Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 306
  1. #126
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    I'll admit, it's nice to pay less when having dependents, but it's not fair to make a single person pay more for his hard earned money than it is for someone with kids.

    Please...

    Tell me you aren't a Marxist.
    That reminds me of the story in Atlas Shrugged where the two children take over their father's company and start paying everyone what they wanted and people with children more than single and wouldn't dictate a work schedule. anywho...

  2. #127
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Below poverty level would never pay taxes. But the point is most people wouldn't be agreeing to these socialist notions and failed experiements if their money was being used.
    I agree about the poverty level being the attachment point for taxes.

    I disagree about the second part, but do think that things should be a bit more transparent. "most" people pay taxes through indirect means. Your spending on tires is income for the manufacturer, and they could offer those tires for less than they do now if that were not the case. Tax costs are buried in everything.

    The statement "more than 50% of the people don't pay income taxes" is misleading to the point of lying because of this.

  3. #128
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Actually, they're nothing alike. Like Apples and Tomatoes.
    Yes, I agree. A higher tax rate should not be mandatory, as it isn't fair. However, especially for those who advocate higher percentages for those who make more, I think we have the right to demand they practice what they preach for charity.

  4. #129
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    It's not really that complicated, you're just not that smart.
    You need to put it in parts-changer terms: If you have 2.1 trillion parts, and you subtract 22 million solenoids, you end up with.... you get the idea.

  5. #130
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    So why even attempt to equate them?

  6. #131
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    "Countless stories" mean less to me than, say, actual data.

    I have zero doubt that there is some abuse any given program. I am prepared to accept that the cost of actually getting some aid to people that need it is that some of that will be abused, and that someone will game the system.

    I think the benefits of such safety nets far exceeds the cost for a lot of reasons, although some programs can be very poorly designed and have costs that exceed benefits. Granted. Controls and audits to prevent abuse should be designed into any system. Granted.

    But

    If you want to tell me that all such programs should be scrapped because of "countless stories", I will call bull , and ask for some measure of data that supports the assertion that the abuse is so rampant as to outweigh the benefits.

    Don't give me any feelgood egostroking bull about how bad poor people are and how they should be as industrious as you are. Serve your ego on your own dime.

    I want some reasonable data on abuse, costs and benefits.

    Bull has been called. "countless stories" is not sufficient to warrant a major policy shift. Provide some solid data on the costs of abuse relative to the benefits
    The GAO actually puts out a report on this each year. FY 2010 abuse was about $125 billion.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11443r.pdf

  7. #132
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121


    I might find the "socialist notions" schtick a bit more credible or worry about it, if someone could actualy define what it means.

    The thing about libertarianism of the kind pushed by Rand is that it is just as removed from reality as communism. Sounds good on paper, but when you try to construct a society around its ideals, you end up with the same kinds of inefficiencies and unintended consequences that leave of people less well off than they would be otherwise.

  8. #133
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    You are one who obviously believe in giving the government a larger percentage of income at higher income levels. I would think the same applies to charity. If fact, that's where I believe people should have more flexibility. I only give about 4% or 5%, but I would give far more if I could afford to. I would give more if I were taxed less. I picked 10% arbitrarily as a minimum. I see is as a reasonable number that is not excessive.
    Did you pick it arbitrarily, or as a reasonable number that is not excessive?

    Do you know what the words you type mean? You see, I'm kind of a stickler about words having discrete meanings and using them properly to communicate.

    In any event, my grandchildren won’t have to pay if I, or anyone else, fail to give to charity. I'll pay more in taxes, or I'll pay less. It depends on what we want to spend. I have an opinion on what we should spend, but that isn't the topic of this thread and I don't want to put you in the position of once again playing the thankless role of topic police.

    But the notion that somehow "isn't fair" that I only get $0.65 of the millionth dollar I earn when someone else is getting 100% of the 5,000th dollar they've earned is hollow, trite and dishonest. Because guess what, I got to keep 100% of the 5,000th dollar I earned too.

