You don't raise taxes during a recession

[boutons_deux]

"hard to estimate the real ultimate effect of eliminating all the deductions, if only because of the sheer number of them."

let's just say: GREATLY INCREASED REVENUE

ain't nobody gonna touch the tax code, because the UCA/capitalists have spent decades complexifying/gaming it to their advantage. The tax legislation is written in Congress,and we know for sure that's an impregnable-by-Human-Americans fortress commadeered by UCA/capitalists.

[Agloco]

I would also point out that technically, we aren't in a recession.

A lot of people miss that.

I don't doubt that by the textbook definition we aren't, but in this scenario aren't we sailing into uncharted waters? I see this in virtually every article I run across......something to that effect at least.

How well do the traditional axioms hold up this time around? What's your opinion on the markets' psychology with respect to that notion at this point?

To borrow a medical analogy, I just wonder if we aren't treating what we see on the monitor instead of treating the patient.

[Agloco]

It is hard to estimate the real ultimate effect of eliminating all the deductions, if only because of the sheer number of them.

As I noted earlier, the best estimates say that we could lower the "book" rate by quite a bit, simply because those deductions undermine the current stated rates of income tax on various levels of income.

If you have a rule, but allow almost everybody to be exempt from that rule, why bother with the fiction? I think it would be a uva lot more honest to just have a more firm rule with no exceptions.

The problem is that we pull the "lever" of the tax code to accomplish all manner of social engineering, from encouraging home ownership, to encouraging people to go to college.

It is an easy thing to do. We could just as easily provide direct payments that would be a bit more transparent, something I would be all for.

I see the logic here, but the money necessarily passes through that wonderful filter called government. I have to wonder how much of that money gets back into the "jobs creation pipeline" then.

I don't know the figures, but I do agree that taxes need to be collected with more urgency and purpose.

Playing a little devils advocate doesn't hurt every now and again.

Class warfare has always existed, and we don't like to admit that because we still buy into the myth that social mobility is available to everyone.

Quite insightful.

[boutons_deux]

"myth that social mobility is available to everyone"

social mobility, and real household income, has been stagnant/decreasing over exactly the same period, 1975 and after, when the VRWC got going, esp with St Ronnie getting into office.

[Winehole23]

Besides, isn't the recession already technically over, probably?

RG said as much, somewhere, recently.

[ChuckD]

just lower taxes for people making more than 1 million to 0%. that way unemployment drops to 5 % quickly. cause lower taxes =jobs

Fail. They just pocket it and create an army of Paris Hiltons by passing it along to winners of the brithright lottery who did nothing to earn it, and continue that pretty much throughout life.

[boutons_deux]

the recession, for those highly accurate Fed-sucking economists who missed the housing bubble, was over in 2009.

[RandomGuy]

Fail. They just pocket it and create an army of Paris Hiltons by passing it along to winners of the brithright lottery who did nothing to earn it, and continue that pretty much throughout life.

Birthright or just being born to the right at the right time...

Leona Helmsley's Dog Heir, Trouble, Is Dead


I wonder how many jobs Trouble created with the money she inherited?

[Ignignokt]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation. The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself. The rich as a whole aren't a monolith. The rich pass loopholes and regulation to war against other rich, their compe ors to seize more market share.

Somebody always stands to gain an advantage from regulation even if it's intended to punish a whole market. Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.

[Ignignokt]

also, chump didn't prove . The premise of the thread was that the govt shouldn't raise income taxes, even though not specified, everyone knows the proper argument. Closing loopholes is not the same argument.

[MannyIsGod]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation. The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself. The rich as a whole aren't a monolith. The rich pass loopholes and regulation to war against other rich, their compe ors to seize more market share.

Somebody always stands to gain an advantage from regulation even if it's intended to punish a whole market. Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.

You yourself just pointed out how the rich go above democracy using money in order to gain power right after calling me wrong. Ohhhhk.

[Prime1]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation. The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself. The rich as a whole aren't a monolith. The rich pass loopholes and regulation to war against other rich, their compe ors to seize more market share.

