesn't pay for the airport, so why should I write them a check? In fact, the City of Norman doesn't even own the airport--OU does. I've paid OU plenty for the use of that airport over the years.

so the wealthy only have to pay extra for the things they use? I don't use welfare, I want some money back. Uncle Sam can just add that to the free money they will be sending me in a few months.

JohnnyMack

1/14/2008, 10:25 AM

Still looks like no one can give me a good reason as to why 100k a year guy should pay a higher % of his taxes than 40k a year guy should.

Civicus_Sooner

1/14/2008, 11:47 AM

Airports are funded largely by taxes on aviation fuel. The more you fly, the more you pay. Many airports have landing fees. Again, the more you fly, the more you pay.So you support the consumption tax in some cases?

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 01:52 PM

Still looks like no one can give me a good reason as to why 100k a year guy should pay a higher % of his taxes than 40k a year guy should.

Shrug, which reasons are good enough for this sort of thing or not are just a matter of opinion.

The idea that the wealthy get more and so should give more is a good reason to some people (Warren Buffett). The idea of using massive marginal rates at the high end as a tool for keeping executive compensation in line is a good reason to others (my grandfather -- and he was an executive back in the day, got taxed at 90%ish on his top dollar, and thought it was a good idea because it was impossible to justify to shareholders the idea of paying much money in that range, because it was basically just ****ing the money away when it could be reinvested in the company or distributed as dividends). Or as a way to help prevent the rise of an economic aristocracy.

Of course, the fact that this is all just a matter of opinion and that there's no concrete economic law supporting or discrediting it is pretty much why we've been arguing about it since the idea was put forth on the national stage, and is likely to be argued about from here to the last days of the country.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/14/2008, 02:07 PM

Shrug, which reasons are good enough for this sort of thing or not are just a matter of opinion.

The idea that the wealthy get more and so should give more is a good reason to some people (Warren Buffett). (of course, the flat tax exacts more money from the wealthy than those less wealthy, but doesn't have a punitive element) The idea of using massive marginal rates at the high end as a tool for keeping executive compensation in line is a good reason to others (my grandfather -- and he was an executive back in the day, got taxed at 90%ish on his top dollar, and thought it was a good idea because it was impossible to justify to shareholders the idea of paying much money in that range, because it was basically just ****ing the money away when it could be reinvested in the company or distributed as dividends). Or as a way to help prevent the rise of an economic aristocracy.

...we've been arguing about it since the idea was put forth on the national stage, and is likely to be argued about from here to the last days of the country.There is a PROFOUND difference between a company keeping money earned instead of paying to an employee, vs. Big Brother REQUIRING UNDER PENALTY OF LAW that a "progressive" tax be paid. Nobody(like me) should have to point that out.
We will keep arguing about this on the national stage as long as there are those who don't respect the concept of freedom, and individual rights.

soonerscuba

1/14/2008, 02:15 PM

We will keep arguing about this on the national stage as long as there are those who don't respect the concept of freedom, and individual rights.

Classic.

JohnnyMack

1/14/2008, 02:15 PM

Shrug, which reasons are good enough for this sort of thing or not are just a matter of opinion.

I don't know anything about you or your personal life, but you list your location as Norman and your occupation as a graduate research assistant. I don't know your personal financial standing, but would venture to guess that if you are doing what you say you're doing for a living that it's very easy for you to hypothesize what other people (who more often than not come from nothing) should be required to do with their money.

I'm say what you're preaching is good in theory, and I get where you're going, but in the real world, the current tax structure/burden facing most Americans isn't fair.

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 02:16 PM

There is a PROFOUND difference between a company keeping money earned instead of paying to an employee, vs. Big Brother REQUIRING UNDER PENALTY OF LAW that a "progressive" tax be paid. Nobody(like me) should have to point that out.

You act like I'm advocating here. I'm not. Johnny Mack asked for "good reasons", and I'm just relating some reasons that some people believe are good ones.

We will keep arguing about this on the national stage as long as there are those who don't respect the concept of freedom, and individual rights.

