| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6700
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
'Logic' according to liberals:
You have two children, and one studies very hard and really works to get a good grade. The other wants to play and have fun and not try as hard to do
well in school.
The first one brings home an A and the second one brings home a D.
You punish the first one by taking away his bike (he earned by doing yard work for neighbors). You reward the second by giving him his brother's
bike... (which he eventually trashes).
The first one is taught that to work hard and do well means you have to lose the rewards of your efforts to your brother... who just learned that if
he does less he gets to keep more!! ?? |
Horse crap from an unemployed rightest.
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
David K, your little fairy tale-like false equivalent simplistic story is a failed example of microeconomics. I suggest you actually read a text book
on macroeconomics and microeconomics and develop a more sophisticated illustration of micro and macroeconomics so that you can posit a more
sustainable and valid example of something based on a truly solid foundation.
I know these silly childlike illustrations work for some people (and I think we all know who they are), just not the knowledgeable people.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
A Key to Understanding Economics
Is that you can take your choice of theories and find a thousand Economists who agree.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
David K, your little fairy tale-like false equivalent simplistic story is a failed example of microeconomics. I suggest you actually read a text book
on macroeconomics and microeconomics and develop a more sophisticated illustration of micro and macroeconomics so that you can posit a more
sustainable and valid example of something based on a truly solid foundation.
I know these silly childlike illustrations work for some people (and I think we all know who they are), just not the knowledgeable people.
|
I went on line, and asked the question on "who pays the income taxes"--------this is the first thing (out of dozens)that I clicked on that came up in
answering above questions.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmo...
Velly interesting!!! David K has it right.
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
No one is disputing the fact that the top pay a higher proportion of the total income tax than any lower % strata. That objective fact is not and has
not been in dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. The same goes for the fact that the current US tax rates are also progressive. That is not in
dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. Those two facts have not been at issue here. I challenge Barry or anyone else to cite posts to this thread
that directly dispute those facts.
Barry and others are missing the point and the issue here. The issue is whether the top earners should be paying even more income tax thru even more
progressive tax rates. That is the issue.
You know, before you can come to any relevant and sound conclusions, you should at least be correct as to what the issue is. The fact that the income
tax rates are progressive has been an established fact for most of the decades that we have had a federal income tax. Barry, you should have known
that long before today and I am quite surprised that you have taken David K's unsophisticated juvenile made up allegory as fact.
I have read and studied economics by both so called liberal and conservative economists and I have never come across any nonsense that even looks
remotely like the child-like interpretation that David K has written. Looks to me like David K got his economic education from "Economics by Dick and
Jane". I shudder to think that you see him as some kind of mentor on the subject...Barry, I give you more credit than that.
[Edited on 5-5-2014 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
No one is disputing the fact that the top pay a higher proportion of the total income tax than any lower % strata. That objective fact is not and has
not been in dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. The same goes for the fact that the current US tax rates are also progressive. That is not in
dispute. How could it be...it is a fact. Those two facts have not been at issue here. I challenge Barry or anyone else to cite posts to this thread
that directly dispute those facts.
Barry and others are missing the point and the issue here. The issue is whether the top earners should be paying even more income tax thru even more
progressive tax rates. That is the issue.
You know, before you can come to any relevant and sound conclusions, you should at least be correct as to what the issue is. The fact that the income
tax rates are progressive has been an established fact for most of the decades that we have had a federal income tax. Barry, you should have known
that long before today and I am quite surprised that you have taken David K's unsophisticated juvenile made up allegory as fact.
I have read and studied economics by both so called liberal and conservative economists and I have never come across any nonsense that even looks
remotely like the child-like interpretation that David K has written. Looks to me like David K got his economic education from "Economics by Dick and
Jane". I shudder to think that you see him as some kind of mentor on the subject...Barry, I give you more credit than that.
[Edited on 5-5-2014 by MitchMan] |
You need to thank DK for explaining the system on a level you can understand.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
You know, Landcaredriver, you are on to something. 
Of course we understand the "progressive tax" system, and we don't like it. I have been a "FLAT TAXER" (ala Steve Forbes, etc.) all my adult life as
the only true fair way to finance Government, and I suspect David K has been also. The progressive tax is simply a way to get more funds into Govt.
hands from the wealthy so that they can blow it on programs that mostly I, and many other's, don't approve of, and corrupt the poor.
It's really easy to understand, but many of you WANT it to be complex for reasons we all understand------to bamboozle the folks into contributing MORE
MONEY!!! i.e. a scam!!!
Barry
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
You know, Landcaredriver, you are on to something.