  9. #134
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    The GAO actually puts out a report on this each year. FY 2010 abuse was about $125 billion.[/url]
    Something that definitely needs to be tackled. Does the GAO also puts out a report of how much money corps gamed the system with by using tax loopholes? $125 billion sound like a drop in the bucket against those numbers, tbh.

  10. #135
    Rising above the Fray spursncowboys's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    7,669
    I agree about the poverty level being the attachment point for taxes.

    I disagree about the second part, but do think that things should be a bit more transparent. "most" people pay taxes through indirect means. Your spending on tires is income for the manufacturer, and they could offer those tires for less than they do now if that were not the case. Tax costs are buried in everything.

    The statement "more than 50% of the people don't pay income taxes" is misleading to the point of lying because of this.
    Right. I disagree that prices wouldn't change from a flat tax for businesses. Especially price differentiating companies and commodities who's only difference in product for the most part is price. They would definitely be spending less in taxes(from actual taxes to preparation to tax lawyers). Average person does not realize how much of a price comes from the taxes the company has to pay into it.

  11. #136
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    The GAO actually puts out a report on this each year. FY 2010 abuse was about $125 billion.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11443r.pdf
    It's a start, but "improper" payments aren't quite "abuse".

    3IPIA defines an improper payment as any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. It includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible service, any duplicate payment, payment for services not received, and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. OMB’s guidance also instructs agencies to report payments for which insufficient or no do entation was found as improper payments.
    It includes amounts made in error, for example paying $75 for something, when the payment schedule for a contract says $74, or simple duplication payments.

    It is a good chunk of money, and a fair start, but not really quite speaking to whether or not an eligible recipient is lying or blatantly abusing the process, as their methodology was not constructed to detect that.

    The other thing to bear in mind is the ultimate error rate:
    This estimate represents about 5.5 percent of the $2.3 trillion of reported outlays for the related programs in fiscal year 2010.
    I can hang with a 5% error rate as not being wildly out of control, although it would seem there is room for improvment, and that should be something to work for.

    Gotta get going for now.

  12. #137
    Scrumtrulescent
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Post Count
    9,724
    I'll admit, it's nice to pay less when having dependents, but it's not fair to make a single person pay more for his hard earned money than it is for someone with kids.

    Please...

    Tell me you aren't a Marxist.
    You got me. I'm a marxist. You elitist non-breeders need to pay more taxes so that economically deprived Brady Bunches can afford LED lightbulbs.

  13. #138
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Actually, it's not.
    LOL...

    I suggest you look up how GDP is calculated.
    Lucky for me I know where to look for real data, instead of just pulling it out of my ass.

    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml...isuri=1&903=58
    That has little relevance to this discussion, and is not GDP. Are you thinking of GDI?

    The "Personal Income" is not the income we are discussing. If you look closely, it comprises of adding

    1) Compensation of employees, received
    2) Proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments
    3) Rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment
    4) Personal income receipts on assets
    5) Personal current transfer receipts
    6) Less: Contributions for government social insurance, domestic

    Now if you like, we can and should include many of the items. If we look at 2010 annual, the number is $12,541B. Close to your $12.9B Still, it has compensations in it that are not used for individual taxation.

    Now if you look at "Compensation of employees, received," you find it includes things not taxed, and should be $6,393.9B rather than $7,984.5B Remember now, I am dealing with gross paid income. Not compensations also. For the gross personal income of the nation, we can include the other items except for #6. Some items under #5 aren't to be counted either.

    I get a total of $11,074.3B if I filtered those correctly.

    It says $1,166.3B was paid in taxes, but that will also include state and local taxation. Just the same, that averages 10.53%. That seems pretty low until you realize the size of the tax free transfers in item 5.

    If I take that $11,074.3B divided by revenue received by the federal government for individual income taxes of $898,549 million, I get an average tax rate of 8.11%

    8.11% is realized with the 17% flat tax at an income of about $29k.