Good for you. And if you take some time to learn how to actually formulate a persuasive argument instead of just pounding your fist against the table, well, you might actually convince someone.

soonerscuba

1/14/2008, 02:19 PM

Still looks like no one can give me a good reason as to why 100k a year guy should pay a higher % of his taxes than 40k a year guy should.

Because I think that majority of Americans would mostly likely have a problem with taxing the poor at a higher rate than the rich.

JohnnyMack

1/14/2008, 02:22 PM

Because I think that majority of Americans would mostly likely have a problem with taxing the poor at a higher rate than the rich.

I didn't say a higher rate, I said the same rate.

What's wrong with a Dr. paying the same % in taxes as a Taco Bell employee?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/14/2008, 02:27 PM

You act like I'm advocating here. I'm not. Johnny Mack asked for "good reasons", and I'm just relating some reasons that some people believe are good ones.

Good for you. And if you take some time to learn how to actually formulate a persuasive argument instead of just pounding your fist against the table, well, you might actually convince someone.It's hard for a person to admit that what they view as compassionate is actually discriminatory.

soonerscuba

1/14/2008, 02:28 PM

I didn't say a higher rate, I said the same rate.

What's wrong with a Dr. paying the same % in taxes as a Taco Bell employee?

Because income tax isn't the only tax you pay. So if everybody is paying 25% and you make $100,000 and the Taco Bell employee makes $15,000 a year and a gallon of milk is taxed at 7.5%, a greater percentage of income is paid by the Taco Bell employee in the form of tax.

While the merits can be debated, the political viability of a fair or flat tax is about as good as lowering the presidental age to 13 so Hannah Montana can ascend to the Whitehouse. Namely because you have to repeal the 16th amendment.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/14/2008, 02:31 PM

Classic.One of the few times we agree.

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 02:33 PM

I don't know anything about you or your personal life, but you list your location as Norman and your occupation as a graduate research assistant. I don't know your personal financial standing, but would venture to guess that if you are doing what you say you're doing for a living that it's very easy for you to hypothesize what other people (who more often than not come from nothing) should be required to do with their money.

I'm a graduate research assistant because I want to be one, not because I have to be one. It's basically a "vacation" after busting my *** in the real world, building a company from the ground up. I've cut $50k checks to the IRS on a quarterly estimate. As such, I've been well into the top bracket. So I've felt the pain of paying taxes, and while I don't know anything about you or your personal life, but I would be surprised if you have felt it more acutely than I have.

But this is how I was raised, and it goes back generations. In advocating this sort of thing, my family has always advocated themselves as being in the higher brackets. So, it's not like we're saying "Take money from other people." We just think that a progressive tax structure is better for the country for a variety of reasons -- which do vary from individual to individual within the family.

JohnnyMack

1/14/2008, 02:35 PM

I've cut $50k checks to the IRS on a quarterly estimate. As such, I've been well into the top bracket.

Bruce???

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 02:40 PM

Bruce???

Heh, I honestly have no idea what you mean by that.

nmsoonergirl

1/14/2008, 02:45 PM

Heh, I honestly have no idea what you mean by that.

And see, that's the ONLY post in this thread that I actually understood:O

jeremy885

1/14/2008, 03:02 PM

Heh, I honestly have no idea what you mean by that.

That's would Bruce would say.

Chuck Bao

1/14/2008, 03:05 PM

Still looks like no one can give me a good reason as to why 100k a year guy should pay a higher % of his taxes than 40k a year guy should.

I can in one word - revolution. History is replete with examples of what happens when wealth disparity grows too large, a larger growing portion of parents have to send their children to bed hungry or their children die unnecessarily of inadequate health care.

It is in the best interests of the ultra rich to have a vibrant economy, a growing middle class and avenues, or at least hope, of the poor to improve their condition. A graduated tax system seems to be the best system, although it may not be so obvious from your 100k and 40k tax brackets example.

Unfortunately, the US economy is currently being battered by confluence of a number of negative factors. The American worker is being discounted by illegal immigration, new technology and outsourcing from China and India.

