wealth distribution facts (in Debates)


Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 12 2011 9:30 PM EDT

http://www.livescience.com/16518-5-facts-wealthiest-1-percent.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

QBOddBird October 12 2011 9:33 PM EDT

Today, an American in the top 1 percent takes in an average of $1.3 million per year, while the average American earns just $33,000 per year.

I now have a goal to aim for. Beat 1.3M/year

QBJohnnywas October 13 2011 6:05 AM EDT

A friend of mine wrote about this very subject this past week.

These are his words:

"If you divide the last 80 years in two at around 1980, you can look at fifty odd years of Keynesian intervention ヨ high levels of taxation providing impetus for the state to prime the market during downturns, and welfare spending funded by a well running state-backed economy to provide a safety net ヨ followed by thirty odd years of Friedmanite monetarism ヨ low regulation, low tax, low intervention and let the market take care of itself.

There are two key pieces of information about these systems, and one back up tale in the middle about one of them. The first thing is that growth in the developed worldメs economies during the Keynsian years was higher than it has been in the Friedmanite years ヨ that higher taxes and more intervention are better, long term, for the economy and for the creation of wealth.

The back up tale- The Friedmanite model has been pushed hard in the third world, by academic economists exporting their views from Chicago to South America and South East Asia. How do you get people to vote for higher prices and lower wages in order to fund more wealth for the rich? You donメt. Monetarism is imposed at the point of a gun; in Chile, with thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of torture victims, in Brazil where the government prepared for the changeover by building prisons in the Amazon and throwing the labour leaders into them, and in Indonesia where even his friends accept that Suharto murdered half a million political opponents to seize power (the rest of the world know it was about a million).

So what does modern econmonic policy do to us? Well, by 1980, if you divide the British population in two by wealth you find a situation where the richer half own about 78% of whatメs there, and the poorer half about 22%. Now? Thirty years of less regulation and lower taxes for the wealthy means that now that divide has shifted to 99%-1%.

We are sitting back and watching whilst the greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of western society is going on under our noses, and the only answer we are told will work is ムmore of the same, harder, harsher and quickerメ."

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 13 2011 7:38 AM EDT

How do you get people to vote for higher prices and lower wages in order to fund more wealth for the rich? You don't.

Sure you do! The U.S. is proof of that. We vote for it time and time again. We have The American Dream in our heads, instead of a gun to them, and this is all that is required.

Between the wretched education system and The American Dream, the bulk of voters have no idea what it would mean to vote in their own, or society's, interest. Those making $30k per year vote as if someday they will have millions, and they don't want the government taking half when that miracle happens. Those making $250k per year vote as if they are actually wealthy and mentally equating the $100k they might pay in taxes to someone else's $5m. That same larger group of people who still work for their money imagine their futures in the Modern Day Midas Club, instead of comparing what they are now working for to "50% of a few million dollars".

Why are they so benightedly short-sighted? Because if you just work hard enough, you too will be a titan of industry someday! Or you'll win the lottery. Or inherit millions! There is a future where you, personally, will be wearing a tux, waving fistfulls of cash, and singing 'My Way' at the top of your lungs. And you will get to claim it was all your own sweat, genius, personal integrity and overcoming of great hardship that are responsible for your incredible Great American Success Story. (The Alger Society is on their way to my doorstep as we speak, I just know it!)

We vote for it time and time again, under no duress whatsoever. Unless you count cleverly conflating what God wants with what is best for the top 1%. There's some reason to believe those who are voting purely on "Good people don't kill babies!" and "Everything went to Hell when we stopped praying at the start of every school day!" are unaware that they are dupes of their own self-righteousness. In the Two Party System, if you vote the way God wants you to, you are also by default voting to keep yourself poor.


Bob Reich--
"America's median income is about $50,000. The typical taxpayer at that level pays approximately 20 percent in taxes.

"Granted, that's a higher rate than most of today's super rich pay because of countless deductions, credits, and loopholes -- including, especially, their ability to take their incomes in the form of capital gains, taxed at 15 percent. That's a big reason Buffett's hundreds of millions a year are taxed at just over 17 percent -- a lower rate than his secretary faces, as Buffett often says.

"But a 20 percent rate is still ridiculously low compared to what millionaires and billionaires ought to be paying. Officially, income over $379,150 is supposed to be taxed at 35%.

"And even 35 percent is a pittance compared to the first three decades after World War II. Before Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich in 1981, the highest marginal tax rate was over 70 percent. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are now paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.

"The estate tax (which only hits the top 2 percent) has also been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 percent and kicked in after $1 million. Today it's 35 percent and kicks in at $5 million. Capital gains ヨ comprising most of the income of the super-rich ヨ were taxed at 35 percent in the late 1980s. They're now taxed at 15 percent.

"Meanwhile, the top 1 percent's share of national income has doubled over the past three decades (from 10 percent in 1981 to well over 20 percent now). The richest one-tenth of 1 percent's share has tripled. And they're doing better than ever. The last time the top 1 percent got that much was in the roaring 1920s."

Richard Wolff --
"Since the end of the Great Depression - and especially since the 1970s - the class warfare waged by business and its allies (most conservatives in both parties) was successful. For example, at the end of World War II, for every dollar Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. In contrast, today, for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it gets 25 cents in taxes on business. Business and its allies successfully shifted most of its federal tax burden onto individuals.

"Over the same period, the tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 91 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and 70 percent in the 1970s to the current low rate of 35 percent. The richest Americans won that spectacular tax cut. Middle- and lower-income Americans won no such cuts, while paying a higher proportion of their income for Social Security that the rich were required to do. In plain English, the last 50 years saw a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation from business to individuals and from rich individuals to everyone else."

Mikel October 13 2011 8:21 AM EDT

So I guess you all are supporters of Cain's 9-9-9 proposal?

Demigod October 13 2011 10:03 AM EDT

So I guess you all are supporters of Cain's 9-9-9 proposal?

No. How'd you get that from Bast's post?

moskel October 13 2011 10:20 AM EDT

I actually prefer the Forbes plan from over a decade ago of a full flat tax that floats to balance the budget (today that would put us around 17%). No deductions, no subsidies, no government taking my money to try and "plan" the economy, take the money to provide for things we need as a nation to stay sovereign.

Begin the process of selling off Federal services to the private sector starting small with Amtrak as its a nice visible one. Continue on with the post office.

After those victories are had...how about this idea...sell Social Security and Medicare. You'll quickly find out through market economics if they are viable with current funding if you get bidders. What health insurer wouldn't like to add 10s of millions of subscribers that won't ever miss a premium payment? What investment bank wouldn't like to add trillions of assets under management?

Sell the assets and liabilities and get them off our books. We're up to $47k in debt per person in the USA.... almost up to one year of median wages... quickly approaching a territory where without a one time asset tax (essentially a seizure of assets from people with positive net worth) we won't be able to pay it off without inflating our currency (which is a de facto asset tax on people with cash instead of hard assets).