    Why is it the revenue for $11 trillion is under $0.9 trillion? This again shows I have to be right that tax deductions for the rich make them effectively pay a very low rate compared to what 17% would be.

    To set things strait. 2010 revenue of $2,162,724 million consisted of:

    $898,549 Individual Income Tax
    $191,437 Corporate Income Tax
    $864,814 Social Security and other retirements
    $066,909 Excise taxes
    $141,015 Other
    It's not really that complicated, you're just not that smart.
    Right... from a guy who keeps misrepresenting everything and confusing GDP with GDI.

  14. #139
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    LOL...

    I suggest you look up how GDP is calculated.
    I suggest you try a dictionary. Or a text book. Or even just the internet.

    Here's the one you'll find in every Introduction to Macroeconomics Textbook in the World:

    Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period.

    GDP measures production. It doesn't measure "spending". It's also referred to as "National Income" for a reason. I know you've read a bunch of blogs and think you are an expert, but these terms have discrete definitions that are important, even if beyond the capacity of simpletons like you.

    That has little relevance to this discussion, and is not GDP. Are you thinking of GDI?
    No you stupid backwoods , I'm thinking of PERSONAL INCOME. Which is why I gave you the table for PERSONAL INCOME when you said:

    Not correct because you are not using a number that represents Individual Income
    So you are now telling me that the BEA's statistic called "PERSONAL INCOME" does not represent "INDIVIDUAL INCOME"?

    The "Personal Income" is not the income we are discussing. If you look closely, it comprises of adding

    1) Compensation of employees, received
    2) Proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments
    3) Rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment
    4) Personal income receipts on assets
    5) Personal current transfer receipts
    6) Less: Contributions for government social insurance, domestic
    Actually, that's exactly what we are talking about and you'd know that if you weren't too busy ing sheep in the woods.

    Now if you like, we can and should include many of the items. If we look at 2010 annual, the number is $12,541B. Close to your $12.9B Still, it has compensations in it that are not used for individual taxation.
    Wow, the number in the column to the left of my number is close to my number? You don't say? You're a real genius aren't you?

    Right... from a guy who keeps misrepresenting everything and confusing GDP with GDI.
    There are no misrepresentations, there is just you failing to keep up with the conversation. Par for the course.

  15. #140
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Wow...

    I explained that, and you still twist it?

    You really are a twisted head.

  16. #141
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Wild Cobra owned again

  17. #142
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Tell me Scott...

    Using the BEA link line numbers, are lines 7 and 8 included as employee taxable income? How about line 21.

    You are telling me that line 1 is the number, I say it's not. I explained how I got a lower number and agreed most those numbers are valid. Just not the line 1 total.

    You are wrong about so many things, yet you are not willing to admit to one of the several mistakes I uncovered.

    Now...

    Take a breath and compose yourself.

    Maybe wait a few hours and let those drugs dissipate, then maybe you can think clearly.

  18. #143
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Wild Cobra owned again
    LOL...

    No ing way.

    I agreed most the numbers from the site were valid, and included them. That's not being owned, yet Scott is constantly ing up. If anything, I've been owning him!
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-13-2011 at 08:27 PM.

  19. #144
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I suggest you try a dictionary. Or a text book. Or even just the internet.

    Here's the one you'll find in every Introduction to Macroeconomics Textbook in the World:

    Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period.

    GDP measures production. It doesn't measure "spending". It's also referred to as "National Income" for a reason. I know you've read a bunch of blogs and think you are an expert, but these terms have discrete definitions that are important, even if beyond the capacity of simpletons like you.
    From your precious BEA, page 8:
    Specifically, GDP is the sum of:

    Personal consumption expenditures consist of purchases of goods and services by households and by nonprofit ins utions serving households (NPISHs). These goods and services include imputed expenditures on items such as the services of housing by a homeowner (the equivalent of rent), financial and insurance services for which there is no explicit charge, and medical care provided to individuals and financed by government or by private insurance.

