Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[RandFan]

The goal apparently being to punish those who's earnings increased and reward those that earnings decreased?

More straw men. No Neally, that's not the goal and you know that. Which means that your argument isn't simply a straw man. It's a lie. The goal is to ensure financial responsibilities are met while providing for the health and well being of citizens. To improve society for all.

 

[RandFan]

In short, according to the Dartmouth study, the Republican Party either (a) loves deficits or (b) is living in fantasy land...

Personally, I think it's a mix of the two. I think the saner Republicans actually don't care about the deficit. And most of the base, the Fox News crowd if you will, are deluded souls hanging on for dear life to the myths of Reaganomics.

I've always been registered third-party, but I never thought I'd actually be totally opposed to the Republican Party. However, somehow they've become completely disconnected from reality, and that's a sure deal-breaker.

I was a life long Republican. Then I figured out that the meme "it's just not fair" is short-sighted at best and cynical propaganda at worst. Personal property rights of all should be ensured to the point that society can meet its obligations and ensure the health and welfare of citizens. That's just common sense.

 

[Corsair 115]

Which has nothing to do with determining appropriate tax levels, or maybe you are proposing that the best way to determine tax rates is to see who's income went up or down the most and and raise or lower the rates based on that?

If you read my posts carefully you'll notice I'm not advocating anything. I am, however, offering points worth examining, or counterpoints for consideration. You continue to focus on the significance of one tiny slice of the income and taxation statistics. I was hoping that perhaps you would see there is a much larger set of data to consider.

The goal apparently being to punish those who's earnings increased and reward those that earnings decreased?

Your choice of words is interesting. Why do you use "punish"? What prompted the choice of that particular word?


Interesting fact I once graphed from Census Bureau historical data on household income from 1947-2009. From 1947 to 1979 the rate of increase in the income across all quintiles and the top 5% was almost identical. That is, in 1979 the income made by each quintile and the top 5% was about double the income made by each respective group in 1947. There was remarkable similarity in how income grew across the income spectrum.

But after 1979 something interesting happens. That nearly identical rate of income growth disappears and is replaced by a wide divergence between the various income groups. By 2009 the top 5% had seen their income grow to three times its 1947 income, while the lowest quintile was still only at twice its 1947 income, the same place it had been in 1979.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Which has nothing to do with determining appropriate tax levels, or maybe you are proposing that the best way to determine tax rates is to see who's income went up or down the most and and raise or lower the rates based on that? The goal apparently being to punish those who's earnings increased and reward those that earnings decreased?

I don't necessarily have a problem with current rates, seeing as only about 2% of households are actually in the top income bracket. The problem that some methods of income are treated more favorably than others. Short term capital gains for instance. Romney has been paying about 14.someodd% on his taxes - or less than half of the income tax rates he should have paid. I could see treating retirement vehicles favorably, but not short term gains.

Also, since you didn't answer before, I'll ask again: who hurts less, an income of $20k at 20% or an income of $2m at 30% tax?

Is the person earning $2m being punished in my example? Would you rather punish those earnings that are low? Aren't flat taxes which don't have reasonably high starting points regressive? That is, after adjusting for basic necessities (food, housing, etc), aren't the poorest having the most extra income taken under a flat tax scheme?

 

[Neally]

If you read my posts carefully you'll notice I'm not advocating anything. I am, however, offering points worth examining, or counterpoints for consideration. You continue to focus on the significance of one tiny slice of the income and taxation statistics. I was hoping that perhaps you would see there is a much larger set of data to consider.

The amount that ones income increases or decreases year to year should have no impact on determining the appropriate tax rates that should be established. What I find interesting is when the attention is drawn to existing disproportionate rate structure, people dig up all sorts of other data to try to excuse it.

Your choice of words is interesting. Why do you use "punish"? What prompted the choice of that particular word?

Because of the obsessive efforts of the left which seem to be in a large part based on wealth envy and attempts to try to equalize the wealth distribution rather than an equitable way to fund the government.

Also, since you didn't answer before, I'll ask again: who hurts less, an income of $20k at 20% or an income of $2m at 30% tax?

I did answer it before. Focusing on how bad a tax "hurts" is a lame way to determine appropriate tax policy:"Tax 'til it hurts".

Is the person earning $2m being punished in my example? Would you rather punish those earnings that are low?

Taxes "hurt" everyone that has to pay them.

Aren't flat taxes which don't have reasonably high starting points regressive? That is, after adjusting for basic necessities (food, housing, etc), aren't the poorest having the most extra income taken under a flat tax scheme?

