Herman Cain leads by 20 points!

[Dancing David]

The point here is subtle.

Is it right that about half of the population should get a free ride, and pay no taxes?

No.

Then how do you fix that?

You mean the half that are children and the retired, or the small portion who get the EIC?


tell me again why children should pay taxes?

 

[Dancing David]

Try to follow the discussion if you are going to chime in. Read post #115 then come back when you are ready to talk with the adults.

I did, all I saw was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, not really discussion at all. Pretty much you stated "Because I say so", no mention of bills passed with the POTUS endorsement, no real metrics at all.

So when GWB had a HoR and Senate that were more supportive of him, then why didn't he solve all the nation's problems?

 

[Dancing David]

How is it his fault that he's not a good leader, you know like other presidents have been, against the hostile opposing party? Is leadership something learned or born with? Perhaps a thread in another section will be good for discussion, but the point here is that BO can't lead, thus is incapable of fixing the problems we face.

Cue the, "but the GOP/Tea Party are mean, racist, evil doers, so it's not BO's fault..." argument.

And your metrics are?

Lacking, seriously lacking, I mean I know this is the Politics forum and so people just say whatever they want and pretend that assertions are real, but maybe you could pretend that this is the JREF and actually try to demonstrate your thesis.

For one, which POTUS made the most vetos? Was it a POTUS that had a cooperative HoR and Senate or not?

 

[mhaze]

It's a fact. They did just fine in the 90s and earlier with much, much higher tax rates.
....

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.

1. You make a claim about taxes on a guy making 34.5K which is wrong because you don't understand the gradudated rates, and also you forget about deductions.

2. You backtrack from that "small error", and make a new claim about taxes and d"the rich" in "the 90s and earlier".

And again, you've forgot about deductions, loopholes and tax credits.

Sorry, but this is poor work.

Taxes net of deductions, credits and loopholes have not changed that much between the decades in question. For example, we could cite the effects of ACRS depreciation, the effects of "passive loss taxation", and the elimination of double declining balance depreciation in real estate investments.

Maybe just try a different subject to work your claim about the "filthy rich"?

Regardless, I'm now pretty much convinced that you cannot support your claim that Cain's 999 plan would raise less taxes.

But I'm open to having my opinion changed on that.

 

[mhaze]

....tell me again why children should pay taxes?

You mean they shouldn't have to pay state and local sales taxes?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I did, all I saw was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, not really discussion at all. Pretty much you stated "Because I say so", no mention of bills passed with the POTUS endorsement, no real metrics at all.

Neally's only metric for determining if Obama is a good leader seems to be how well he succeeds at getting the Republicans to stop acting like ********.

ETA: I realize that's pretty trollish, but that's the only way I can take statements to the effect of "he can't get Republicans, who have made conscious efforts to stonewall him on everything, to work with him, so he's failed".

 

[leftysergeant]

The point here is subtle.

Is it right that about half of the population should get a free ride, and pay no taxes?

No.

Then how do you fix that?

Close the loop holes that let the rich dirtbags pay no income tax.

 

[leftysergeant]

A police officer shoots if someone's life is in imminent danger. The DoJ spent weeks (or longer) putting together legal justification to kill al-Awlaki. That doesn't strike me as imminent danger.

The SOB was a major figure of an enemy military formation. Does being a citizen make him immune from beign taken out in a war against that enemy formation?

It is kind of standard paractice in military operations to kill high-ranking enemy officials when you get a chance. Levying war on your own country is not a good idea. It kind of neutralizes any advantage that your citizenship offered.

 

[mhaze]

Close the loop holes that let the rich dirtbags pay no income tax.

I assume from that that you want to somehow expand the definition of "income".

Well, while we are doing that, how about expanding the definition of "income" so that all those dirtbag scum kids out demonstrating against wall street are taxed on the "income they receive from their parents"?

And don't forget taxing allowances of 10 year olds, either.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You inflate small mistakes into large mistakes.

Quit lying. It's just as annoying as the straw men you erect.

Yes, I was a bit off regarding my analysis of Cain's 999 plan, but the difference is not actually significant. The plan would not provide nearly enough funds to cover our current spending. It amounts to a tax increase on the poor, ANOTHER tax decrease on the rich, a disincentive to buy goods, and is generally completely irresponsible.

Yes, yes it is significant. Your "analysis" has factual problems in it. You're going to have to provide math to back up your claims.

Rather than address any of that, you just talk about how I made an error with the marginal tax rate. On the whole my analysis was correct.

You're upset that I pointed out an error that renders your "analysis" invalid? Why don't you try and show how your "analysis" is correct with the error fixed instead of getting upset.

Similarly, on the whole my other comment was correct, but you seem intent on nitpicking my posts rather than respond to the larger substance of them.

I'm correcting you on facts and logical fallacies. Use facts and avoid logical fallacies and you won't get corrected.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The SOB was a major figure of an enemy military formation. Does being a citizen make him immune from beign taken out in a war against that enemy formation?

It is kind of standard paractice in military operations to kill high-ranking enemy officials when you get a chance. Levying war on your own country is not a good idea. It kind of neutralizes any advantage that your citizenship offered.

How does this argument address my point about police officers only shooting in situations of imminent danger?

 

[Ladewig]

How does this argument address my point about police officers only shooting in situations of imminent danger?

If you guys are going to continue, is it possible to move it to another thread? This topic has very little to do with Cain's poll numbers or qualifications.

 

[mhaze]

You inflate small mistakes into large mistakes.

Yes, I was a bit off regarding my analysis of Cain's 999 plan, but the difference is not actually significant. The plan would not provide nearly enough funds to cover our current spending. It amounts to a tax increase on the poor, ANOTHER tax decrease on the rich, a disincentive to buy goods, and is generally completely irresponsible.