    Gross private domestic investment consists of purchases of fixed assets (equipment, software, and structures) by private businesses that contribute to production and have a useful life of more than one year, of purchases of homes by households, and of private business investment in inventories. Inventory investment, which is shown as “change in private inventories,” includes the value of goods produced during a period but not sold, less sales of goods from inventories that were produced in previous periods. It is measured as ending period less beginning period inventories valued at current prices (and is equivalent to additions to, less withdrawals from, inventories), Intermediate inputs, which become an integral part of the final product and do not contribute to future production, are not included in investment.

    Exports consists of goods and services that are sold or transferred by U.S. residents to residents of the rest of the world.

    Imports, which is deducted in the calculation of GDP, consists of goods and services that are sold or transferred by the rest of the world to U.S. residents. The value of imports is already included in the other expenditure components of GDP, because market transactions do not distinguish the source of the goods and services. Therefore, imports must be deducted in order to derive a measure of total domestic output. Deducting total imports purchased by all sectors from total exports, rather than deducting each sector’s imports from its total expenditures, provides an analytically useful measure—net exports—that enables one to examine the effects of foreign trade on the economy.

    Government consumption expenditures and gross investment measures final expenditures by Federal, state, and local governments. “Government consumption expenditures” represents the value of goods and services provided to the public by governments (such as defense or education). “Gross investment” consists of government purchases of equipment, software, and structures to use in producing those goods and services. These expenditures do not include government spending for social benefit programs (such as Medicaid), interest payments, and subsidies.
    What I said, when referring to GDP:
    It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.
    Please notice what I placed in bold in the BEA definition.

  20. #145
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.
    Yes, those are the individual components of GDP. That isn't what I was saying what you are wrong about. What you are wrong about is how these components are added together which is what makes it not equal spending. Y = C + I + G + X where X = Exports - Imports. We sell exports, we buy imports. You can't get to spending by subtracting stuff you purchase.

    Where am I " ing up"? You keep moving the target, not realizing that the point isn't whether or not GDP is $14.5 or $14.6 trillion, or Personal Income is the same as Individual Income or if the number is $900B or $1.1T.

    The point, that you are missing, is that there are three scenarios in any flat tax proposal:

    1) You keep tax revenues constant, which means that some people get a tax break (those who pay more than the proposed rate, i.e. "the rich") and others get a tax increase (those who pay less than the proposed rate, i.e. "everyone else")

    2) You generate more tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the top of the tax scale and even more people (or even potentially everyone) get a tax increase and only the very wealthy (or no one at all) gets a tax break. Even then, the bulk of the new tax burden falls on the lower side of the tax spectrum

    3) You generate less tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the bottom of the tax scale and some people (ranging from a few to most or even all) get tax breaks and only those on the very bottom (or no one at all) gets tax increases. Even then, the bulk of the benefits are concentrated in the hands of the highest earners.

    So, here is your homework:

    1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
    2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.

  21. #146
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    Progressive taxation makes sense to me because it is much harder for someone making $20,000 per year to make an additional $5,000 than it is for someone making $200,000. That's what creates widening income gaps.

  22. #147
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    I just find it hilarious that when people mention taxing the rich more, WC yells 'class warfare'. But applying his tax dogma basically amount to the same revenue (still not enough to offset spending), shifting the burden to the poor, and we should consider that 'fair', not 'class warfare'.

  23. #148
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    Unfortunately though, a lot of the conversation around increasing taxation on the rich HAS amounted to class warfare, which undercuts a lot of perfectly reasonable arguments in its favor. Which is why I still fall in the camp of letting the cuts expire across the board. After that, we'll see.

  24. #149
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    I'm in the camp of cutting spending + raising taxes on everyone. That might include reducing some of the caps on exceptions.

    I'm just realistic that politicians don't really want a solution nor give a about it.

  25. #150
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    i'm in the camp of cutting spending + raising taxes on everyone. That might include reducing some of the caps on exceptions.

    I'm just realistic that politicians don't really want a solution nor give a about it.
    +1

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •