The Responsible Party

[SnakeBoy]

The first order of business is to choose a mascot:
I nominate The Bald Eagle. Amazed neither of the other has ever chosen it; but the eagle is a of a responsible animal. Mother and father both take care of the young, they keep their house up, and don't take from anyone.

You forgot to mention the bald eagle is primarily a scavenger. That is, it survives on the hard work of others and believes it's en led to food it did not earn.

[Th'Pusher]

Well that's an entirely different topic. I'm referring to the middle class as most of you seem think of it, which personally I would call working class. Equating median income with "middle class" seems flawed to me. The middle class to me has all but disappeared and is the now top 25% (excluding the wealthy) you referred to. This is the argument I had with Drachen. He considers himself near the upper end of middle class at $70k even though he's just getting by and unable to save enough for his future. That's not middle class in my view.

My point was that if an effective rate of zero is fair for his $70k then my 28% on $200k is more than fair and I'm not willing to pay more. In fact from now on I'm going to make damn sure I pay less, screw the "middle class".

An effective tax rate of 28% on $200k household income seems high. That's about where I am at and my effective tax rate is ~15%. I use turbo tax, maybe you should look into an accountant.

[SnakeBoy]

An effective tax rate of 28% on $200k household income seems high. That's about where I am at and my effective tax rate is ~15%. I use turbo tax, maybe you should look into an accountant.

I meant 25% (typo). And I think it was around $220k to be more accurate. If you're only paying 15% on $200k you either have a lot of deductions (mortgage, kids etc.) and/or you are deferring taxes on a nice chunk of it (ira, 401k, etc.).

[LnGrrrR]

You forgot to mention the bald eagle is primarily a scavenger. That is, it survives on the hard work of others and believes it's en led to food it did not earn.

That's perfect! The balding and proud part will resonate with Republicans, and the other parts will resonate with Democrats!

[LnGrrrR]

I meant 25% (typo). And I think it was around $220k to be more accurate. If you're only paying 15% on $200k you either have a lot of deductions (mortgage, kids etc.) and/or you are deferring taxes on a nice chunk of it (ira, 401k, etc.).

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)

[LnGrrrR]

My position in the other thread was that I define middle class as enough income to live a middle class lifestyle (Drachen does) and save enough to continue that lifestyle thru retirement. $70k isn't enough to do that.

So you would say that Drachen's household, making $70K, isn't middle class? The median is $50K... so $70K is certainly middle class. What you're really saying is that the middle class can't/shouldn't be able to expect to save enough for retirement.

What do you think is enough to life a middle class lifestyle through retirement? Because if it's over 85K, you've just hit the top 25% percentile, which would mean that 75% of America is lower/lower-middle class.

[101A]

You forgot to mention the bald eagle is primarily a scavenger. That is, it survives on the hard work of others and believes it's en led to food it did not earn.

Assuming most people don't know that (first act of the party is betting on the ignorance of the American populace - and not even realizing it because the guy who came up with it was ignorant of the fact).

I thought they were bad ass killing machines; grabbing fish out of mid swim, rabbits on the run; small goats......

[101A]

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)

I've read enough on the board to assume we have a majority who would agree to a pretty significant exemption (first 50K, for example) on earned income for a family (or 25K for an individual) - remember, we still have payroll taxes to talk about; or should we just eliminate the pretenses and roll it all into a single tax?

A 25% flat tax with a 50K exemption would have Snake Boy ($220,000 income) paying $42,500 in taxes (19.3% effective), while Drachen ($70 K) would be paying $5,000 - 7.1% effective - probably very near what he pays in payroll taxes right now. (actually that's only half of his payroll tax; the rest is hidden because his employer is mailing it in)

Thoughts?

Is a flat tax, or one with at least some progressiveness better - we are in agreement that loopholes/deductions need to be simplified dramatically.

How about capital gains - is there a consensus that income = income? Can someone make a reasonable argument that those should be treated differently? Would like to hear Scott or RG on this.

[RandomGuy]

Just because the neocons also push handouts and have zero principles doesn't mean "Democrats" and "fiscally responsible" belong in the same sentence

Democrats understand the need for en lement reform, and are willing to raise taxes AND cut en lements.

Republicans understand the need for en lement reform, and are not willing to raise taxes.

This notion that Democrats are somehow 100% chomping at the bit to tax the nation into the ground is an old myth that is simply the Republican Big Lie.

I think a lot of people have, instead of looking at the kinds of things that Democrats actually say about individual responsibility and hard work, have subs uted a particularly lazy cynicism and have bought this Big Lie as some sort of truth.

Even if you believe the Democrats are what you seem to think they are, compared to the GOP, they are far more fiscally responsible, for no other reason than they are willing to do what is necessary to fix , and the Republicans have not been willing to do so.