Economic growth in China and India are driving up the prices of commodities, which are predominately held by the weathly. Inflation is being further exacerbated by a weakening dollar.

The US economy has been propped up for too long by debt spending by the middle class and, given inflation and job security, economic stimulus packages may not work as they have in the past.

On top of that, the feeling of wealth of the middle class had been tied with their appreciating housing values. Now, we are in the midst of rapidly devaluing housing market and with record defaults of mortgages, the worst probably isn't over yet.

I'm just not convinced that tax breaks would be enough stimulus to grow out of these problems. I'm not hearing about anyone, anywhere talking about raising taxes, either.

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 03:14 PM

It's hard for a person to admit that what they view as compassionate is actually discriminatory.

It's not really all that hard when you don't think it's a problem to have discriminatory taxation on the basis of income.

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 03:16 PM

I can in one word - revolution. History is replete with examples of what happens when wealth disparity grows too large, a larger growing portion of parents have to send their children to bed hungry or their children die unnecessarily of inadequate health care. (...)

... and that, my friends, in a nutshell, is the economic aristocracy argument taken to its conclusion.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/14/2008, 03:53 PM

... and that, my friends, in a nutshell, is the economic aristocracy argument taken to its conclusion.If/when THE STATE takes away too much of the people's wealth through taxation, it could cause people to have the same amount of anger as when the economic aristocrats cause anger by their excess and indifference to the populace, as in the model you propose.(I think of Bill Gates or Ed Kennedy, or Warren Buffet or Rupert Murdoch looking out over their palacial estates, saying something like "let them eat cake" in my image of your description of the economic aristocracy)
IMO, when the nannystate overtaxes to some point, creaters and producers will shut down, and the economy will go south. Then, SicEm will have his Civil War #2.

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 04:03 PM

If/when THE STATE takes away too much of the people's wealth through taxation, it could cause people to have the same amount of anger as when the economic aristocrats cause anger by their excess and indifference to the populace, as in the model you propose.

IMO, when the nannystate overtaxes to some point, creaters and producers will shut down, and the economy will go south. Then, SicEm will have his Civil War #2.

That's probably true also. Of course, I'm betting that this rate is considerably higher than it is now, given that we've had much, much higher rates in the past with no such result.

Chuck Bao

1/14/2008, 04:04 PM

If/when THE STATE takes away too much of the people's wealth through taxation, it could cause people to have the same amount of anger as when the economic aristocrats cause anger by their excess and indifference to the populace, as in the model you propose.(I think of Bill Gates or Ed Kennedy, or Warren Buffet or Rupert Murdoch looking out over their palacial estates, saying something like "let them eat cake" in my image of your description of the economic aristocracy)
IMO, when the nannystate overtaxes to some point, creaters and producers will shut down, and the economy will go south. Then, SicEm will have his Civil War #2.

So, you are arguing the right to own slaves and slave labor? This is the issue with the devaluation of workers.

Chuck Bao

1/14/2008, 04:36 PM

I mention an extreme view here, because in some parts of the world the extreme view is much more apparent.

For example in Thailand, some people say that the country isn't ready for Democracy and that the provincial people, largely poor farmers and uneducated, aren't wise in their casting of votes. I find that appalling.

Provincial boondoggles, such as debt forgiveness for farmers, may not be the most effective of state spending projects. Yet again, how many rich farmers do you know? And, what is a better way of getting around state subsidies given WTO committments?

To put it in a nutshell, democracy works universally and everyone is going to vote in their own self interest. You could rail against democracy, but it seems to work, like capitalism does.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/14/2008, 04:58 PM

ITo put it in a nutshell, democracy works universally and everyone is going to vote in their own self interest. You could rail against democracy, but it seems to work, like capitalism does.Agreed. Almost always better than dictatorships. Exceptions would be where people are monumentally ill informed through manipulation or gross ignorance, of the candidates and issues, to the point where the voters don't even know what is their self-interest. Even if the results of the election are chaotic, there should be another election, rather than a power takeover by someone, IMO.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

1/14/2008, 05:00 PM

So, you are arguing the right to own slaves and slave labor? This is the issue with the devaluation of workers.HUH?