Rather than address any of that, you just talk about how I made an error with the marginal tax rate. On the whole my analysis was correct.

Similarly, on the whole my other comment was correct, but you seem intent on nitpicking my posts rather than respond to the larger substance of them.

It's the larger substance that he and I have responded to. You haven't proven your claim or even supported it. When you tried 3x to do so, you got the facts wrong to support your conclusion.

 

[leftysergeant]

If you guys are going to continue, is it possible to move it to another thread? This topic has very little to do with Cain's poll numbers or qualifications.

Good point. Just more shiney-thing-dangling when backed into a corner. Republicons have been doing that a lot lately.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Increasing taxes on people who can easily afford it isn't a problem. I don't see why you think it would be a problem.

Well, on another note the traditional liberal view is that the top few percentage of Americans make the majority of the total US income, when it's really not the case. They'd also forget to mention that the majority of Americans get the benefits of government spending whilst contributing almost nothing to the basic costs. Seems a little awkward to be discussing "fairness" there.

Oh, I almost forgot, this is a topic on Cain's straw poll results no? He's doing stronger than I initially thought he'd do. Of course the real entertainment isn't as much his stronger than expected performance, but rather seeing all of his political opponents going nuts over the fact that he's breaking the establishment by running on a different party than his demographic typically votes. Granted the political craziness is nothing new between repubs and demos the last coupla years, his running platform makes that craziness from one end of the aisle look especially entertaining. They should make a reality TV series on it if you all ask me.

 

[Drachasor]

Quit lying. It's just as annoying as the straw men you erect.

I'm not lying. You just clearly don't like the truth when it disagrees with you.

Yes, yes it is significant. Your "analysis" has factual problems in it. You're going to have to provide math to back up your claims.

It had two problems with it. One I forgot to account for the marginal income tax, which only changes things only a little bit. Two I made the mistake of thinking there'd still be capital gains tax, which the 999 plan doesn't have.

You're upset that I pointed out an error that renders your "analysis" invalid? Why don't you try and show how your "analysis" is correct with the error fixed instead of getting upset.

Again, a MINOR problem. And I already posted about how it doesn't change much. You ignored that post.

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.

You can try.

1. You make a claim about taxes on a guy making 34.5K which is wrong because you don't understand the gradudated rates, and also you forget about deductions.

A minor problem, one I corrected for in a post here which you as well ignored.

2. You backtrack from that "small error", and make a new claim about taxes and d"the rich" in "the 90s and earlier".

Marginal income tax for the rich in the 90s was 50%.

You know, maybe I'm mistaken and it is just that you and Newton know nothing about tax revenue or what taxes have been historically, nor anything about the Bush tax cuts.

And again, you've forgot about deductions, loopholes and tax credits.

Sorry, but this is poor work.

Not really, especially since the only support provided for the plan actually getting anyone close to enough money required erroneous reasoning and magic numbers.

But, it's clear that you and Newton are pretty ignorant about our current tax system. I have assumed since you are arguing so strongly that you were aware more of how it worked.

Note, I also ignored EVERYTHING but income tax, and assumed that Cain's plan would raise a lot more than it does (due to people spending all of their money).

Corporations DO get tax breaks, but this reduces expected revenue by about 25% -- about a 25% tax rate for bigger businesses. That doesn't get you down to anywhere close to 9%. So Cain's plan raises less money here.

It also raises less money from Capital Gains tax, because it doesn't have one. Note that merely extending the Bush cut to this tax (20% to 15%) is estimated to cost 100 billion dollars over a decade. As a yearly total, we're talking about well over 100 billion dollars per year.

As for revenue, over 38% of income tax revenue comes from the top 1%. Almost 59% comes from the top 5%. Dramatically reducing the taxes these people pay is going to severely reduce incoming revenue. Slightly increasing the taxes of the poorest people in America cannot remotely make up that difference -- there just isn't enough money there. Are you guys completely unaware of the massive wealth disparity in the USA?

My apologies for assuming you guys knew more than you did.

 

[Drachasor]

Well, on another note the traditional liberal view is that the top few percentage of Americans make the majority of the total US income, when it's really not the case. They'd also forget to mention that the majority of Americans get the benefits of government spending whilst contributing almost nothing to the basic costs. Seems a little awkward to be discussing "fairness" there.

They hold the vast, vast majority of the wealth. The richest 1% hold about 38% of the private wealth. The top 10% have 80% of the total wealth. I'm not sure how you get "that's really not the case." from that.

Taxes paid should be what people can afford to pay to contribute to the government. The rich are rich because of how our government and society is structured. There's no reason for them to not pay higher taxes for the inherent benefits they receive.

 

[Neally]

Taxes paid should be what people can afford to pay to contribute to the government.

Sounds familiar.

The rich are rich because of how our government and society is structured. There's no reason for them to not pay higher taxes for the inherent benefits they receive.

And they do with a flat tax. Everyone pays the same %. Very fair.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Drachasor, you appear to be arguing against positions I haven't taken and then insulting me for being incorrect in said phantom positions. Could you please, for the last time, cut the straw men?

 

[Drachasor]

Sounds familiar.

Strawman, because that's not what I am saying. For instance, I'm not saying the rich should be forced to only consume as much as they need. I merely am saying they should pay taxes which they can afford -- just like everyone else.

And they do with a flat tax. Everyone pays the same %. Very fair.

Except it is not fair, because the poor and lower middle class need much of their money for basic needs and survival. They can't afford the same level of taxes that someone with more money can, and so taxing them at the same rate places a greater burden on them.

This is like proposing that if you and a friend are helping someone move and you can lift 100 lbs, and your friend can lift 500lbs, then you should both do the same amount of work because that's "fair."