QBRanger October 13 2011 12:19 PM EDT

Here are the stats on what income brackets paid what % of federal income tax:

From this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-taxes-and-the-buffett-rule/2011/09/20/gIQAXdd0iK_blog.html

When you add up all of the various taxes, and look at the effective tax rates, it is clear the tax system is already pretty progressive. Everyone pays some tax, even those who pay no federal income taxes, and the wealthiest pay a larger percentage share of taxes. Hereメs the effective tax rate for all of the groups, according to the CBO:

Lowest quintile (23.4 million taxpayers), zero to $18,900: 4.3 percent

Second lowest quintile (22.4 million), $18,900-$32,100: 10.2 percent

Middle quintile (22.9 million), $32,100-$47,400: 14.2 percent

Fourth quintile (23 million), $47,400-$71,200: 17.6 percent

Highest quintile (23.6 million), above $71,200: 25.8 percent

Top 10 percent (12 million), minimum income of $98,100: 27.5 percent

Top 5 percent (5.9 million), minimum income of $134,400: 29 percent

Top 1 percent (1.1 million), minimum income of $332,300: 31.2 percent

As far as Buffett and his secretary this statement from the same article sums things up perfectly:

Maybe itメs not a good thing to make policy by anecdote.

As far as Reagan lowering the top rates significantly, I say great!!!

It managed to pull the US out of the last 70s recession/malaise that Carter enabled.

At this point in the Reagan recovery, the US GDP growth was 7+% compared to the Obama recovery of 2%.

I, however, cannot disagree with the fact more people moving money around are making huge salaries just moving money around. That is not good overall, but it is what happens in a capitalistic society.

Steve Jobs was worth 6+B dollars. Does anyone think he is not worth that much. Bill Gates is worth more than Jobs. Should he not be allowed to make and keep that money?

Financial people who break the law should be punished. I find it horrible that nobody from Wall Street who helped in the financial crisis is in jail. I also find it discouraging that our elected officials such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who covered up Fannie and Freddies Misfeasance get off scott free and get reelected.

As to the 9-9-9 plan, it is certainly pertinent to this thread. Bast brought up the tax situation and Cain's plan is designed to eliminate the possibilites of tax avoidance. I am completely behind that plan and completely behind Cain for president.

Sickone October 13 2011 12:34 PM EDT

When you add up all of the various taxes, and look at the effective tax rates, it is clear the tax system is already pretty progressive. Everyone pays some tax, even those who pay no federal income taxes, and the wealthiest pay a larger percentage share of taxes.

That's the theory, for income as salary.
The practice, for income of all kinds, not so much.
The really wealthy often enough have a large portion of their actual income through capital gains, which are taxed at a pittance in comparison to what a salary of that magnitude would have been taxed at.

QBRanger October 13 2011 12:41 PM EDT

There will always be people like Buffett who can mask his income and pay a lower rate.

However that is more the exception than the rule.

A flat or fair tax, or even Cain's proposal would eliminate this.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 12:42 PM EDT

As far as Reagan lowering the top rates significantly, I say great!!!

why is it that reagan's actions weren't class warfare yet if we talk of raising taxes on the top rates then that is?

QBRanger October 13 2011 12:45 PM EDT

Because Reagan lowered EVERYONES taxes.
Included in the act was an across-the-board decrease in the marginal income tax rates in the U.S. by 23% over three years, with the top rate falling from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate dropping from 14% to 11%.

Yes, the rich got an overall bigger cut, however, they were paying a lot more in taxes.

Obama talks about only raising taxes on people he believes is rich.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 12:48 PM EDT

so if the proposal was to put it all back exactly the way it was, then there would be no class warfare?

QBRanger October 13 2011 1:10 PM EDT

so if the proposal was to put it all back exactly the way it was, then there would be no class warfare?

If Obama stated he wanted to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, yes. That would not be class warfare.

If he wanted to go to the rates that were before Reagan's time, it would not be class warfare, but it would be very unfair to those making a high income.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 1:28 PM EDT

i can formulate my own opinions on what i think is fair, i was mainly wanting to know how you can justify branding what has been going on as class warfare. i disagree and think that such language is hype, sensationalism and fear-mongering. it happens too often in politics these days and helps matters little.

thanks for the explanation though.

Lord Bob October 13 2011 1:44 PM EDT

If he wanted to go to the rates that were before Reagan's time, it would not be class warfare, but it would be very unfair to those making a high income.
Then were the Reagan tax cuts unfair to those making a low income?

QBRanger October 13 2011 1:52 PM EDT

Then were the Reagan tax cuts unfair to those making a low income?

No. They were paying a lower rate to begin with and their rate went down even further.

The system is still progressive, just less so.

As Dude stated, fair is in the eye of the beholder.

Obaam stating again and again to soak the rich is IMO of course, in the world according to Ranger, in his own particular universe that he lives in, by himself and only himself (enough disclaimers?) typical left wing class warfare.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 1:54 PM EDT

fair is a subjective term. going back to the pre-reagan rates and then lowering everyone's rate by the same 3% that the lowest bracket got would likely not be considered fair either?

Lord Bob October 13 2011 1:57 PM EDT

No.
Ok. A tax cut unevenly targetted at the rich is not unfair to the poor. Repealing that tax cut unevenly targetted at the rich IS unfair to the rich. Got it.

..IMO of course, in the world according to Ranger, in his own particular universe that he lives in, by himself and only himself..
This part is correct.

Lord Bob October 13 2011 1:58 PM EDT

*targeted. One 't' in the middle.

QBRanger October 13 2011 2:07 PM EDT

When the top tax rate is 90% and the bottom 15% that is not unfair?

Moving the top rates to 28% from 90% is not fair compared to an 11% rate for the lowest earners?

Ok I got it also.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 2:16 PM EDT

it seems that the fairer our tax gets the larger our deficit grows.

from looking at the linked article, it also seems that the poor get poorer, the country gets further in debt but the rich get richer.

with that in mind, the arbitrary tax rates originally set, then adjusted through the years might still be off?

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] October 13 2011 2:23 PM EDT

http://i.imgur.com/kamRX.jpg

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 13 2011 2:32 PM EDT

I'd just like to pull out a point of Bast's I hope won't be overlooked.

the bulk of voters have no idea what it would mean to vote in their own, or society's, interest.

It's something my Dad brings up in discussion with me time and again.

How can we expect people to vote intelligently, when we don't education them on *how* to vote.

There is *nothing* in the UKs National Curriculum that is aimed at *how* or even *why* you should vote.

It's left to a hand me down process from family (or social group) member to family member.

With *no* education built into the process, especially if you dismiss all campaign information as propaganda and lies. I mean, when was the last time a Political Party actually stuck to *any* of their election promises?

How can we possibly expect the public to make informed choices?

QBRanger October 13 2011 3:16 PM EDT

it seems that the fairer our tax gets the larger our deficit grows.