Chuck Bao

1/14/2008, 05:17 PM

Agreed. Almost always better than dictatorships. Exceptions would be where people are monumentally ill informed through manipulation or gross ignorance, of the candidates and issues, to the point where the voters don't even know what is their self-interest. Even if the results of the election are chotic, there should be another election, rather than a power takeover by someone, IMO.

I don't accept exceptions for elections and will of the people. I'm not waiting for a judgment call on "monumentally ill informed".

I've traveled around the world and talked to a lot of people about their political views. I'm convinced now that everyone is the same and everyone wants the same - a chance for their children to have a better life. How we get there is open to debate and hopefully that's what the political process is all about. I just don't like discounting anyone's vote or point of view.

usmc-sooner

1/14/2008, 06:08 PM

Bruce???

that's what I was thinking :D :D

Harry Beanbag

1/14/2008, 06:11 PM

I'm a graduate research assistant because I want to be one, not because I have to be one. It's basically a "vacation" after busting my *** in the real world, building a company from the ground up. I've cut $50k checks to the IRS on a quarterly estimate. As such, I've been well into the top bracket. So I've felt the pain of paying taxes, and while I don't know anything about you or your personal life, but I would be surprised if you have felt it more acutely than I have.

But this is how I was raised, and it goes back generations. In advocating this sort of thing, my family has always advocated themselves as being in the higher brackets. So, it's not like we're saying "Take money from other people." We just think that a progressive tax structure is better for the country for a variety of reasons -- which do vary from individual to individual within the family.

http://www.websophist.com/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

Harry Beanbag

1/14/2008, 06:12 PM

While the merits can be debated, the political viability of a fair or flat tax is about as good as lowering the presidental age to 13 so Hannah Montana can ascend to the Whitehouse. Namely because you have to repeal the 16th amendment.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. I'd rather vote for her than any of the buffoons currently running.

usmc-sooner

1/14/2008, 06:14 PM

V, If I'm wrong I apologize up front but wasn't it not to long ago that you said you recently graduated college and were like 23.

Sorry bro but the puffery on this board gets so big you got but on waders.

Mongo

1/14/2008, 06:20 PM

No, actually, I'm a rich millionaire. My doctor told me to get out and carry golf bags a couple of times a week.

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 06:33 PM

V, If I'm wrong I apologize up front but wasn't it not to long ago that you said you recently graduated college and were like 23.

You're mistaken. 28 years old. I went back to college at 23. I worked from 1999-2002. During the Internet bubble. I'm a computer geek who's been using Linux for 14 years, and has been programming since he was 5. Money came easy for people like that during that time period ;)

Especially when you get in on the ground floor of an internet company that eventually gets snatched up by a much larger competitor.

Vaevictis

1/14/2008, 06:47 PM

Harry Beanbag

1/14/2008, 06:47 PM

Oh, and by the way, if any of ya'll mockers want to make a friendly wager, I'll be happy to provide evidence to a neutral third party on the board, and they'll confirm it.

I ain't lying, exaggerating, or anything along those lines. It happened, and I can back it up. :)

http://www.websophist.com/Laughing_RoflSmileyLJ.gif

usmc-sooner

1/14/2008, 09:13 PM

You're mistaken. 28 years old. I went back to college at 23. I worked from 1999-2002. During the Internet bubble. I'm a computer geek who's been using Linux for 14 years, and has been programming since he was 5. Money came easy for people like that during that time period ;)

Especially when you get in on the ground floor of an internet company that eventually gets snatched up by a much larger competitor.

my bad.

OUinFLA

1/14/2008, 11:50 PM

Actually, that's not a bad idea. I'd rather vote for her than any of the buffoons currently running.

well, yeah, but then a ticket to the White House would cost a couple of grand and you'd have to wait in line for 6 days to get one.

Civicus_Sooner

1/15/2008, 12:33 PM

Oh, and by the way, if any of ya'll mockers want to make a friendly wager, I'll be happy to provide evidence to a neutral third party on the board, and they'll confirm it.