Somebody always stands to gain an advantage from regulation even if it's intended to punish a whole market. Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.

Almost all innovation and creation comes from college educated employees. The super rich very rarely create anything. Studying books written on the lives of the people who populate the board rooms of most companies and you will want to tax the out of the people.

[Prime1]

double post

[Ignignokt]

You yourself just pointed out how the rich go above democracy using money in order to gain power right after calling me wrong. Ohhhhk.

You're wrong from the aspect that you unwittingly perpetuate that the rich are a monolith waging war against the poor. But it's more complex than that. You say that the poor have no power in this country, and that is false, i pointed out the fact that the rich need lobbyist discredits that notion. i hope i'm clear here. But let me say this, Individual rights should never be up for a vote. That's the principle of the Bill of Rights anyway.

[Ignignokt]

Almost all innovation and creation comes from college educated employees. The super rich very rarely create anything. Studying books written on the lives of the people who populate the board rooms of most companies and you will want to tax the out of the people.

You lack the understanding of what it is to create wealth. Having an idea does not make you rich alone. You need capital, management, advertising, logistics and resources. Those are things the rich provide. Is it fair in all cases? probably not, but to redistribute that wealth to more people does not make it moral. The world doesn't need 5000000 dependents compared to 1 rich heir.

[coyotes_geek]

Birthright or just being born to the right at the right time...

Leona Helmsley's Dog Heir, Trouble, Is Dead


I wonder how many jobs Trouble created with the money she inherited?

Not really a good example towards your point. Yeah, she left her dog $12 million dollars. She also left $4 to $8 billion to charity.

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news...l?id=188000018

[Spurminator]

Stifling compe ion through lobbying for regulation makes it harder to start and build a business. This also means the powerful businesses only get more powerful, and employment options decline because there are fewer businesses competing for the best talent/labor. These businesses also have an easier time under-staffing their workload, making their employees work longer, for less pay, because where else are they going to go?

[MannyIsGod]

You're wrong from the aspect that you unwittingly perpetuate that the rich are a monolith waging war against the poor. But it's more complex than that. You say that the poor have no power in this country, and that is false, i pointed out the fact that the rich need lobbyist discredits that notion. i hope i'm clear here. But let me say this, Individual rights should never be up for a vote. That's the principle of the Bill of Rights anyway.

Well I have never said that the poor have no power. Never. I just feel they're at a complete disadvantage that should be nullified because you're voting power should not be determined by your income.

Its the fact that lobbyist power is so easily wielded for results that benefit so few that I have a problem with.

[ChumpDumper]

also, chump didn't prove . The premise of the thread was that the govt shouldn't raise income taxes, even though not specified, everyone knows the proper argument. Closing loopholes is not the same argument.

Taxes were raised during a recession. If you want Darrin to walk back from his statement and split hairs like a , let him do it himself.

[Winehole23]

Just because you're born into american society doesn't mean you deserve all the wealth that comes from innovation and creation.

Obviously not. If you can't get a nut, you can eat and die. That's what we "deserve" for being born into American society. Good thing the air is still free.

The premise that the rich need to pay their fair share is class warfare itself.

Something less than their fair share would be more appropriate, in your opinion?

Despite what manny say's. In a representative democracy, the poor and underclass don't need lobbyist, they are the majority, they have immense power, it's the rich who feel the need to pay for lobbyist to usurp the will of the majority.

Lobbyists keep the immensely powerful underclass from trampling the rich? I never thought of it that way before.

[ChumpDumper]

Thank God the rich have gtown to protect them from the poor.

[RandomGuy]

Not really a good example towards your point. Yeah, she left her dog $12 million dollars. She also left $4 to $8 billion to charity.

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news...l?id=188000018

and my point being...?

I just thought it was funny, although I could say that just because some is rich, that doens't mean that she automatically is some magical job creation machine, like some seem to imply.

[RandomGuy]

[RandomGuy]

[RandomGuy]