I personally believe it is due to massively increased government spending rather than decreased revenues.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 13 2011 3:38 PM EDT

I personally believe it is due to massively increased government spending rather than decreased revenues.

Do you really think that is the entire issue? You don't think that government spending in combination with decreased revenues caused the out-of-control deficit? Because that seems like the more obvious and reasonable answer.

Let me ask you something else, "What were the causes of the sub-prime mortgage crisis?"

Which of the following most closely matches your own answer?

A) "it's all peoples fault for taking out mortgages they couldn't repay"

B) "it's all Bill Clinton's fault for encouraging home ownership by giving incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers."

C) "A complex array of reasons, ranging from unchecked greed, to poor regulation, to misguided government policies and just plain shady business practices."

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 3:47 PM EDT

I personally believe it is due to massively increased government spending rather than decreased revenues.

so the politicians, in their infinite wisdom, have figured out the perfect tax rate for the wealthy yet cannot understand the simple concept of spend less than or equal to receipts?

QBRanger October 13 2011 4:55 PM EDT

Let me ask you something else, "What were the causes of the sub-prime mortgage crisis?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_mac

Answer C of course.

so the politicians, in their infinite wisdom, have figured out the perfect tax rate for the wealthy yet cannot understand the simple concept of spend less than or equal to receipts?

You are starting that sentence on a false premise of politicians knowing what they are doing. I never stated the tax rate on the wealthy is correct or perfect. And they cannot understand the concept of spending within our means.

Total Spending
Fiscal Years 1970 to 2016 Year GDP-US
year GDP Spending
1970 1038.3 321.84
1971 1126.8 354.79
1972 1237.9 388.25
1973 1382.3 411.64
1974 1499.5 453.23
1975 1637.7 550.53
1976 1824.6 620.29
1977 2030.1 668.15
1978 2293.8 734.47
1979 2562.2 809.24
1980 2788.1 940.24
1981 3126.8 1051.82
1982 3253.2 1179.43
1983 3534.6 1283.58
1984 3930.9 1353.86
1985 4217.5 1496.35
1986 4460.1 1592.78
1987 4736.4 1662.08
1988 5100.4 1771.39
1989 5482.1 1915.21
1990 5800.5 2088.99
1991 5992.1 2230.40
1992 6342.3 2349.40
1993 6667.4 2420.95
1994 7085.2 2507.06
1995 7414.7 2634.87
1996 7838.5 2719.43
1997 8270.46 2813.59
1998 8727.02 2923.39
1999 9286.86 3053.51
2000 9884.17 3240.18
2001 10218 3434.00
2002 10572.4 3697.75
2003 11067.8 3930.63
2004 11788.9 4131.92
2005 12554.5 4397.34
2006 13310.9 4698.23
2007 13969.3 4924.61
2008 14270.5 5335.24
2009 14014.8 5901.19
2010 14551.8 5806.63
2011 15079.6 6169.91

From:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1970_2016USb_12s1li111mcn_F0t

And federal tax receipts:

Income Taxes -fed $ billion
Year GDP Revenue
1970 1038.3 123.24
1971 1126.8 113.02
1972 1237.9 126.90
1973 1382.3 139.40
1974 1499.5 157.57
1975 1637.7 163.01
1976 1824.6 173.01
1977 2030.1 212.52
1978 2293.8 240.94
1979 2562.2 283.52
1980 2788.1 308.67
1981 3126.8 347.05
1982 3253.2 346.95
1983 3534.6 325.96
1984 3930.9 355.31
1985 4217.5 395.86
1986 4460.1 412.10
1987 4736.4 476.48
1988 5100.4 495.69
1989 5482.1 548.98
1990 5800.5 560.39
1991 5992.1 565.91
1992 6342.3 576.23
1993 6667.4 627.20
1994 7085.2 683.44
1995 7414.7 747.25
1996 7838.5 828.24
1997 8270.46 919.76
1998 8727.02 1017.26
1999 9286.86 1064.1
2000 9884.17 1211.75
2001 10218 1145.41
2002 10572.4 1006.39
2003 11067.8 925.48
2004 11788.9 998.33
2005 12554.5 1205.50
2006 13310.9 1397.83
2007 13969.3 1533.71
2008 14270.5 1450.10
2009 14014.8 1053.54
2010 14551.8 1089.99
2011 15079.6 1154.46

As you can see the years 2008-11 have seen a large drop in revenue, but spending has continued the upwards trend.

Spending doubling in the last 12 years while revenue has stayed the same.

Yes, I believe it is a spending problem.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 5:03 PM EDT

I never stated the tax rate on the wealthy is correct or perfect.

so they could be taxing them too little while the rate for everyone one else is about what it should be?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 5:08 PM EDT

as for whether it is a spending or revenue problem, i think the facts speak for themselves here:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

worst case scenario in my mind is if we approach it as both and end up with a budget surplus, then we can always tweak tax rates again.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 13 2011 5:10 PM EDT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_mac
Answer C of course.

So, the emphasis is on the government being the problem, expected. But I am glad that you don't answer everything with black and white answers, gives me faith that you aren't a total wingnut! :)

QBRanger October 13 2011 5:11 PM EDT

No.

The past has proven that lowering taxes causes an economic boom. JKF to Reagan to W all have shown this to be true.

Is it difficult to believe that the rates on the wealthy could be too high while the rates on the lower incomes are too low? Especially for the 47% who pay zero federal income tax?


Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 5:14 PM EDT

The past has proven that lowering taxes causes an economic boom. JKF to Reagan to W all have shown this to be true.

this should be prefaced with the ranger's world, ranger's opinion as it isn't as black and white as that by any means.

QBRanger October 13 2011 5:20 PM EDT

So, the emphasis is on the government being the problem, expected. But I am glad that you don't answer everything with black and white answers, gives me faith that you aren't a total wingnut! :)

The government put in place the policies that enabled banks, lenders and other mortgage providers to abuse the system. From bad loans to outright fraud. Then financial people bundled these sub-prime mortgages and gave them an AAA rating. Which, we these sub-prime mortgages went under, started the financial crash.

In the end, the initial inertia was the government trying to get more low income minorities into homes. When in truth, they could not afford these homes. Both Republicans and Democrats were a party to the crash. However, the chief defenders of these policies, to the very end, were Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. With their defenses of Fannie and Freddie to the very end, at least till it was obvious they were the source of part of the problem.

this should be prefaced with the ranger's world, ranger's opinion as it isn't as black and white as that by any means.

As pretty much the only true conservative that posts in the forums, I thought that was implied in everything I type so Sut does not have to restate it every other post *smile*.

worst case scenario in my mind is if we approach it as both and end up with a budget surplus, then we can always tweak tax rates again.

All I know is when my income goes down, I spend less, not more. Should not the government do the same. The taxes have been the same for the past 8+ years and revenues have went way down. Should we still spend as more or as the tables show, more?

And how do you propose we get to this budget surplus? Tax only the rich more? Tax everyone more?