[leemajors]

Assuming most people don't know that (first act of the party is betting on the ignorance of the American populace - and not even realizing it because the guy who came up with it was ignorant of the fact).

I thought they were bad ass killing machines; grabbing fish out of mid swim, rabbits on the run; small goats......

There is some really good footage of them killing on the wing in Winged Planet that was on Discovery last month, pretty impressive. They had several on wing cameras to boot.



Not the best clip but there are better ones in the doc.

[RandomGuy]

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)

Put in a generous lower exemption for the first X amount per person in the household, and that solves that problem, as 101 noted.

I used to be opposed to it, simply because of the transition costs, but the complexity of the tax code is screaming for simplification. The effort we collectively waste on our tax returns is immense and not necessary.

[101A]

There is some really good footage of them killing on the wing in Winged Planet that was on Discovery last month, pretty impressive. They had several on wing cameras to boot.



Not the best clip but there are better ones in the doc.

Thanks for that. From now on you are the official "Snake Boy Fact Checker"

[101A]

Put in a generous lower exemption for the first X amount per person in the household, and that solves that problem, as 101 noted.

I used to be opposed to it, simply because of the transition costs, but the complexity of the tax code is screaming for simplification. The effort we collectively waste on our tax returns is immense and not necessary.

Aaaahhhh consensus builds.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll try to respond more in detail this weekend as I feel I should provide some data backing up what I feel is correct. But I'll post the jist of what I'm thinking so that you can get the idea.

-I think we all tend to romanticize how little we were divided in the past and in some senses I think we tend to make it up. As an example, Clinton is generally viewed as a good president by many but he was extremely polarizing when he was in office. Vast Ring Wing Conspiracy, Somalia and impeachment immediately come to mind when I think of what we never talk about when we look back fondly.

-I don't think voters int he past were any more informed than those of today but I do think there's a possibility they were less MISinformed. The lynch pin here may not be the absence of information but the absence of misinformation.

-Congress is almost certainly more polarized than in the past. I think maybe at times we tend to attempt to project this onto the rest of our citizens but I really am not sure this is the case.

[101A]

I'll try to respond more in detail this weekend as I feel I should provide some data backing up what I feel is correct. But I'll post the jist of what I'm thinking so that you can get the idea.

-I think we all tend to romanticize how little we were divided in the past and in some senses I think we tend to make it up. As an example, Clinton is generally viewed as a good president by many but he was extremely polarizing when he was in office. Vast Ring Wing Conspiracy, Somalia and impeachment immediately come to mind when I think of what we never talk about when we look back fondly.

I said as much earlier; HATED that guy; now respect his presidency. , if Newt hadn't run this past year - his legacy would probably have aged alright with Democrats (might be wrong on that)....

[boutons_deux]

"And people wonder why there's class warfare"

I don't wonder at all. Class War has paid the 1% Class Warriors with insane wealth and power.

[SnakeBoy]

I don't like the flat tax idea, as it's rather regressive. (The guy making 70K per year would have more value from the 10% taken from him than the guy making 200K per year.)

I don't either. I said a flat progressive tax rate.

[101A]

I don't either. I said a flat progressive tax rate.

Got some brackets in mind?

[RandomGuy]

I have been inspired by RandomGuy’s post to CosmicCowboy in the “Letter to the RNC” thread:



This country has real problems, and its citizens recognize that. And yet, we have just held a "monumental" election in which nothing changed. The executive and both houses of Congress are still controlled by the same partisan, self-interested factions that controlled them last week. The entirety of our Government is controlled by the two parties that have collectively gotten us to the point we are at today.

We are in debt. Each of us doesn't trust half of our elected representatives - or our fellow citizens. Class divisions are getting worse, more and more Americans feel there is no hope of a better tomorrow for themselves, or their children. Income IS being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, while at the other end of the spectrum, permanent poverty and dependency on Government for basic needs – from cradle to grave - is increasing along with the illegitimacy rate. Hope and Change? No.

The problems are myriad and immense. It doesn't matter, ultimately, how we got here; because here we are.

The good news is our founders did give us a way to fix things; to get them back under control. We have the rights of free speech and assembly; and with the internet those rights are made exponentially more potent. Barrack Obama just won the presidency with ~60 million votes. Gangnam Style has over ten times that many views!

We also have the right to vote.

I have not had a candidate to vote for these past two presidential elections (and, honestly, I have never had a candidate I was actually excited to vote for).

I also note that most of the people on this board, reflecting the population at large, voted against a candidate in this election, and not for a candidate.

The problem is, frankly, the tribal mentality - Red vs Blue - pick a side, and stick to it on every subject. If you're against abortion, you are probably for capital punishment. If you are against cutting en lements, you are against cutting taxes. If you are against water-boarding, you are probably for legalizing marijuana, etc...

What we need is a new party. This new party must pull from both tribes; otherwise it cannot work. If a conservative knows voting for Ron Paul means that Obama is more likely to win; he simply holds his nose and votes for Romney, while if a liberal would really like to vote Green, but is terrified of Paul Ryan being VP - they vote for Obama. If those two citizens, however, were reasonably assured that the third party vote wasn’t taking exclusively from only one of the traditional parties; they would be much more likely to vote that way.

I know that in the instances when we have a thread that does not devolve into a Red Team/Blue Team shout/insult-fest - common ground is often found between people of different political persuasions. A reasonable solution can be found to most issues - and most Americans would agree with those solutions, in my opinion.

This forum, I feel, is a great test-bed for this theory.

I would like to try to build a platform for the "Responsible" party. The platform, ultimately, should be reasonably comprehensive; but should never take a position on personal issues that divide us; distracting and obstructing us from finding solutions unnecessarily. Abortion is the most obvious taboo subject here; if the platform were to take a position, we are immediately divided; to NOT take a position is the "Responsible" course of action.
After the platform is developed, we’ll post it (responsibleparty.org and .com are available); – and spread its existence through the internet on boards like this, blogs, etc…also with letters to the editor in small town newspapers all over the country (they’ll print just about anything; and people in those towns read them). Then, we send out pleas to million and billionaires all over the country (thanks to Citizen’s United, we only need ONE).

The first order of business is to choose a mascot:
I nominate The Bald Eagle. Amazed neither of the other has ever chosen it; but the eagle is a of a responsible animal. Mother and father both take care of the young, they keep their house up, and don't take from anyone.

Interesting bit. FWIW. An oft-forgotten bit of Chaplains work.

[101A]

Interesting bit. FWIW. An oft-forgotten bit of Chaplains work.

Great speech. The only issue I have is with the line "Do away with greed". I think greed simply is. It is hard-wired. It is powerful. If you believe in evolution, IMO, you have to agree, in some part, with that.

The goal is to harness greed for productivity and wealth it can create for everyone - so that its benefits aren't concentrated in too few hands. If you stifle it completely, you fail to get any benefit from it whatsoever.

[SnakeBoy]

So you would say that Drachen's household, making $70K, isn't middle class? The median is $50K... so $70K is certainly middle class. What you're really saying is that the middle class can't/shouldn't be able to expect to save enough for retirement.

What do you think is enough to life a middle class lifestyle through retirement? Because if it's over 85K, you've just hit the top 25% percentile, which would mean that 75% of America is lower/lower-middle class.

No, what I am saying is median income does not equal middle class and middle class income should be an amount that does let a typical family save enough for retirement and ac ulate some wealth. This is what the middle class has historically been able to do. I think I put middle class starting around 100k in the other thread so yeah I believe the majority of america is what I would call working class, that is they can live a decent life paycheck to paycheck. I put myself on the upper end of middle class so I think the 250K cutoff is about right. Drachen and I live essentially the same lifestyle, the difference is we can save enough to continue our exact lifestyle(or better) throughout retirement.

[SnakeBoy]

.

[101A]

No, what I am saying is median income does not equal middle class and middle class income should be an amount that does let a typical family save enough for retirement and ac ulate some wealth. This is what the middle class has historically been able to do. I think I put middle class starting around 100k in the other thread so yeah I believe the majority of america is what I would call working class, that is they can live a decent life paycheck to paycheck. I put myself on the upper end of middle class so I think the 250K cutoff is about right. Drachen and I live essentially the same lifestyle, the difference is we can save enough to continue our exact lifestyle throughout retirement.

I think I'm getting you.

You're not arguing for a more elitist definition of middle class; you're saying that the way things are SUCKS for most, and that the sea needs to rise significantly for everyone; that the "middle" has become "lower" in practice.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't either. I said a flat progressive tax rate.

Ah, I misread that then. My bad.

[LnGrrrR]

No, what I am saying is median income does not equal middle class and middle class income should be an amount that does let a typical family save enough for retirement and ac ulate some wealth. This is what the middle class has historically been able to do. I think I put middle class starting around 100k in the other thread so yeah I believe the majority of america is what I would call working class, that is they can live a decent life paycheck to paycheck. I put myself on the upper end of middle class so I think the 250K cutoff is about right. Drachen and I live essentially the same lifestyle, the difference is we can save enough to continue our exact lifestyle(or better) throughout retirement.

I think I'd have to disagree with you then on the definition of "middle-class". I believe that we should think of the middle-class as... well... the middle percentage of the nation. Right now, your definition of middle-class is from the top 20% to the top 2%. I'd say part of that is "upper-class". (And yes, that would mean that the "upper-class" is the only class capable of comfortably saving for retirement.) It's somewhat semantics, but I think the designator distinctions are important.