Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[steve s]

Originally Posted by Elypsis44 View Post
This.

I'd love for a conservative/republican answer this.

AlBell, where was the Tea Party outrage when W was spending like there was no tomorrow?

It's probably because the deficit tripled under Obama.

Tea Baggers are psychic? They deliberately withheld protesting against Bush because they knew he'd drive the economy off the cliff and leave us with the worst economic conditions in eighty years and Obama would have to spend a lot in order to stave off another Great Depression?

Steve S

 

[Tricky]

Is that just another way to say wealth redistribution?

Wealth redistribution happens under any system of government. In the US, wealth redistribution has happened at an incredible rate over the last 20-30 years. Indeed, there is practically no middle class anymore.

And it's not a matter of "fair" or "unfair" really. It is a matter of what is best for our country to thrive. In my experience, the greatest modern era of the US was in the post WWII era when the middle class was thriving and growing. Now it shrinking, and our country is suffering. And it is not the rich who are suffering.

If you want our country to thrive, work to bring about a strong middle class by bringing the poor up to the middle and by bringing some of the ultra-wealthy back to just wealthy. Capitalism is good, but like any good thing, when you take it to extremes, it can be unhealthy. I've recently said the same thing about unions. They have a place. They do not need to control everything. Balance, grasshopper.

What I'm seeing from the Republican party right now is that they have little interest in helping the middle class or helping the poor achieve the middle class. They mouth platitudes about helping "small business", but what they really aim for is helping big business and the very wealthy. That is why they have people willing to donate more money to this election than what most people will earn in a lifetime. Because they want to elect the party which will allow them to remain ultra-wealthy. Will that money be spent on helping the middle class? No. It will be spent on expensive advertisement that makes them sound plausible. And the sad thing is, it works. You can convince a dirt-poor Tea Party member that making the rich richer is actually good for him. Tell him it's about "taxes" and "immigrants". The smoke screen will probably work. And even if they get all their buck-licking candidates elected, they'll still blame the government. It will always be their fault. So let's slash regulations again so the ultra-rich can get hyper-rich.

Look at the redistribution of wealth over the last quarter century. This isn't a fantasy. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame to some extent, but the first time a President says he wants it to change, the buck-lickers go ballistic.

 

[Neally]

It wasn't rambling. I pointed out the silliness of "fairness".
A.) If you don't give a damn about the inherent unfairness of being born disadvantaged then don't appeal to the unfairness of a progressive tax system.

I don't care about the unfairness of some being born into a better environment than others because there will always be some people that do better than others, except of course in the utopian fantasy of communism. And I will appeal to the unfairness of a progressive tax system.

B.) It is not impossible to improve the lives of those born into poverty.

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was impossible to control the fact that some will be born into better and some into worse environments, namely wealthier and poorer families.

I'm not egging on anything.

I never said you were.

I call BS on "fairness" only for the rich. People who are born into wealth have an unfair benefit. Ignoring that while focusing on some sense of fairness when it comes to increasing the benefits of the rich is not internally consistent.

The current situation is unfair with 50% of the people paying no income tax and the wealthy are paying a disproportionate share. To make it more fair involves them paying less and others paying more. There is nothing "internally inconsistent" about that.

And again, dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to nations with progressive tax systems. Asking what is "fair" only as it relates to the rich is the wrong question. Ask what works to benefit most people because at the end of the day that is what is most fair?

Wrong question. What would benefit most people would be taking everything away from the richest and giving it to everyone else.

One last thing, asking questions ISN'T trolling.

I never said you were. Read the quote attribution.

I have taken care of over half of your unsubstantiated 50% claim.

I am not saying that 50% of the population doesn't pay federal income tax

LOL. You keep disputing the claim yet admit that it was correct. Make up your mind.

Don't you know? All those people, retired, infirm, poor, unemployed, are PARASITES to the Right in this country.

More trolling and strawmen. Can I play too? All the rich are greedy, evil, filthy capitalists that have a sole goal to oppress the poor to the left in this country.

I agree with Neally: poor people have it easy.

If you don't believe me, then I can google up some dubious statistics.