Of course we understand the "progressive tax" system, and we don't like it. I have been a "FLAT TAXER" (ala Steve Forbes, etc.) all my adult life as
the only true fair way to finance Government, and I suspect David K has been also. The progressive tax is simply a way to get more funds into Govt.
hands from the wealthy so that they can blow it on programs that mostly I, and many other's, don't approve of, and corrupt the poor.
It's really easy to understand, but many of you WANT it to be complex for reasons we all understand------to bamboozle the folks into contributing MORE
MONEY!!! i.e. a scam!!!
Barry |
You got it Barry. We are on the same page. It's hard to understand that after all the years of wealth "re-distribution" the so called "progressives"
think the problem is that even more wealth needs confiscating. More "takers" are joining the system every day, and will soon overwhelm the "givers".
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
What's amazing is that we have many poor right-wingers many of them on fixed incomes of social security, and only living in Mexico to make their
dollar stretch, because the costs are too high in the USA.
Many of these people that I'm talking about, are willing to cut back the social programs, and the safety net of social security, just so ultra rich
people could pay less taxes in America.
I'm sorry, but it's not the ultra rich in America that are suffering. It's the poor and the middle class that is suffering. Let the ultra rich, carry
their own water pails, and fight for their own taxes cuts, and favorable programs that help the rich only.
I'll never understand how poor Americans on fixed income, that pay little income taxes themselves, fight for the super rich, and polices that help
rich corporations, who ofter pay no income taxes.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
What's amazing is that we have many poor right-wingers many of them on fixed incomes of social security, and only living in Mexico to make their
dollar stretch, because the costs are too high in the USA.
Many of these people that I'm talking about, are willing to cut back the social programs, and the safety net of social security, just so ultra rich
people could pay less taxes in America.
I'm sorry, but it's not the ultra rich in America that are suffering. It's the poor and the middle class that is suffering. Let the ultra rich, carry
their own water pails, and fight for their own taxes cuts, and favorable programs that help the rich only.
I'll never understand how poor Americans on fixed income, that pay little income taxes themselves, fight for the super rich, and polices that help
rich corporations, who ofter pay no income taxes. |
It's called fairness, JoJo----i.e. doing what's right and sustainable, and knowing where true prosperity and progress comes from.
It's not rocket-science. -----and just good business.
Barry
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by JoeJustJoe
What's amazing is that we have many poor right-wingers many of them on fixed incomes of social security, and only living in Mexico to make their
dollar stretch, because the costs are too high in the USA.
Many of these people that I'm talking about, are willing to cut back the social programs, and the safety net of social security, just so ultra rich
people could pay less taxes in America.
I'm sorry, but it's not the ultra rich in America that are suffering. It's the poor and the middle class that is suffering. Let the ultra rich, carry
their own water pails, and fight for their own taxes cuts, and favorable programs that help the rich only.
I'll never understand how poor Americans on fixed income, that pay little income taxes themselves, fight for the super rich, and polices that help
rich corporations, who ofter pay no income taxes. |
It's called fairness, JoJo----i.e. doing what's right and sustainable, and knowing where true prosperity and progress comes from.
It's not rocket-science. -----and just good business.
Barry |
OK Barry, I got it.
Corporate welfare is good, but welfare for poor Americans is bad, especially if the poor has dark skin.
If Walmart wants to come into my city, the local politicians should pull out all stops for Walmart, give them free land, subsidies, and offer them tax
abatement . In return Walmart is offer many part time jobs at or barely above minimum wage, and for benefits Walmart will tell it's workers to apply
for welfare to help makes ends meet.
Yeah Barry that's fair. BTW I have no problem with companies like Walmart trying to made things better for themselves, or rich fat cuts fighting for
taxes cuts that will save them thousands of dollars, while giving the middle class a couple of bucks, that's if they don't already owe back taxes.
But Barry why are often dirt poor ultra conservatives fighting for the same things as the Koch Brothers? Is what's good for the Koch Brothers good
for everybody in America?
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
JoJo----------your reply above smacks of a typical lefty dodge--------what does your reply have to do with "income taxes"??? (apples and oranges)
I do NOT support "subsidies" in general--------
What individual cities do with pending applications from WalMart is up to them locally----------
You are making unrelated suppositions that are totally off-base, and not related to the subject at hand------a mistake you often seem to make.
The "Koch Brother's", like George Soros and others, support a system and belief in how Govt. should operate that they personally mostly agree
with---------and they have the ability and resources to make a difference. That is the American Way, and yes I support that as long as everybody pays
attention (as they should) to where that "support" is coming from and the possible ramifications, and vote accordingly.
