News of the day

Epignosis wrote: I read that article.  It isn't disingenuous.  His income tax rate was 102%.  Not all of his income was taxable income.  When you calculate your taxes, your entire income is not taxable income.  Your tax rate applies to your taxable income, not your entire income.

Yes, because we all calculate our tax rates based on tax breaks we didn't get.

Oh wait.

The man pays 20%. That's his tax rate. Done, end of story. There is no magical I-think-I-should-be-taxed-this-number amount. This is why our tax expenditure system needs to be publicly executed. Stoned, preferably. People who pay 20% think they're f**king obligated to get a lower tax rate because they assigned some deductions that they don't get? Why are millionaire businessmen whining about a 20% tax rate in the first place? Some people actually <i>do</i> have to pay high tax rates, but they aren't so stupid as to claim that they're paying more than they're making. In fact, damn  near everyone, sans Romney, are paying more in taxes than him. Everyone else in the article is paying more, yet we should be led to believe that he's paying more than he earns? Horsesh*t. Complete horsesh*t.

Epignosis wrote: Have you tried being a Libertarian?

I do agree with progressive income taxes, which libertarians typically do not. I just want them to be a lot simpler, like Huntsman's plan with a wider range of incomes (his was 8%-23%, IIRC, and I would set it to something like 2%-33%). Worse, I'd use the increased revenue for government-run services. Very, very un-libertarian of me. Then again, I'd also trim the military budget as well and the some odd hundred billion dollars that goes to spying on American citizens, so I may have to trim the top rate on that a little bit. 32%?

Epignosis wrote: How old are you by the way?  Do you do your own taxes?  We all calculate our tax rates based on tax breaks we don't get.  It's the difference between your gross income and your adjusted gross income.  For those who itemize, it's even more complicated.

I have indeed done my own taxes, many times. Never itemized, though. No wife, no kids. One dependent, one income. No house. Hard to screw up. Seen my parents go through days and days of working on itemized deductions, though. Monster pain. Frequently makes no sense whatsoever. The system at best flies in the face of good sense and at worst flat-out encourages market distortion. It's a monumental failure.

Epignosis wrote: That said, you italicized "government-run services," like that is something noble.  Please understand this: Whatever the government takes from citizens and pays for is a government-run "service," whether it be military, welfare, or bailouts.  Don't deceive yourself.

No, I italicized it because it is anathema to libertarians. That said, yes, it does take from citizens and give to other citizens, and I'm just fine with that. If people are chained to their station at birth, we can hardly call ourselves free.

Epignosis wrote: I don't get your latter few words but I agree with this statement otherwise.

I mean that my 2-33% tax rates may be higher than the government needs to balance the budget.

Epignosis wrote: I agree with you.  I believe in ridding ourselves of income tax.  States can do it, why can't the nation ?

41 states do have individual income tax. Only the liberal Nevada, the empty Wyoming, the conservative Texas, and the idiotic Tennessee do not have corporate taxes: Nevada gets by on gambling, Wyoming... hell if I know, Texas taxes business profits, and Tennessee taxes dividends. Then you have municipal taxes.

//EDIT: Alaska has no personal income tax, but it rakes in enough cash to equal what would be a 12% individual income tax. They do it by taxing the **** out of the oil industry.


Edited by Gamemako - February 03 2012 at 23:14

People didn't get by, that's why the programs were started in the first place.  Historical amnesia is a beautiful thing.

Epignosis wrote: Again, this discussion of what the tax should be can only exist in the context of what the role of government is.  Our income tax is only 99 years old.  What ever did we do to get by before then?  Were people more prosperous in 1912 or 2012?

Epignosis wrote: Government-run services don't elevate people in general to a better financial status.  We've had higher and higher minimum wages over the years, and people are still poor.  We've had Medicaid, Medicare, social security, food stamps, WIC, and a number of other programs, and people are still poor.

Minimum wage is below the poverty line. Whether it is effectual is moot; it inherently cannot affect the poverty rate. Social Security is the same way.

Epignosis wrote: You can be free and poor.  Someone who gets paid under the table but has a gambling addiction is plenty free and shouldn't get my money.

Just World Hypothesis. Blame the victim because in a just world, he deserved it. Welcome back to reality, where being born poor means that you will never approach your potential (the damage begins before birth and continues through the lifespan). Even barring that, you do not have the resources to escape your situation. You are born into a de facto caste. That is the reality we face.

Epignosis wrote: The typical argument is that these programs help needy Americans temporarily until they can fully provide for themselves again.  This sounds good, but should we pat ourselves on the back that more and more people are on government assistance and cannot find work?

You're looking at the midst of the worst economic situation since the depression. That is the definition of sampling bias.

Epignosis wrote: In fifty years, the poverty level is basically right back where it was:

I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate there. Maybe that any gains are undone by fiscal conservatives?

Epignosis wrote: It's time to realize that this system our nation has been crafting over the past century is a failure: It creates artificial demand, it causes inflation, and it doesn't help the aggregation US population in the long run.