I ain't lying, exaggerating, or anything along those lines. It happened, and I can back it up. :)
Great, another dot com accident. Thanks for ruining my portfolio back when Clinton was President and Bush was "Talking down the economy."

I would be more than happy to be that third party.

KABOOKIE

1/15/2008, 01:23 PM

What kind of malpractice insurance does Taco Bell employee have? Didn't think so.

JohnnyMack

1/15/2008, 01:26 PM

What kind of malpractice insurance does Taco Bell employee have? Didn't think so.

:les:I TOLD YOU NO ONIONS ON MY CHALUPA!!! I GONNA SUE YOU!!!!!!

Vaevictis

1/15/2008, 01:31 PM

Great, another dot com accident. Thanks for ruining my portfolio back when Clinton was President and Bush was "Talking down the economy."

We were profitable and privately held, so I'm quite certain we weren't in your portfolio.

In terms of the Internet Bubble, appropriate due diligence and correct design and management would have prevented any ruining of a "portfolio." In short, if your portfolio was ruined, it was because you screwed up somewhere.

Civicus_Sooner

1/15/2008, 01:40 PM

We were profitable and privately held, so I'm quite certain we weren't in your portfolio.

In terms of the Internet Bubble, appropriate due diligence and correct design and management would have prevented any ruining of a "portfolio." In short, if your portfolio was ruined, it was because you screwed up somewhere.Actually the Dow was heavily involved in the Dot Com's. Clinton's entire "Economic boom" was a charade. I'm one of the MAJORITY of investors who had an aggressive mutual fund that lost huge when the economy crashed, due to the dot com bust but whatever.

Vaevictis

1/15/2008, 01:57 PM

Actually the Dow was heavily involved in the Dot Com's. Clinton's entire "Economic boom" was a charade. I'm one of the MAJORITY of investors who had an aggressive mutual fund that lost huge when the economy crashed, due to the dot com bust but whatever.

Heh, if your portfolio was "ruined," you still screwed up and mismanaged your portfolio. That lots of other people did too doesn't change that fact.

It really doesn't take a financial genius to realize that a security might not be a good investment if it is not turning a profit, has never turned a profit, and has no prospects of turning a profit

Vaevictis

1/15/2008, 03:27 PM

What kind of malpractice insurance does Taco Bell employee have? Didn't think so.

What does that have to do with anything?

Vaevictis

1/15/2008, 03:49 PM

What kind of malpractice insurance does Taco Bell employee have? Didn't think so.

Re my own post:

General Business Liability Insurance, yes? Except usually it's "paid" for by the company (and in a round-about way, factored into the paycheck.)

Harry Beanbag

1/15/2008, 05:57 PM

Re my own post:

General Business Liability Insurance, yes? Except usually it's "paid" for by the company (and in a round-about way, factored into the paycheck.)

So if Taco Bell wasn't worried about an employee taking a dump in the refried beans, thus forcing them to have liability insurance, they would pay their burrito stuffers more than minimum wage? Somehow I doubt that.

Mongo

1/15/2008, 05:59 PM

I am hungry for a bean burrito for some reason

Civicus_Sooner

1/15/2008, 06:00 PM

So if Taco Bell wasn't worried about an employee taking a dump in the refried beans, thus forcing them to have liability insurance, they would pay their burrito stuffers more than minimum wage? Somehow I doubt that.Great point, ever notice that stuff smells the same going down as out?

Bleh

Harry Beanbag

1/15/2008, 06:07 PM

I am hungry for a bean burrito for some reason

When you bite into it and it squirts out onto your shirt can you call it a Cleveland Steamer?

Frozen Sooner

1/15/2008, 06:16 PM

Re my own post:

General Business Liability Insurance, yes? Except usually it's "paid" for by the company (and in a round-about way, factored into the paycheck.)

General Commercial Liability Insurance is not the same thing as E&O ("malpractice") insurance and the two should not be confused.

Vaevictis

1/15/2008, 07:10 PM

General Commercial Liability Insurance is not the same thing as E&O ("malpractice") insurance and the two should not be confused.

It's not the same thing, but then, neither are selling tacos and giving medical advice. Is General Commercial Liability not the equivalent, given the different line of business?

EDIT: Or, is Taco Bell's business such that they need E&O and hence they do actually buy a real equivalent anyway?

Frozen Sooner

1/15/2008, 07:25 PM

It's not the same thing, but then, neither are selling tacos and giving medical advice. Is General Commercial Liability not the equivalent, given the different line of business?

In a word? No.

E&O insurance covers liability arising specifically from the practice of a profession outside the bounds of usual and accepted practice. E&O specifically excludes premises liability, product liability, and other liability that is covered under GCLI.

GCLI covers liability arising from the operation of a business specifically excluding professional work.

A professional would need to carry both GCLI and E&O.

For example:

You go to your doctor's office and slip and fall on the pavement outside the building. The doctor's GCLI policy would respond under the no-fault medical payments portion of his policy. The E&O carrier would not.

You go to an attorney. He fails to adequately represent you at trial and you sue him for malpractice. His E&O policy would respond, while his GCLI policy would not.

You hire an architect to design a building for you. The building later collapses, injuring you. At this point, you're going to have a policy fight: the GCLI carrier is going to claim it's an E&O claim (the building was improperly designed) while the E&O carrier is going to claim it's a GCLI claim (the building is a product of the architect.) Generally, this is why it's best to have E&O and GCLI through the same carrier-the carrier at that point will hash out which policy applies later.

Further, E&O generally covers on a "claims-made" basis: that is, no matter when the liability arose, the policy in effect when the claim is made is the policy that responds. If you're retired and failed to purchase a "tail" on your policy, then someone sues you? You're screwed. GCLI covers on an occurence basis (generally.) No matter when the claim happens, the date of occurence triggers coverage.

Several decades ago, GCLI was written on an unlimited basis. When all the asbestos lawsuits came about, all those insurers who wrote policies that expired in the 40s and 50s all of a sudden became liabile to pay out multimillion dollar claims! Of course, now GCLI is written with a policy limit. :D

Anyhow, answering your question: E&O covers things that are specifically excluded from GCLI. GCLI covers things that are specifically excluded from E&O. They cannot be considered the same thing, even allowing for differences in business.

In the Taco Bell example, GCLI would respond for the malicious acts of an employee. If, for whatever reason, Taco Bell had an E&O policy, it would not respond-acts that are meant to intentionally harm a client are not covered under E&O. Under GCLI, only malicious acts of the named insured are excluded.

To answer your edit: I can't think of a reason why Taco Bell would need E&O coverage.

Vaevictis

1/15/2008, 07:29 PM

So if Taco Bell wasn't worried about an employee taking a dump in the refried beans, thus forcing them to have liability insurance, they would pay their burrito stuffers more than minimum wage? Somehow I doubt that.

Burrito stuffer? Probably not; market pretty much sets them at minimum wage. Store manager? Corporate employee? Sure.

Vaevictis

1/15/2008, 07:33 PM

To answer your edit: I can't think of a reason why Taco Bell would need E&O coverage.

So what kind of policy would Taco Bell need for a situation where an employee leaves food at an incorrect temperature, and a patron gets sick and dies from as a result?

Frozen Sooner

1/15/2008, 07:34 PM

I'll give you another example of an E&O claim:

An insurance broker has a client with several different personal lines placed through the brokerage. He writes the client an umbrella policy with the same carrier as the client's auto and homeowners policy (which actually is a usual and accepted practice: makes things easier to track and there's never a policy fight if someoen gets sued.)

One issue: the broker knew that the client took frequent trips to Europe and the umbrella policy only covered the standard policy area (the United States and Canada.) The broker further had umbrella policies that covered worldwide, but failed to inform his client of their availability.

The client's son borrowed the client's rental car in France and killed a family in a wreck. The client was not insured - the son wasn't listed as a driver on the car, so the insurance he puchased through the rental agency wouldn't cover. The client ended up paying $5 million out of pocket. Being pretty royally ****ed at his agent, he sued the agent and recovered every single penny of it. Why? Because the agent made an error in professional judgement that cost the client.