A Republic does not work well if all individuals don't make the effort to pay attention, stay informed, and vote.
Barry
[Edited on 5-5-2014 by Barry A.]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Barry A.
Of course we understand the "progressive tax" system |
Barry, you�re not making sense. If you already
understand the progressive tax system, why would you look it up? Just another lack of logic for the so-called �Conservatives� (hereinafter referred
to as �Cons�� because that is what they do and who they are�Cons) Also, you really didn�t have to admit that complexity is something that Cons have
trouble with, every body already knows that. You just have to look at the pantheon of Con clown contenders for President in the 2012 elections, e.g.
Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, and especially Herman Caine and Rick Perry. Come on, 2012 Sarah Palin for Vice President? laughable. John McCain
should be deported for that one.
Really, Barry, if it weren�t for tired old and discredited Con talking points that you Cons mouth like hand puppets, I don�t see anything new in what
you have reiterated in your last two posts. Most all economists, many are Cons, know that a flat tax would be ruinous to this country. All
economists know that it would create an even greater disparity of income and wealth than what we now have. Don�t you read the papers?
Those certain and relatively few wealthy Con players that have influenced the rest of the middle class and lower class lemming Cons into following
their selfish and disastrous self-serving Flat Tax Crapp together with Con politicians that are only interested in keeping their political posts are
trying to run this country into the ground as if the 1987 stock market crash, the Dot Com debacle and the 2007/8 collapse of the financial structure
wasn�t enough.
If Cons (other than the selfish moneyed interests running the whole show for the rest of the simple Con crowd) were smart enough to do the simple math
(which they obviously are not) and simply pull their heads out of their butts and turn off the rampant disinformation and simpleton talking points
supplied by Fox, Hannity, and Limbaugh to instead look at the evidence all around all of us today, they would know that there is a deadly current and
worsening lopsided inequitable disparity of wealth and income at the top as a result of Con economic philosophy, trickle down, massive reduction in
tax rate progressivity, and supply side economics coupled with insufficient regulation, not to mention an unfunded drug plan and two unfunded long
lasting wars led by Neocons in the Bush administration (first time ever that no income taxes were raised to pay for those wars... I guess Bush and
Chaney were too stupid do the math and cause more than half of the national debt).
The only Cons that seem to know the math and truly understand how the flat tax would further enrich them specifically by massive windfall are those
very wealthy interests that have successfully snookered and repeatedly hoodwinked the rest of the other Cons into carrying their torch for them and
into repeating like parrots their pre-manufactured talking points�like dumb little lambs to the slaughter, like lemmings over a cliff. The problem is
that the lemming Cons are taking everybody else and this country over the cliff with them.
| Quote: | Barry A.
A Republic does not work well if all individuals don't make the effort to pay attention, stay informed, and vote |
I'll give you Cons one thing, you do vote, but you obviously do not pay attention and you do not stay informed.
[Edited on 5-5-2014 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Poor Conservatives...............
Should be looked upon as the Epitome of Principled thought.
It has long been held axiomatic that the toughest principles to support are those from which you derive no personal advantage.
I hear that from the LEFT in various wordings constantly so it MUST be true.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
MitchMan--------your reply to me above is so convoluted that I won't reply to your points, mostly because I don't really know what your are talking
about so don't even know where to start.
I have never looked up "progressive income tax"------where did you come up that one?
As we have discovered many times in the past, you and I are so far apart politically that even responding to each other's political and economic
points I believe is not useful.
I do agree with MrBill's point above, however.
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry, what happened to your reading skills?
Why would you need to look up "Who pays the income taxes" if you understand the progressive tax system? Everybody already knows that the progressive
tax system is the mathematical reason why, in large part, that the top taxpayers pay disproportionate income tax. Simple math, man.
So either you don't understand the math connection or you don't understand the progressive tax system. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you
would know the math. It appears that you may not know either or even the 'math connection' of prog tax rates to the wealthy taxpayers paying
disproportionate income tax. I mean, you did look up something, so I assume you did that because you didn't know ...something(?)
If things appear convoluted to you, try 'careful reading', that will help you understand things better. Works for me.
In the past, Barry, you feigned a variety of excuses to get out researching facts, avoiding legitimate challenges to back up what you say in writing,
to avoid logically refuting something you disagree with. You have even openly admitted ignorance on the subject to which you have posited your own
conclusions. I guess accusing my writing as being convoluted is just another dodge by you. I challenge you to show me what I wrote that is
convoluted and not, therefore, coherent.