QBRanger October 13 2011 5:22 PM EDT

Should we still spend as more or as the tables show, more?

Should we still spend less or as the tables show, more?

It sucks not being able to correct my posts just after they are posted.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 13 2011 5:25 PM EDT

In the end, the initial inertia was the government trying to get more low income minorities into homes.

Are you sure you don't want to change your answer to B? Because saying things like that, as complex as it might have been what you said, belies the fact that it is actually more complicated then that, and what you said seems to place an inordinate amount of focus on the government being the problem, when from all accounts, they were only a piece of the problem. Sorry, this is derailing thread.

QBRanger October 13 2011 5:29 PM EDT

No,

I like my answer C: "A complex array of reasons, ranging from unchecked greed, to poor regulation, to misguided government policies and just plain shady business practices."

While the government put the policies in place that could be abused, and failed to properly enforce the policies on the books, in the end it was greed, shady business practices and just incompetence that caused the house of cards to fall.

But I hope we can agree that if the government did not enact such policies to encourage home ownership by those that should not have qualified, we could have not gone down this recessionary road.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 5:30 PM EDT

did you read the factcheck article? it makes a pretty good case, in my mind, for it being both a revenue and spending issue especially in regards to total revenue as a percentage of gdp.

increase taxes on the extremely wealthy or cut benefits to senior citizens, that is a really tough question! ; )

QBRanger October 13 2011 5:36 PM EDT

did you read the factcheck article? it makes a pretty good case, in my mind, for it being both a revenue and spending issue especially in regards to total revenue as a percentage of gdp.

Yes, I read it. And as I stated, when there is less revenue, one should spend less.

increase taxes on the extremely wealthy or cut benefits to senior citizens, that is a really tough question! ; )

False choice. It seems you and other are stuck on the increase taxes only the wealthy to pay for everything. Or if not, we will make senior citizens eat dog food, or throw them off a cliff.

There are other things we can cut. Like NPR, Endowment for the arts, Obamacare. We can go to a flat or fair tax and eliminate most of the IRS.

Please stop proposing false choices.

It is getting increasingly difficult for me, as the only conservative in CB who defends his positions, to have a debate as a 1 vs 4+ situation. But making false choices as above is just bad for a debate :)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 6:08 PM EDT

Yes, I read it. And as I stated, when there is less revenue, one should spend less.

or take in more, why is that off the table? if you weren't making enough money at your job you are saying that your only option is to spend less or move to a cheaper neighborhood?

i have heard much discussion regarding social security and medicare. i am sure i wasn't the first one to bring those to the table. from what i have seen to get the kind of cuts needed if cuts are all that are used, we would have to do far more than those seen worthless by conservative standards.

QBRanger October 13 2011 6:29 PM EDT

or take in more, why is that off the table? if you weren't making enough money at your job you are saying that your only option is to spend less or move to a cheaper neighborhood?

Because raising taxes in the midst of a recession or an anemic recovery is ill advised. Even Bill Clinton last night on Leno stated that exact sentiment.

i have heard much discussion regarding social security and medicare. i am sure i wasn't the first one to bring those to the table. from what i have seen to get the kind of cuts needed if cuts are all that are used, we would have to do far more than those seen worthless by conservative standards.

The conservative view is that lowering taxes, especially in a recession is going to grow the economy. We have discussed that in the past. It was proven by JFK, Reagan and W.

Medicare was brought to the table by conservatives. Increasing the age of enrollment as well as a possible means testing are the main points being discussed now. The same with SS.

Lochnivar October 13 2011 6:33 PM EDT

The past has proven that lowering taxes causes an economic boom.

Highest Marginal Tax Rates:

1918 : 77%
1920 : 73%
1922 : 58%
1924 : 46%
1926 : 25%
1928 : 25%

So those late 20s and early 30s must have been boom times eh?

Use words like 'proven' and 'cause' carefully.

QBRanger October 13 2011 6:35 PM EDT

The factors of the 20s are not the same as the past 50 years. Or even the last 25.

QBRanger October 13 2011 6:40 PM EDT

However, in the 20s the following happened:

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The wall street crash was not due to raising or lowering tax rates.

During the depression of the 30s:

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

If you want to chat about % tax paid:

The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Lochnivar October 13 2011 6:43 PM EDT

The factors of the 20s are not the same as the past 50 years. Or even the last 25.

Yes, but you said that lowering taxes was 'proven' to 'cause' and economic boom. So it isn't proven. By arguing that the factors are different now compared to the 20s you have basically confirmed that tax policy alone doesn't cause booms (factors now are different from 10yrs ago for that matter).

So, now that we agree that tax cuts don't implicitly cause booms, perhaps you would consider other factors in the health of a nation's economy instead of insisting that everything will be fine if we just cut taxes?

Lord Bob October 13 2011 6:55 PM EDT

Ranger vs. Bob in a nutshell:
Ranger is OK with large wealth disparities, not OK with uneven taxation.
Bob is OK with uneven taxation, not OK with large wealth disparities.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 13 2011 7:00 PM EDT

the wealthy do tend to have a disproportionate amount of the wealth, shouldn't they also then be required to cover a disproportionate amount of the tax burden? isn't that in itself the fairest way for all involved?

Lochnivar October 13 2011 7:06 PM EDT

No dude, because your punishing success and rewarding laziness... everyone knows that.

Look back at when the marginal rate was 90%: there was no innovation, no great industrial pioneers... America fell behind the world.

QBRanger October 13 2011 7:08 PM EDT

Yes, but you said that lowering taxes was 'proven' to 'cause' and economic boom. So it isn't proven. By arguing that the factors are different now compared to the 20s you have basically confirmed that tax policy alone doesn't cause booms (factors now are different from 10yrs ago for that matter)

Actually my post after that showed exactly my point.

So, now that we agree that tax cuts don't implicitly cause booms, perhaps you would consider other factors in the health of a nation's economy instead of insisting that everything will be fine if we just cut taxes?

Yes, I think you are right. We should confiscate all the wealth of the wealthy people and not ask those not paying any taxes to pay a cent. That and keeping all the social programs we have will never, ever make us eventually Greece or Portugal.

You convinced me that my point of view is entirely wrong. I should pay more taxes and lay off my nanny, putting her on the government dole again. Stop paying my lawn and pool services so they can also collect unemployment. As we know all the money I pay in extra taxes are wisely spent without going through numerous layers of bureaucracy of the federal government.

Yes, your discussion has convinced me to become a liberal and give all my money away.

You win!

I just cannot do this 1v5+ debate. I lose you win.

Lochnivar October 13 2011 7:10 PM EDT

Well, that was a frankly disappointing conclusion...

QBRanger October 13 2011 7:18 PM EDT

Last post on this subject.

the wealthy do tend to have a disproportionate amount of the wealth, shouldn't they also then be required to cover a disproportionate amount of the tax burden? isn't that in itself the fairest way for all involved?