Yeah, except you still haven't demonstrated anything remotely related to any of that. There are certainly screw-ups (housing, corn), but they are not related to the core issues you're complaining about.

Epignosis wrote: Again, this discussion of what the tax should be can only exist in the context of what the role of government is.  Our income tax is only 99 years old.  What ever did we do to get by before then?  Were people more prosperous in 1912 or 2012?

Well, we were certainly quite prosperous in the 1920s, after the institution of the tax. That blew up in everyone's faces because the market isn't rational, but that is neither here nor there. Hard to say about the immediate effects of the tax as there was that whole War-to-End-War thing.

Epignosis wrote: But not all voters earn income, either, and the way the IRS has things set up in the US, many wage-earners don't pay taxes at all.

You mean they don't pay federal income tax. In reality, those who pay no federal income tax typically pay some percentage in state income tax as well as FICA (a regressive tax) and then sales taxes (more regressive taxation that will cover nearly all purchases made by the poor). When you whine about people who pay "no taxes", they're actually paying taxes closer to 10-12%, and that's when they own nothing else that can be taxed.

//EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, if you live up in a state with a flat income tax of 4% and 7% sales tax, that's over 17% before anything else that you might get hit with. And Mitt pays what?


Edited by Gamemako - February 04 2012 at 12:33

Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: People didn't get by, that's why the programs were started in the first place.  Historical amnesia is a beautiful thing. I would but you'd just forget it. And as usual, you didn't address my point: Even if people didn't "get by" then (whatever that means), people aren't "getting by" now.  Government-run programs have not improved the financial state of society, and as I've shown multiple times, have actually made the situation worse.

Eh, you missed my bigger picture point is that people at the bottom of the economic ladder would be worse off without them.  Food stamps vs. starvation for instance.  I suppose people would be better off starving as that would give them incentive to get off their lazy asses and go after the jobs that don't exist or go after jobs that don't pay enough so they can't pay for living expenses.  If they'd only give up their TVs, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, then they could get by.

Anyway, something grimmer:
Afghan Civilian Deaths Hit Record High in 2011, UN Report Says


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 04 2012 at 12:41

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: People didn't get by, that's why the programs were started in the first place.  Historical amnesia is a beautiful thing. I would but you'd just forget it. And as usual, you didn't address my point: Even if people didn't "get by" then (whatever that means), people aren't "getting by" now.  Government-run programs have not improved the financial state of society, and as I've shown multiple times, have actually made the situation worse. Eh, you missed my bigger picture point is that people at the bottom of the economic ladder would be worse off without them.  Food stamps vs. starvation for instance.  I suppose people would be better off starving as that would give them incentive to get off their lazy asses and go after the jobs that don't exist or go after jobs that don't pay enough so they can't pay for living expenses.  If they'd only give up their TVs, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, then they could get by.

Slart, have you ever heard me accuse people on welfare of being lazy or not looking for work?  Don't paint me with your broad, conservative-hating brush.  It's just like you to ignore what I actually said and criticize something I didn't.

Government involvement makes our aggregate financial situation worse, not better, even if they help people short term.

Epignosis wrote: No one is whining but you.  The discussion was regarding a federal income tax, not a state income tax.  Not all states have income tax, so my point stands.

You said they "pay no taxes at all". I pointed out how horrendously misleading that is.

Epignosis wrote: Are you going to demonstrate (with evidence) how fiscal conservatives undo whatever well-meaning liberals enact, or lean on your smug political biases?

Look at your poverty chart. Every Republican era has ended with higher poverty than they started with until you hit Richard Nixon, who you could argue was still running on the gains from LBJ.

Epignosis wrote: I sure have.  And no one has bothered to respond to it.  Ignore my posts if you wish- that's fine.  But don't say I didn't "demonstrate anything remotely related to any of that."

That is in another thread, and no, I haven't read it. In this thread, you haven't demonstrated anything to that extent at all. I will handle that later.

Gamemako wrote: Epignosis wrote: No one is whining but you.  The discussion was regarding a federal income tax, not a state income tax.  Not all states have income tax, so my point stands. You said they "pay no taxes at all". I pointed out how horrendously misleading that is.

Consider the context.  I was clearly talking about federal taxes since I mentioned the IRS.

Gamemako wrote: Epignosis wrote: Are you going to demonstrate (with evidence) how fiscal conservatives undo whatever well-meaning liberals enact, or lean on your smug political biases? Look at your poverty chart. Every Republican era has ended with higher poverty than they started with until you hit Richard Nixon, who you could argue was still running on the gains from LBJ.

This is really cute. 

"Every Republican era ended badly, but not Nixon, because he was just enjoying the effects of the previous administration!"  Wow.  Nice try. 

Gamemako wrote: Epignosis wrote: I sure have.  And no one has bothered to respond to it.  Ignore my posts if you wish- that's fine.  But don't say I didn't "demonstrate anything remotely related to any of that." That is in another thread, and no, I haven't read it. In this thread, you haven't demonstrated anything to that extent at all. I will handle that later.

Would it serve your highness if I copied and pasted it from there to here?