Can't wait to see the next excuse.
[Edited on 5-6-2014 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wealth, other than home equity, is excess past and current income that was not needed for consumption. The top 10% have well over 85% of the nation�s
wealth today. They got that wealth by way of acquiring unneeded, unconsumed excess income FROM the economy. It makes mathematical and logical sense
that the economy should tax that unneeded excess income. FTMS: �Follow the money, Stupid�. Tax the income that is unused, unneeded and not consumed.
Don�t take it all, just tax a larger proportion of it. They will still retain more than they need, more than they can consume.
Top 10% have 77% of the nation�s total net worth
Top 10% have 85% of financial wealth (income producing wealth)
Top 10% have well over 90% of the voting stock (they have control of financial America).
Top 10% have 95% of all income gains since 2007 while the bottom 90% completely stagnated.
Net worth is nothing more than past income that has been accumulated. It is income itself, i.e., currently accumulated unconsumed past income.
Obviously, the tax rates are not nearly progressive enough since the top income taxpayers are accumulating/amassing income (wealth) at unprecedented
rates. I repeat: �Top 10% have 95% of all income gains since 2007.�
Median income for the middle class has shrunk since 1981 so severely that the USA no longer has the richest middle class, but is well behind many
other western countries while the top wealthy people in the USA are doing much better than ever before�breaking records in fact.
That is a lopsided economy where working America is getting cheated out of what they produce with their own hands and minds and it is
disproportionately going into the pockets of the few.
An economy is where people all get together and produce stuff that they in the economy need and want to consume. A balanced economy is where the
compensation is balanced so that the very people that produce the goods and services can then go out and buy the very goods an services that they
themselves have produced in the aggregate. That is not happening; what we have is a massive imbalance and it is plainly evidenced by the lopsided
excess of income and wealth that has gone to the top and the hardship that is being experienced by the middle class and the poor�and it is getting
worse. If you don't believe me, you need to read more, or, just ask the Pope.
In the absence of an economic system of balanced equitable income/compensation, the only current logical and equitable solution is to tax the money
where it lies and where it went�at the top. They are the ones who have excessively benefited from the economy and they now have more purchasing power
than they themselves need and more purchasing power than they themselves can consume.
You have to look at the big picture�it�s called �macroeconomics�.
[Edited on 5-6-2014 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote from Mitch:
In the absence of an economic system of balanced equitable income/compensation, the only current logical and equitable solution is to tax the money
where it lies and where it went�at the top. They are the ones who have excessively benefited from the economy and they now have more purchasing power
than they themselves need and more purchasing power than they themselves can consume.
You have to look at the big picture�it�s called �macroeconomics�.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have just described the perfect formula for completing the already advanced destruction of the US economy brought on by the Government removing
the incentive to work with all the the free stuff. Those who create the jobs and take the necessary risks to build the economy and invest in it,
deserve to be compensated, not penalized. That is what built this nation. Hopefully the 1% will continue to blow their excess money on Yachts,
Airplanes, Mansions, Businesses, and any number of job creating taxable pursuits.Those who make a living building and servicing and operating these
items don't look at these expensive assets and curse the owners in spite of having a government that encourages just that. The smart ambitious ones
look at them and think with hard work and a few smarts, I will get there one day if I want. At least that has been the case for over 200 years so far.
As Winston Churchill (who is arguably more credible than anyone who has commented here on this subject) was quoted as saying, "We contend that for a
nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle"
Hows that for a simple real world economics lesson you may be able to understand.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Say, would all this apply to Mexico too ... just asking 
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
The "Koch Brother's", like George Soros and others, support a system and belief in how Govt. should operate that they personally mostly agree
with---------and they have the ability and resources to make a difference. That is the American Way, and yes I support that as long as everybody pays
attention (as they should) to where that "support" is coming from and the possible ramifications, and vote accordingly.
A Republic does not work well if all individuals don't make the effort to pay attention, stay informed, and vote.
Barry
[Edited on 5-5-2014 by Barry A.] |
How is the average person supposed to, "pay attention, stay informed",
when the big money donors effectively obfuscate their contributions with 501c organizations and other ruses, where they can spend unlimited money to
influence the political system. The fact is, that we are only allowed to vote for candidates that have already been vetted by these big money players.
This fact makes it hard to argue that the 1% is under-represented or somehow paying more than their fair share, cry me a river. The reason that we are
in the economic excrement hole we are currently in, is because these vultures have been controlling congress and driving legislation to benefit
themselves for way to long.
[Edited on 5-6-2014 by monoloco]
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