The rich already pay the most taxes. The top 1% already pay 40% of the federal income tax. The top 10% pay 70%. The bottom 47% pay NO federal income tax. Is that not disproportionate enough?

How much more disproportionate do you want? The top 1% paying 70%? 90%? 100% of federal income tax?

The bottom 80% paying no federal income tax?

How much more seriously are you wanting?

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] October 13 2011 7:21 PM EDT

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] October 13 2011 7:22 PM EDT

I would erase estimated as its unimportant to the point at hand other than it shows how uneducated people are. The important thing to note is the difference between ideal and actual.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 13 2011 7:33 PM EDT

How can we possibly expect the public to make informed choices?

I can't speak for all y'all, but here we have no such expectation. The quiet 10% have gotten everything they want out of encouraging and maintaining proud'n'loud electorate ignorance.

And, to be fair, I make no comment on "how to vote". We saw that benchmark, and stepped back 10 paces. We don't teach "how to think". See Ranger's inability to follow or make a cogent argument. Now that we have enough people who can't think, it's easy to sway huge swaths of the voting public with mass media, values nonsense, maltruthery brought to you by ..., fearmongering, and God.

Consider: if the voting public knew how to think, they would know better than to think one semester of high school economics qualified them to weigh in on how to manage national and international finance. (backing up: if the voting public knew how to think, 99% of them would want someone smarter than themselves, instead of "just like me", to lead the country.)

QBRanger October 13 2011 7:49 PM EDT

See Ranger's inability to follow or make a cogent argument.

Sorry if my argument is not what you want to read. I guess the liberals mind cannot fathom hard work and success. And the inability to want to pay more into a dysfunctional government. Or pay more when nearly 50% pay nothing.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 13 2011 7:52 PM EDT

Reaganomics may have been "fair" to all but wasn't great for every shopkeep. Ignore that I made Reagan a heaumehead as I hate the praise more than the man.
That was decades ago, times have changed, and being fair has slowly crippled everything around you.
Spending is a grave issue, DOD pun intended, and is in ways you aren't considering or just ignoring. A broke levee could have used more spending as well as a working EPA. TARP funds or w/e spending program the right liked. Paying the families for dead soldiers. CIA finding Osama. Road signs, cancer research, keeping cops clean, etc. The expensive stuff that actually keeps you safe. If you think a ginormous army budget isn't the problem then you better make a good point. If you think Medicare is a cuddling the foreign invaders or giving money away, then you are ignoring the weak and needy. I agree that should be policed better. If you are one thinking NPR must be cut then your opinion needs to stay in the snow globe.

The past has proven that lowering taxes causes an economic boom.
An economic boom is good, then a carpet booming must be better?
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Shouldn't be determined by monotary value but damned if the rich aren't absorbing all three from their lessers. Leaving acceptable forms of famine, slavery, and depression.

Lochnivar October 13 2011 8:03 PM EDT

Sorry if my argument is not what you want to read. I guess the liberals mind cannot fathom hard work and success. And the inability to want to pay more into a dysfunctional government. Or pay more when nearly 50% pay nothing.

That, sadly, rather made Bast's point for her. That is not a coherent argument, nor is it even an attempt at a direct rebuttal of her assertions.

Talking points and rhetoric =/= debate, and sadly the politicians don't know this either. Welcome to politics in the ADHD age.

QBOddBird October 13 2011 8:21 PM EDT

That, sadly, rather made Bast's point for her.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 13 2011 8:26 PM EDT

One way of debating in an argument where you are losing, is to not give the other side any ground. If you are in a debate, and someone has facts to back up what they say, and you don't have facts to counter their argument, the first thing you must do is change the argument to something that you do have facts for, so that you can gain the upper hand over your opponent.

When I was in an office with 2 guys who liked to argue politics all day long, both were smart dudes. One argued the progressive argument, one argued the conservative argument.

Whenever the progressive one was winning, the conservative one would find a way to slide the conversation into another topic that, while not directly countering the subject, would support his view with facts he had, and from a third party observers perspective would give him the appearance of still having a strong hand in the debate.

When the conservative one was winning, the progressive one would typically admit defeat, but play down his victory by mentioning another topic where his hand was still strong.

This same situation plays out in virtually all debates between liberals and conservatives I've seen, everywhere.

QBRanger October 13 2011 8:54 PM EDT

Yes.

I know how to debate.

I also know the last recourse of the losing side is to attack with comments about the other sides lack of intelligence, their lack of reasoning and lack of debating ability.

Tough to have an honest discussion when it is now 8+ vs 1. Mob rules.

No point in continuing this with these ground rules.

Lochnivar October 13 2011 9:20 PM EDT

I also know the last recourse of the losing side is to attack with comments about the other sides lack of intelligence, their lack of reasoning and lack of debating ability.

See... that isn't true. Criticizing a debate opponent because their argument is poorly constructed and fails basic logical tests is entirely valid. If I say your logic is internally inconsistent it does not mean that I have a weak argument and you 'win'...

You're a smart guy Ranger, I've never thought otherwise, by honestly I don't care for your debate style.
The fact that I disagree about taxes doesn't mean I think the government should take all your money, and that I hate rich people or what to punish success. It just means I disagree about taxes. I don't hold a blanket classification of myself as liberal or conservative... in some areas I am closer to either end than I am on others.

Also... I don't do 'mobs'... if people have the same opinion as myself, well fine... if they don't? Meh, that's fine too, I'll just try and make and support my points.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 13 2011 10:07 PM EDT

How to debate:

"I guess the liberals mind cannot fathom hard work and success."
You said this to me once. Had NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the topic at hand then too.
If you can assume we are all completely liberal then we can assume you are completely bonkers?
Loch used history to prove your assumed absolute wrong then you kick and scream about confiscating all wealth. Bast called you on this outburst. Then you lump the unbelievers into a group and act like a pouty child. =/ Whining, duh. Now one must judge you in how you quit the debate.
Here's what you are missing in this polar battle. When the dark side pokes holes in your dream tax code. Maybe you should stay the grown up. Admit the problems to be had upfront. Accept where the pro & con of each side of the same problem are. Talk about how to remedy. Stop screaming "I'm right dammit!" in an open forum, which makes you a target. More importantly don't spin off into the known political universe when ANY argument doesn't go your way.
Not everything is right and left no matter how many ways you care to associate the common place to the two regions!
The tax system isn't an issue one should pick between sides in the first place.
btw loch I got ADHD if you couldn't tell. ;)

QBOddBird October 13 2011 10:10 PM EDT

Yes. I know how to debate.

And without resorting to any sort of ad hominem, quite frankly I simply do not believe you.

Lord Bob October 13 2011 10:26 PM EDT

That, sadly, rather made Bast's point for her.
Yep. Also, the point I have been trying to make about his behavior for years now.

QBRanger October 13 2011 10:53 PM EDT

Please, just wait until we get a conservative in the White House. With a conservative house and senate.

Then we can finally have a recovery from this recession we just got out of and are likely to reenter.