Everything that costs money is regressive-taking a higher portion of a poor persons income than a rich person. Somehow though we don't seem people screaming about the regressive cost of food, and how we should price food based on a persons income so that it isn't so regressive.

 

[Biscuit]

Of course they are, as are others that do have income but pay no taxes.

But the majority of your 50% do NOT have income or income sufficient to pay federal income tax yet they ALL pay other taxes. No one in America pays 0 in taxes, no one.

You know why your 50% meme is utter nonsense but its not about honest debate is it?

 

[IchabodPlain]

I did answer it before. Focusing on how bad a tax "hurts" is a lame way to determine appropriate tax policy:"Tax 'til it hurts".

That isnt an answer since you already have agreed that all taxes hurt. Logically then, there is no way to not tax 'til it hurts.

Taxes "hurt" everyone that has to pay them.

Exactly. Given this, why shouldn't the focus be on how to make them hurt the least?

Everything that costs money is regressive-taking a higher portion of a poor persons income than a rich person. Somehow though we don't seem people screaming about the regressive cost of food, and how we should price food based on a persons income so that it isn't so regressive.

We do have food assistence. Food is also individually purchased, not bought from a collective pool of resources, as government services are. Practically it is difficult to do, but to pretend we don't offer free/reduced lunch for kids, food stamps, and other assistence is flat wrong.

 

[Neally]

But the majority of your 50% do NOT have income or income sufficient to pay federal income tax yet they ALL pay other taxes.

Sure there are other taxes that are paid by others. I'm talking about federal income tax. Some of those in the 50% group DO have income yet pay no taxes due to the current tax structure and rates. That should change so that everyone pays their fair share.

You know why your 50% meme is utter nonsense but its not about honest debate is it?

The statistic so very uncomfortable to the left that they are constantly looking for other numbers to prop up their position that the rich aren't paying their fair share and that the progressive tax needs to be even more progressive. Wouldn't want them greedy rich getting richer on the backs of the proletariat.

Exactly. Given this, why shouldn't the focus be on how to make them hurt the least?

Because that leads to tyranny of the majority and the goal isn't to make taxes equally painful. People all use government services funded by income taxes, people all need to pitch in through income taxes. We could try to make it painless for 90% of the people by forcing 10% to dig really deep, but I reject that as an equitable solution. As I said before, I'm open to alternate government funding schemes.

We do have food assistence. Food is also individually purchased, not bought from a collective pool of resources, as government services are.

And? Again, anything that cost money is regressive. The fact that a flat tax would be also is no rationale that therefore it is bad and should not be considered.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Because that leads to tyranny of the majority.

Evidence?

We could try to make it painless for 90% of the people by forcing 10% to dig really deep, but I reject that as an equitable solution.

Non-sequitor. You proposed it as equitable, and you rejected it - no surprise there.

As I said before, I'm open to alternate government funding schemes.

You did. I asked for you to elaborate, but since you didn't I thought you weren't able to come up with anything better than the current scheme.

And? Again anything that cost money is regressive. The fact that a flat tax would be also is no rationale that therefore it is bad and should not be considered.

You said no one screams about the regressive cost of food. I pointed out that we recognize this and make adjustments for it to be less regressive. Your response is "And?" That's it?

Isn't it obvious that we do take steps to minimize harm to the worst off where possible?

 

[IchabodPlain]

Just to be clear Neally, you're not going to provide an answer to my question? Saying tax 'til it hurts is an oxymoron, so I hope you'll accept why it isnt an answer.

 

[BenBurch]

This may have been mentioned in another thread, but in case you haven't seen it:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/25/chart_gop_won_t_cut_the_deficit.html

In short, according to the Dartmouth study, the Republican Party either (a) loves deficits or (b) is living in fantasy land...

Personally, I think it's a mix of the two. I think the saner Republicans actually don't care about the deficit. And most of the base, the Fox News crowd if you will, are deluded souls hanging on for dear life to the myths of Reaganomics.

I've always been registered third-party, but I never thought I'd actually be totally opposed to the Republican Party. However, somehow they've become completely disconnected from reality, and that's a sure deal-breaker.

Thank you for posting that, most interesting.

 

[Biscuit]

Sure there are other taxes that are paid by others. I'm talking about federal income tax. Some of those in the 50% group DO have income yet pay no taxes due to the current tax structure and rates. That should change so that everyone pays their fair share.

So you finally acknowledge your 50% in a dishonest point to begin your argument from. Now of the 50% find out just who should be paying but doesn't.

The statistic so very uncomfortable to the left that they are constantly looking for other numbers to prop up their position that the rich aren't paying their fair share and that the progressive tax needs to be even more progressive. Wouldn't want them greedy rich getting richer on the backs of the proletariat.

I don't recall saying any of that. I have from the beginning wanted you to admit that the 50% stat is bogus and unhelpful. From that starting point we can not move on because its dishonest at best.

If you would like to find the actual percent from which to launch your argument I would be happy to continue.

 

[Neally]

Non-sequitor. You proposed it as equitable, and you rejected it - no surprise there.

Pointing to the fact that your proposal of minimizing the pain as some sort of criteria is hardly acceptable.

You did. I asked for you to elaborate, but since you didn't I thought you weren't able to come up with anything better than the current scheme.

I have. In case you haven't noticed, a flat tax.

You said no one screams about the regressive cost of food. I pointed out that we recognize this and make adjustments for it to be less regressive. Your response is "And?" That's it?

Yep. Everything that cost money is regressive. Your response, we have "food assistence."

Isn't it obvious that we do take steps to minimize harm to the worst off where possible?

Isn't it obvious that everyone needs to help with funding the government if they have income?

Just to be clear Neally, you're not going to provide an answer to my question? Saying tax 'til it hurts is an oxymoron, so I hope you'll accept why it isnt an answer.

I clearly responded. That you don't like the fact that I reject the criteria of "who hurts less" as a way to figure a tax scheme is your problem.

So you finally acknowledge your 50% in a dishonest point to begin your argument from. Now of the 50% find out just who should be paying but doesn't.

Not at all. It highlights the uncomfortable statistic. Those that should be paying federal income tax are those with income.

The top 1% of federal income taxpayers paid 36.7% of the income taxes at an average rate of 24.01%. The Bottom 50% paid 2.3% of the income taxes at an average rate of 1.85%. I say tax everyone at the same tax rate.

 

[DavidJames]

I say tax everyone at the same tax rate.

Have you done the math to see what rate is needed to get the revenues required?

 

[RandFan]

Everything that costs money is regressive-taking a higher portion of a poor persons income than a rich person. Somehow though we don't seem people screaming about the regressive cost of food, and how we should price food based on a persons income so that it isn't so regressive.

Oddly enough we have food stamps.

In any event, at the end of the day the pragmatic argument is the one you cannot debate against. It is better for rich people to pay more for social services to help the disadvantaged. A better society is by and large better for everyone. Nations with progressive taxation are negatively correlated to dysfunctional societies. There is a reason for that.

 

[RandFan]

I have. In case you haven't noticed, a flat tax.

It could only make society worse. It would be a short sighted attempt to make society more fair while ignoring the needs of the disadvantage and less well off. In the end it serves no purpose. That the rich have gotten richer doesn't mean that they are happier or society is better. The flat tax is a tunnel vision view of society. It's silly and stupid.

 

[progressquest]

Isn't it obvious that everyone needs to help with funding the government if they have income?

I just want to point out your dishonesty here. You claim that 50% of individuals pay no income tax. We are trying to explain that that statistic is meaningless in light of the fact that everyone pays taxes in one form or another, but you are rejecting that argument because it is inconvenient to you. But, you are showing your cards with this quote.

 

[Random]

The top 1% of federal income taxpayers paid 36.7% of the income taxes at an average rate of 24.01%. The Bottom 50% paid 2.3% of the income taxes at an average rate of 1.85%. I say tax everyone at the same tax rate.

Add in all Federal, State and local taxes and we basically do tax everyone at the same rate. That's why the push to "flatten out" the proressive income tax, while allowing regressive taxes to remain in place is so wrong.

 

[AlBell]

More straw men. No Neally, that's not the goal and you know that. Which means that your argument isn't simply a straw man. It's a lie. The goal is to ensure financial responsibilities are met while providing for the health and well being of citizens. To improve society for all.

In that case you and others are wasting time focussing on income when wealth -- assets -- is a better key. A 100% taxrate on income doesn't raise enough revenues; where will you stop? 1000%? 2000%?

To me there is an implicit 5th Amendment problem in a requirement to provide the IRS (or whatever) a full list of assets.

 

[AlBell]

Oddly enough we have food stamps.

In any event, at the end of the day the pragmatic argument is the one you cannot debate against. It is better for rich people to pay more for social services to help the disadvantaged. A better society is by and large better for everyone. Nations with progressive taxation are negatively correlated to dysfunctional societies. There is a reason for that.

Now if you or anyone else could just find that reason; hint correlation <> causation.

Nor is there any particular reason "for rich people to pay more for social services to help the disadvantaged" and that that would provide a "better society".