Yet another one chiming in about unsubstantiated claims, or "dubious statistics", yet fails to be able to refute them.

 

[RandFan]

¹I don't care about the unfairness of some being born into a better environment than others because there will always be some people that do better than others, except of course in the utopian fantasy of communism. And I will appeal to the unfairness of a progressive tax system.

²I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was impossible to control the fact that some will be born into better and some into worse environments, namely wealthier and poorer families.

³The current situation is unfair with 50% of the people paying no income tax and the wealthy are paying a disproportionate share. To make it more fair involves them paying less and others paying more. There is nothing "internally inconsistent" about that.

⁴Wrong question. What would benefit most people would be taking everything away from the richest and giving it to everyone else.

1. We can and have improved the lives of the poor and disadvantaged.
2. The impossibility of controlling the status people are born is a straw man, a red herring. We can do something to level the playing field for the disadvantaged. Raising their taxes isn't one of them.
3. If you agree that we can make the playing field more equatable for the disadvantaged but then only complain about rich paying taxes then that is the very definition of inconsistent. The rich benefit from living in an American society. It's inherently unfair to expect them to benefit so much but not pay enough to benefit others who were disadvantaged in the same society. If you cared about fairness you would care about leveling the playing field of the disadvantaged as much as the tax rates of the rich. You certainly wouldn't ask the disadvantaged to pay more in taxes.
4. A.) Straw man. B.) No, that would be very bad for everyone (see Communist China, North Korea, former Soviet Union). We are only asking for progressive tax rates. Like in most if not all other flourishing western industrial nations.

In the long run it's in the best interest of everyone to help those who are disadvantaged. It's unfair that they are disadvantaged but that's not my argument. My argument is that making their lives better will improve society and benefit everyone.

Dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to nations that provide social services and strong social safety nets. That costs money.

 

[Neally]

We can and have improved the lives of the poor and disadvantaged.

I never said otherwise. Why you keep pushing this red herring is a mystery.

The impossibility of controlling the status people are born is a straw man, a red herring.

You're the one that went off on that tangent and red herring:"Is it fair for one child to be born into poverty and the other child to be born into wealth? How do we make that fair?"

If you agree that we can make the playing field more equatable for the disadvantaged but then only complain about rich paying taxes then that is the very definition of inconsistent.

Two topics. For some reason you keep trying to tie them together.

If you cared about fairness you would care about leveling the playing field of the disadvantaged as much as the tax rates of the rich.

You do not know how much I care about the disadvantaged. Further it has nothing to do with my point about equitable tax rates or my point about how half of the population doesn't pay any federal income tax.

 

[Corsair 115]

Yeah, as a life long conservative I bought into that. It's nonsense of course. What opened my eyes was that there were plenty of examples that disproved the idea and none that supported it. Which sounds odd since I'm a fan of Ayn Rand.

How dare you! How dare you place evidence above ideology and proof above politics!

 

[Corsair 115]

... and the wealthy are paying a disproportionate share.

And what proportion of the total income is made by the wealthy? Does that not affect the proportion of total income tax paid by the wealthy? If they account for a greater share of the income then naturally they'll account for a greater share of the taxes paid.

To date you have not addressed the income share side of the matter at all.

What would benefit most people would be taking everything away from the richest and giving it to everyone else.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall anyone in this thread arguing for the bolded.

 

[RandFan]

I never said otherwise. Why you keep pushing this red herring is a mystery.

It's unfair that people are born disadvantaged. We could do something to level the playing field. Raising their taxes won't help.

Two topics. For some reason you keep trying to tie them together.

I don't buy the fairness argument. Life isn't fair and those who appeal to fairness are inconsistent. I think focusing on "fairness" is the wrong focus. Progressive tax rates are negatively correlated to dysfunctional societies.

You do not know how much I care about the disadvantaged.

I know you want to raise their taxes and further disadvantage them while giving more advantages to those who were already born with lots of advantages.

Further it has nothing to do with my point about equitable tax rates or my point about how half of the population doesn't pay any federal income tax.

Yeah it does. You want to raise the taxes of the disadvantaged shifting more of the burden to them and less to the advantaged. It has everything to do with it.

 

[RandFan]

How dare you! How dare you place evidence above ideology and proof above politics!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

And what proportion of the total income is made by the wealthy? Does that not affect the proportion of total income tax paid by the wealthy? If they account for a greater share of the income then naturally they'll account for a greater share of the taxes paid.

To date you have not addressed the income share side of the matter at all.





Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall anyone in this thread arguing for the bolded.

"the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined … The share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007. The share received by the other 19 percent of households in the highest income quintile (one-fifth of the population as divided by income) was fairly flat over the same period, edging up from 35% to 36%." [46]

So, basically, the top 20% apparently pay the majority of the taxes because they recieve the majority of the income. Shocker.

 

[BenBurch]

...

1. 
   
   ⁴A.) Straw man. B.) No, that would be very bad for everyone (see Communist China, North Korea, former Soviet Union). We are only asking for progressive tax rates. Like in most if not all other flourishing western industrial nations.

In the long run it's in the best interest of everyone to help those who are disadvantaged. It's unfair that they are disadvantaged but that's not my argument. My argument is that making their lives better will improve society and benefit everyone.

Dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to nations that provide social services and strong social safety nets. That costs money.

It is a slippery-slope fallacy, whats more.

Just because a woman has sex with one man before (or instead of) marriage that does not make her a whore.

Just because it is legal to sell pornographic books, that does not mean they will be grade school textbooks by next year.

Just because the state university raised tuition, this does not mean that they will eventually charge $100,000 a class-hour.

Just because a Republican opened a door for an old woman, this does not mean he plans to leave her retirement intact.

 

[Neally]

And what proportion of the total income is made by the wealthy? Does that not affect the proportion of total income tax paid by the wealthy? If they account for a greater share of the income then naturally they'll account for a greater share of the taxes paid.

To date you have not addressed the income share side of the matter at all.

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. Google is your friend.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall anyone in this thread arguing for the bolded.

You did miss it. My response was to the silly argument that the the fairest thing to do was to do the greatest good for the most people. Tyranny of the majority.

 

[RandFan]

You did miss it. My response was to the silly argument that the the fairest thing to do was to do the greatest good for the most people. Tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny of the majority in this case would be a non-sequitur. Also, while it is arguably the most fair it's not the compelling argument. That it is in the best interest of everyone is the compelling argument. Dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to non-cooperating societies, and/or societies without strong social safety nets and social programs.

This is true for a number of reasons including our ability to feel empathy and, also, that much of our brain trust, talent, etc. is contained within our lower tiers of society. Which is why caste systems and social status is so idiotic. The rich are not inherently more likely to produce gifted individuals. Potential for talent and intelligence potential is distributed evenly throughout society. When we fail to give a leg up to the disadvantaged due to social status we exclude a large portion of our greatest assets from contributing to social progress.

In short, dysfunctional societies are less successful because they waste much of their natural human talent. It is in the best interest for the rich to pay a progressive tax to further the interests of society and hence their own interests.

 

[AlBell]

Tyranny of the majority in this case would be a non-sequitur. Also, while it is arguably the most fair it's not the compelling argument. That it is in the best interest of everyone is the compelling argument. Dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to non-cooperating societies, and/or societies without strong social safety nets and social programs.

This is true for a number of reasons including our ability to feel empathy and, also, that much of our brain trust, talent, etc. is contained within our lower tiers of society. Which is why caste systems and social status is so idiotic. The rich are not inherently more likely to produce gifted individuals. Potential for talent and intelligence potential is distributed evenly throughout society. When we fail to give a leg up to the disadvantaged due to social status we exclude a large portion of our greatest assets from contributing to social progress.

In short, dysfunctional societies are less successful because they waste much of their natural human talent. It is in the best interest for the rich to pay a progressive tax to further the interests of society and hence their own interests.

Since they already do so what is your point?

 

[AlBell]

Are you serious? Sometimes I'm blown away. Uh, yeah. That humans evolved to be a social species is a scientific fact. That we are evolved for reciprocal altruism is a pretty solid theory. It is a robust scientific model with both explanatory and predictive power. See Sociobiology, Selfish Gene, Evolutionary game theory. Also, as I hammer home on nearly a daily basis, dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to cooperation and social services.

What else should I have expected from someone who has convinced himself (by too often ignoring the correlation-causation problem) neo-Keynesianism actually works as advertised?

Debt at some point is the problem; paraphrasing Reagan, inflation is the cruelest tax, borne disproportately by the poor and middle class.

ps. We have social services and have had them since the mid-60's. Cooperation? Not so much, and none in congress.

 

[Unabogie]

What else should I have expected from someone who has convinced himself (by too often ignoring the correlation-causation problem) neo-Keynesianism actually works as advertised?

Debt at some point is the problem; paraphrasing Reagan, inflation is the cruelest tax, borne disproportately by the poor and middle class.

ps. We have social services and have had them since the mid-60's. Cooperation? Not so much, and none in congress.

But we don't have inflation right now, while we do have massive flight of capital from the middle to the top. So while I can agree that inflation can be a problem, over-taxation can be a problem, and over-regulation can be a problem, why can't you agree that under-taxation of the rich is a problem, under-regulation of vital areas like the financial markets can be a problem, and massive transfers of wealth from all of us to a wealthy few can be a problem?

And I notice that you're not addressing the fact that Romney will explode the debt by trillions. If so, then isn't Romney proposing the cruelest tax?

 

[RandFan]

What else should I have expected from someone who has convinced himself (by too often ignoring the correlation-causation problem) neo-Keynesianism actually works as advertised?

A.) This isn't about Keynesianism. B.) Correlation-causation is only problem if it is used in an attempt to prove something without further justification. C.) Negative correlation is a different kettle of fish.

Debt at some point is the problem; paraphrasing Reagan, inflation is the cruelest tax, borne disproportately by the poor and middle class.

A.) This isn't about debt either. B.) Inflation isn't a necessary result of my argument.

ps. We have social services and have had them since the mid-60's.

Never said otherwise. Social services are cooperation and they are negatively correlated with dysfunctional societies for a reason.

Cooperation? Not so much, and none in congress.

Not the cooperation I'm talking about (hint: see social services).

 

[Unabogie]

Since they already do so what is your point?

Doesn't the far right want to change this with things like a flat tax and abolishing the capital gains taxes and estate taxes?

By the way, the rich pay a lower tax than you or I do. Romney only pays 14% on his income. I pay much more than that.

 

[RandFan]

Since they already do so what is your point?

Don't flatten the tax. I thought that was rather obvious as my argument was in response to Neally calling for a flat tax.

 

[Random]

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. Google is your friend.

The top one percent make 19 percent of the income but pay only one percent of cigarette taxes in the US. I don’t pay any cigarette taxes at all. I don’t pay any corporate taxes either. So what?

Yes, the Federal Income tax is progressive. It’s supposed to be. It’s based on the idea that the more money you have, the more money can be taken from you in taxes without affecting your standard of living. Going from $30k before taxes to $24k after taxes is a big dent in your standard of living. Going from $3 million a year to $2.4 million a year is not.

Frankly I find the constant repetition of the “half of Americans pay no income tax” to be a very ugly fraud. While technically true, it is designed to confuse people as to what is actually going on. Many people hear this line and think that half of Americans pay no taxes at all, and the GOP is not exactly going out of its way to correct them. It’s a way to justify slashing away at the safety net and keep the have-nots and the have-littles at each other throats while the small handful of have-a-lots sit on the sidelines counting their money.

Works too. The bottom 50% are not paying "just 3 percent of the taxes". Granted that was probably a mistake on your part in not being suffiently precise, but enough of those little mistakes on Fox and Friends, the Sunday morning bobblehead shows, web forums, etc., and you can create the impression that the poorest half of Americans are nothing but parasites, when it is just not the case. It turns into one of those "everyone knows" sort of things that never go away no matter how many times you refute them.

Again, the poor are paying gas taxes, Medicare taxes, Social Security taxes, etc. They are paying taxes, and I see no reason to trash talk them because they don’t make enough money to pay one particular tax.