8.8+% unemployment since April 09. A near billion dollar stimulus wasted. A new trillion plus dollar entitlement added. Constant whining about how the rich have to pay more taxes, taking away confidence from businesses.

We have vastly different view on whether Obama's policies are making things better or worse. Huge chasm. I understand the other sides points, but soundly think they are wrong. As you all do vs me.

There really is no more sense debating this point. Instead of turning blue in the face, I get called unintelligent, a bad debater and worse. I expected more from the intelligent people of CB.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 13 2011 11:08 PM EDT

Why do you repeat this... Once it becomes about your behavior zoom to pounce at Obama. Thought this was an economics class. Did I miss the Oba-mob parade in this thread?
Come back to Earth! We have pie because the cake is a lie!

Mikel October 14 2011 3:26 AM EDT

Wow, I'm shocked.

No one but Ranger supports the 9, 9, 9?
You want fair taxes etc etc but yet where's the support for this? Everyone pays the same amount.

9% of everyone's income is taxed (Payroll taxes are abolished, means your net will increase).

9% Corporate taxes. Will be one of the best rates out there, means corporations will have no need to "hide" their profit gains in Ireland. By lowering it from 20% down to 9% their goods will be more competitive in the export market and because of a free market, their prices will come down. And because of the elimination of payroll taxes, that's another few % of savings that they won't be currently paying that you never see, could be passed on to you in the form of increased wages or lowered prices of goods (either way, your dollar buys more).

9% Consumption tax on NEW homes/cars and food/goods. With the lowered prices from the lowered corp tax, the 9% balances it out some but you'll still be paying roughly the same or less for the same item. Used homes/cars/items are not subject to this tax. And before you go out and say, well this hurts the poor people, yes it can if they want to buy brand new cars/items then you will pay for it. But with the gains in net income and the lowered prices from lowered corp taxes, the 9% should work out to lower than what you are gonna pay for items currently anyways.

And Ranger is mostly correct, 90% of the time if you lower taxes, then the market will recover faster. I don't know why you all have to argue this with anyone. Every major economist will tell you this and so will most people in Washington except for the blooming idiots.

So Let's come back to the 9,9,9 debate and quit going in 5 different directions.

QBJohnnywas October 14 2011 5:41 AM EDT

"Please, just wait until we get a conservative in the White House. With a conservative house and senate.

Then we can finally have a recovery from this recession we just got out of and are likely to reenter."

The financial crash started when Bush was in the middle of his second term did it not? The worst of it had already happened when Obama got in. And the continuation of it, low recovery rates and all is WORLDWIDE, nothing to do with what party is in power. For instance we have a right leaning government in power right now, making massive cuts to public services and government spending, and recovery has pretty much flatlined.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 14 2011 6:54 AM EDT

999 seems more like an election gimmick than a true tax code. it also seems like a pipe dream to think it will ever be passed.

how are capital gains treated under it? what about investments?

if there isn't enough money coming in how does it scale?

there are more questions than answers. in a usa today article they quote cain as saying if you have questions please come to us, but then his campaign didn't reply to the questions posed by the author.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 14 2011 6:55 AM EDT

Not shocking. I just saw a lovely demo last night on the topic. A local tax preparer took two of her clients 2010 filings and reworked them based on the 999 plan. In this scenario, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Cain's response to this is to say that he doesn't care about the rich, they're already rich. And the poor can choose what to buy knowing that it's going to cost them 9% more. So they'll be empowered!

The utter nonsense of claiming that the poor will feel empowered paying 9% more for a pair of shoes, knowing that other people are paying 9% more on a $35,0000 watch is galling.

".... taxpayers control the amount they pay, based on what they buy" is spinsanity. If I took home $500k last year and want to 'save my 9% in tax', I just refuse to spend $400k out of my $500k and live on only $100k. If I took home $20k last year, and want to save on taxes by not buying things, what do I choose not to buy? Milk?

I was already not-a-supporter (see: Ability to Think), but for those that need both the spoon and someone to direct it (Note: "win-fall" vs. "wind-fall" was not my doing. It's the quote.):

Under the plan, the current tax code would be scrapped and replaced with a 9% tax on corporate income, a 9% tax on personal income and a 9% national tax.

Herman Cain says it will help both the poor and the rich.

Cain says, "It gives the decision as to how they stretch their dollars to the consumer. It basically empowers the poor, rather than being regressive on the poor. The people who come back and say well it's going to be a win-fall for rich people. I don't care about rich people they're already rich."

But is that the case? We had a local tax preparer look at some actual returns and crunch the numbers. In the first scenario, a low income couple with children and making $20,000 a year paid no taxes in 2010, but would have to pay almost $2,000 under the 999-plan.

McClellan says, "Their tax was zero. Under the new plan that was proposed, there would be a 9%, which is $1,848."

This couple in 2010 also had earned income and child tax credits of $7,036. That would be wiped out under Cain's plan.

McClellan says, "So the tax that was zero with the taxpayer receiving a refund suddenly becomes an increase in tax of $8,884." That's almost half of the $20,000 the couple made going to taxes, and that's before factoring in the 9% sales tax.

On the other end of the spectrum, an area executive making $837,000 last year paid $234,000 in taxes. Under Cain's plan, that person would pay just $78,000 in taxes.

In this example, let's assume that executive spent his entire $837,000 income on new items. He would still see his taxes drop.

McClellan says, "The sales tax would be another $78,000 bringing the total tax to $156,000. And that compares to the $234,000, so he's still getting a $70,000 decrease in taxes in one year's time."

Cain's backers point out, there are a lot of variables we aren't able to take into consideration with our scenarios.

Larry Tuel, State Director of the Friends of Herman Cain says, "Well I think what you've got is, you've got a tax that is more equitable across the board and you can run different scenarios and come up with different results."

They say, bottom line, taxpayers control the amount they pay, based on what they buy.

Tuel says, "There are just innumerable scenarios that you can run and draw conclusions from them. The big thing to remember is that consumers have choices."

But our tax preparer says, numbers don't lie, and she doesn't think 999 is a good plan.

McClellan says, "A terrible increase in tax on most people. Things haven't been, maybe, thought through as much as they should have."

Cain's 9% sales tax only applies to new items, so his supporters point out that would help the poor who generally aren't buying expensive new items like cars or houses.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 14 2011 7:01 AM EDT

also, here is an article addressing most of my issues with 999.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html?hpid=z2

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 14 2011 7:38 AM EDT

From Dude's link:
"Expand the base" really means that more taxpayers will pay taxes under his plan.

Right now, nearly half of taxpayers donメt pay income taxes, but they do pay their share of payroll taxes, which amounts to 7.65 percent of wage income (though much of it is capped at $107,000). Cain would also eliminate the earned-income tax credit, which is intended to lift working Americans out of poverty. Many of these workers currently receive tax refunds.

On top of that, Cain would introduce the new sales tax, which would affect lower and moderate-income people who spend most of their income on purchases, not savings and investments. Depending on how you do the math, people now paying zero or negative taxes might be faced with a 27 percent tax on income.

In other words, while on paper Cain is promising a tax cut, in reality tens of millions of lower-income Americans would face tax increases. People in high tax brackets ラ 28 percent and higher ラ would likely see big tax cuts. (As part of his plan, Cain would also eliminate estate taxes and capital gains taxes, which, again, mostly affect higher-income people with stock and real estate investments.)

And to highlight from my above post:
"Over the same period, the tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 91 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and 70 percent in the 1970s to the current low rate of 35 percent. The richest Americans won that spectacular tax cut. Middle- and lower-income Americans won no such cuts, while paying a higher proportion of their income for Social Security that the rich were required to do. In plain English, the last 50 years saw a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation from business to individuals and from rich individuals to everyone else."

So, to sum up: New plan. Catchy title. Sounds simple enough for even the American electorate to understand. Something everyone can get behind! (which only benefits the people selling it to the ones too uneducated to reject it, resulting in a whole new way to shift the tax burden from people who can't pay to those who simply don't want to).

And the quiet 1% are banking on it. As long as we are all too dumb to do the math, and haven't the analytical skills to question the motives and arguments of the people who claim to be "empowering" us, and don't have time to read because we have to work for our $20k a year, we'll vote for it! (that's how it's done, JW!)

QBJohnnywas October 14 2011 8:34 AM EDT

With the barrel of a gun or just the weight of people's ignorance and laziness. Which one is worse?!?!?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 14 2011 9:09 AM EDT


You say "just" as if it were the natural result of things and not an incredibly smart and well-executed conspiracy. ;-)

Mikel October 14 2011 9:56 AM EDT

What has your side proposed to fix the problem?
Nothing? Raise taxes?

Lochnivar October 14 2011 11:12 AM EDT

Soo...

Raising taxes = bad. Got it.
Cutting taxes = good. (we won't debate for whom at the moment)

If there is ever a problem with the economy then you have to cut taxes to fix it. Ok, I guess so.

Once it is fixed you can't raise taxes, because that will cause new problems. I guess that sort of follows...

The thing is, there has been a recession in the US about every 10 years since about 1970... and the highest marginal tax rates have done nothing but drop. Even if the highest marginal tax rate continues to drop I'll still put money on seeing a recession between 2017 and 2020... if not sooner.

Of course we can cut taxes again to solve that one right?


Oh, and during the economic 'boom' of the 90s the highest marginal rate was 39% (compared to the 35% since 2003)...

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 14 2011 11:46 AM EDT

What has your side proposed to fix the problem?

i have no real side in this matter but i assume you are dividing the issue into democrats and republicans?

if we agree the problem is our huge deficit, from what i have seen the democrats came to the table willing to look at all solutions. the republicans have repeatedly said that they aren't willing to increase taxes and want to accomplish the goal through spending cuts alone. they also seem unwilling to then cut military spending.

if you are speaking of some other problem then clarify please.

Quyen October 14 2011 11:57 AM EDT

interesting.. its always the same persons that are debating about things :P

Lord Bob October 14 2011 12:17 PM EDT

What has your side proposed to fix the problem?
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003ENz

NOT the ridiculous 9-9-9 plan, for exactly the reasons Bast pointed out.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 14 2011 3:05 PM EDT

And the poor can choose what to buy knowing that it's going to cost them 9% more. So they'll be empowered!

Ah yes. Food has become too expensive, so I think I'll empower myself not to buy any, as I can't afford it.

Hopefully I'll spontaneously develop the ability that Indian Guru has of subsiding on nothing but Meditation.

Otherwise I'll starve.

But more power to me!

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 14 2011 3:11 PM EDT

In response to the whole post;

I can't speak for all y'all, but here we have no such expectation. The quiet 10% have gotten everything they want out of encouraging and maintaining proud'n'loud electorate ignorance. Snip

I got so angry at the campaigning of our last general election.

The streets of London were swathed by Conservative propaganda that relied on implication, and the inability of the voting populace to understand the meaning of the implication.

For example;

A Poster with the face of the Labour candidate and a message like

"I increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Vote for me"

With

"Or vote change. Vote Conservative"

In tiny writing beneath it.

Yes. Vote change. Vote for a *larger* increase between the rich and the poor under a Conservative government.

But the populace just aren't educated enough to get it. And it makes me so angry this type of political manipulation is allowed.

/sigh

But I can't afford to make my own party to do anything about it.

I'm not one of the rich elite able to do so.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 14 2011 3:18 PM EDT

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/878189-ftse-100-companies-among-britains-biggest-tax-hideaways

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] October 14 2011 3:21 PM EDT

For those too lazy to click the link ;)

Britain loses ᆪ18billion a year because its richest companies squirrel away their fortunes overseas out of sight of the taxman, a new investigation reveals.

The figure is 12 times as much as the ᆪ1.5billion lost through benefit fraud, and would pay our legal aid bill nine times over or cover the cost of the war in Afghanistan.

But, rather than clamp down on the practice, chancellor George Osborne has signalled an ᆪ840million tax break for multinationals using tax havens.

A Conservative. Surprised?

Chris Jordan, ActionAidメs tax justice expert, said: ムWhile multinationals use tax havens to avoid paying their fair share, ordinary people in both rich and poor countries are left to pick up the bill.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 14 2011 8:01 PM EDT

What has your side proposed to fix the problem?

The "problem", in this thread, is wealth distribution in the U.S. "My side" proposes those with millions pony up.

Mikel October 14 2011 11:17 PM EDT

LOL Those with Millions pony up. HOW?
The current tax system allows them to take considerable deductions and lower their amount owed to less than mine.

Are you just gonna walk up to them and rob them? Come on, it shouldn't be too hard, what are you gonna do? How are you gonna change their taxes? What's on the table?

Ok so you want to cut spending on Military? Great job, let's release several thousand more people back into the civilian workforce.

You all know as well as I do that there is some programs out there that are just a waste of time but the Liberals are fighting tooth and nail about keeping them just like the Republicans are adamant about cutting military spending.

Lord Bob October 14 2011 11:44 PM EDT

Those with Millions pony up. HOW?
With their millions.

The current tax system allows them to take considerable deductions and lower their amount owed to less than mine.
Which is why the tax system needs fixing.

Are you just gonna walk up to them and rob them?
Please try not to sound so ridiculous in your next post.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] October 14 2011 11:47 PM EDT

mikel, i don't think that is the case, it is just that you would have to cut all of everything else due to the amounts we are talking about. from the factcheck article i linked above:

Where Did It Go?
Major components of the $3.5 trillion spent in fiscal 2010
Social Security 20.4%
National Defense 20.1%
Medicare 13.1%
Medicaid/CHIP 8.1%
Interest 5.7%
Low-Income Assistance 5.3%
Unemployment Compensation 4.6%
Education & Training 3.7%
Federal Employee Retirement 3.5%
Veterans 3.1%
Transportation 2.7%
Other health care 2.6%
Parks & natural resources 1.3%
Space/Science 0.9%
Foreign aid 0.9%
Agriculture 0.6%
Everything else 3.5%

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 14 2011 11:49 PM EDT

And we almost had a moment.

Are you just gonna walk up to them and rob them? Come on, it shouldn't be too hard, what are you gonna do? How are you gonna change their taxes? What's on the table?

For the 3rd? time? "Before Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich in 1981, the highest marginal tax rate was over 70 percent. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. ... The estate tax (which only hits the top 2 percent) has also been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 percent and kicked in after $1 million. Today it's 35 percent and kicks in at $5 million. Capital gains -- comprising most of the income of the super-rich -- were taxed at 35 percent in the late 1980s. They're now taxed at 15 percent. ... at the end of World War II, for every dollar Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. In contrast, today, for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it gets 25 cents in taxes on business. ... Over the same period, the tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 91 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and 70 percent in the 1970s to the current low rate of 35 percent. The richest Americans won that spectacular tax cut. Middle- and lower-income Americans won no such cuts, while paying a higher proportion of their income for Social Security that the rich were required to do."

While I'm not actually against walking up to them and robbing them, which is better than the peasants rioting 'til we chop off their heads, I think changing the tax structure will do. We won't get back the proper percentage of what they made in the last 30 years, but we can get a bigger cut of what they "earn" _on_ the money they didn't pay in taxes over the last 30 years.

As for the nonsensical part ....

Ok so you want to cut spending on Military? Great job, let's release several thousand more people back into the civilian workforce.

Nao yer jus' bein' silly! There's millions upon millions upon millions to be had without ever touching wage-earning military jobs, their benefits or their safety equipment. Of course, the people who work for DoD contractors will be out of work. But they can take all the $7/hr. jobs made available by your wholesale redistribution of The Brown People back to their countries of origin.

Merge the threads!

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 15 2011 12:25 AM EDT

Johnny, can honestly tell you I'm the lesser evil and prove it. ;)
Mikel, there should be no sides to this. Don't want to hear about the sides for the public good either.
The military doesn't only invest in soldiers. They also make multi-billion dollar warships with costly missle systems just to kill a handful of men in rags. We don't have to fire several thousand men, and if we did, they'd have some government pocket change to live off for a year or two before joining the police force.
If you'd care to point out the money drain programs in the liberal bite list posted by dude I'm sure we could understand.
Enough with the courtesy. 9-9-9 is ridiculous. Belongs on my pizza box and only heard when watching Inglourious Basterds. Not as our tax code! Now stop asking me to blast you in the face.

AdminNemesia [Demonic Serenity] October 15 2011 1:21 AM EDT

From what I've seen in my 6 years of being in the military is that there are 3 huge area's that the military spends money on. The first is equipment, second fuel and third mercenaries (contractors).

In all 3 of these areas there are HUGE ways that costs could easily be reduced without a real drop in quality. First most of this equipment isn't the best quality nor is it the cheapest it could be. The government gives out easy contracts to companies and overpays for inferior quality equipment. Not only this but oftentimes it uses many different types of equipment but never ends up gaining a real standardized or even partially standardized setups which makes the costs for equipment far higher than they might otherwise be.

The majority of fuel costs are the absurdities of trying to transport huge amounts of fuel in combat zones. This makes up a huge chunk of all the activity the military does. It drives the price they pay for diesel is well over $1000 per gallon. If you think that's a good price and efficient....

Last we hire a huge amount of contractors. A big amount of them do the exact same jobs that soldiers do. The big difference, they are paid far far far more. It's really just a waste of money for the military to hire civilians to do the jobs that they've already trained military personnel for.

Simply put, the military has a lot of room to become more efficient in the use of its money and is fully capable of doing more with less.

Mikel October 15 2011 3:00 AM EDT

Sell the parks to private investors and let them maintain them. OF course there will be regulations that they have to follow and maintain and we can give them a tax break for doing so.

Quite frankly, lowering the "low income assistance". You want Federal help, require all people to take a drug test. If you fail, you get no assistance. Toughen it up. I remember a time early on in my life when I lost my job, went back to college and asked for some food stamps/help for when my son was born. I owned a car that was worth less than $3500 and was denied temporary assistance because of that car.

Make these people work for the money, don't just hand it over. Clean the highways, clean the inside of the federal buildings/parks anything just start working for your dollar and gain some experience at the same time so you can get the skills needed to get off of the assistance. Exclusions being people that are mentally/physically handicapped that can't do the work.

I also agree with being much more selective in who we give contracts out to (military and government) and the direction we want to use for R&D.

I used to work for a construction company and we loved getting government contracts (well the workers did anyways) double pay!

Also start really auditing the expenses documented and check them all for their validity.

Now back to estate tax. You are all treading some very dangerous ground there. If I create a company and we grow and grow and keep pushing new jobs and growing as fast as we can, and then unexpectedly I die, and my children are the beneficiaries, then they have to raise a significant amount of cash just to inherit my company which all taxes have already been paid for by me or else it's subject to being auctioned off by pieces to generate the amount needed. If you tax this again, then that's double dipping.

Corporations don't have to worry about that, but yet you want people to compete against those corps so that they remain competitive and don't drive everyone else out of business. That's a real good way to keep the little man down.

QBPit Spawn [Abyssal Specters] October 15 2011 11:46 AM EDT

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/10/13/is-presidential-candidate-herman-cain-stealing-ideas-from-simcity.aspx

Mikel October 15 2011 1:31 PM EDT

Of course. Everyone is going to make fun of it, it's different compared to what we are used to and doesn't fit the current mold of Make the RICH PAY MORE!

With Bast saying it will make you pay 27%, I can tell that you aren't thinking for yourself. There's no way that any one person can pay that much with the 9-9-9 tax. At most 18%, but that's only if you spend ALL of your income on goods. Those below the poverty line will get a break on the consumption tax, but that ruins your whole counter argument of "the lower class will be hit the hardest".

I'm not going to argue with any of you anymore about it. Enjoy your day.

DERPA [Red Permanent Assurance] October 16 2011 4:22 AM EDT

We don't like what we are use to, if making the rich pay more was the mold they would be paying more than they do now, and the Cain coincidences are hilarious.
A pizza man channels pokemon theme songs and SimCity defaults from McDonald's management!
(name Rich Lowrie triggered the Bernie Madoff flag, but came to find he doesn't have an economics degree nor did he consider himself an economist >.<)
Source: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/10/16/1866952/cains-9-9-9-plan-doesnt-add-up.html
You'd be crazy not to laugh at a man named Cain yelling Nein! That being said...
The 999 plan isn't a jobs plan, it is a tax plan. ...when you take the 9-9-9 plan and turn it upside down, I think the devil's in the details.
Michele Bachmann.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003ElJ">wealth distribution facts</a>