Higher taxes for the rich?

[The Black Forrest]

Ok so Bill lost a billion. He can't purchase any of what you mentioned.

He won't notice the hit.

So you are suggesting that we tax people based on how much they notice it?

You know, a right-libertarian hopped up on drugs who has a personality disorder no matter how rich he is will notice a miniature tax a lot more than a larger tax to just some person who works in a chinese factory for almost nothing.

*snap snap* focus!

The argument was a 10% tax hurts the lower class more then it hurts the wealty.

You said BS and you have been bouncing around the room trying to explain how. You haven't yet.......

[Sociobiology]

Ok so Bill lost a billion. He can't purchase any of what you mentioned.

He won't notice the hit.

So you are suggesting that we tax people based on how much they notice it?

Yes

You know, a right-libertarian hopped up on drugs who has a personality disorder no matter how rich he is will notice a miniature tax a lot more than a larger tax to just some person who works in a chinese factory for almost nothing.

really prove to me he will notice one less car in his garage of five thousand other cars with greater frequency than the poor man will notice not having food for a day or two.

[Moving Forward Inc]

I don't even know what the law is called, "Law of negotiating variable prices" something technical like that.

so your just making it up.

I searched it up, although the law seems to say the exact opposite of what I thought it was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
Whoops.

By the way, you just changed the measurement from buying power to starvation.
What the fuck?

no I just have different version of FAIR than you. mostly that fewer dying is more fair than some dying and anything to do with buying power.

"Fair" is subjective.

[

You know, raising tax on a billionare could mean one or two less ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions, but raising tax on a poor person wouldn't affect how many ferrari's/lambagini's/widescreen LED TV's/mansions he has at all.

but does effect how many basic necessities her can afford. The rich don't deserve more IF it comes at the expense of other peoples basic needs. For the same reason they should not be able to buy slaves to hunt, no matter how rich they are.

"Deserve" is subjective.
And why should we draw the line at basic needs?
You are not saying whether the tax affects the person more or less, you are only referring to whether it affects their ability to satisfy basic needs or not, basically, "fuck the rich" logic.

Any qualified economist would use either total dollars or buying power to measure the effect the taxation has, not subjective things like "basic needs".
Choose.

[Obamacult]

No, the biggest driver of the deficit is the rising cost of the three entitlements which make up just over half of the budget.

In any event, my point stands: the more money you give the US government, the more it spends. They don't deserve another cent of anyone's money, rich, middle class, or poor, until they get their spending under control.

Not quite yet, though it will be in the future. At the moment it's still the tax cuts.

The following graph is from the CBO. It is unbiased. The graphs cited above are from leftwing organizations.



Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... seline.pdf

In sum, you can easily see from the CBO chart that the Bush tax cuts represents $1.8 trillion (EGTRRA and JGTRRA). The total shift from predicted surplus to actual deficit is $11.7 trillion. Hence, basic math shows that the Bush tax cuts represent 16% of the budget mess. Not the bullshit shown in the bogus charts above.

But if you still don't get it, feel free to pursue the CBO data here on page 2:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-07-ChangesSince2001Baseline.pdf

[Moving Forward Inc]

So you are suggesting that we tax people based on how much they notice it?

You know, a right-libertarian hopped up on drugs who has a personality disorder no matter how rich he is will notice a miniature tax a lot more than a larger tax to just some person who works in a chinese factory for almost nothing.

*snap snap* focus!

The argument was a 10% tax hurts the lower class more then it hurts the wealty.

You said BS and you have been bouncing around the room trying to explain how. You haven't yet.......

Unfortunately it depends on what measurement you use.
Should it be based on the total amount taken?
Should it be based on the amount left?
Should it be based on difference in dollars?
Should it be based on difference in buying power?
Seriously, the argument is fucked up and the truth isn't black and white.

[Moving Forward Inc]

So you are suggesting that we tax people based on how much they notice it?

Yes

really prove to me he will notice one less car in his garage of five thousand other cars with greater frequency than the poor man will notice not having food for a day or two.

Yes, noting the rich mans attitude to wealth and taxation, he will notice a 1% reduction in the 5000 cars he is supposed to have.
Poor factory workers are uneducated so they won't say "government has made a tax rise, this means I eat 1% less food", they will just eat 99% as much and not even notice.
Therefore, the factory worker should have to pay more.

[Sociobiology]

so your just making it up.

I searched it up, although the law seems to say the exact opposite of what I thought it was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
Whoops.

admitting that puts you worlds ahead of most of the posters on NSG.

"Fair" is subjective.

exactly!!!

"Deserve" is subjective.

yes it is.

And why should we draw the line at basic needs?

we shouldn't but it has to at least include that because if they can't fulfill their basic needs they really cant do anything else. So nearly ANY definition has to include that.
I have 0 buying power if I am dead.
I also can't notice anything, but will surely notice dying more than anything else.

You are not saying whether the tax affects the person more or less, you are only referring to whether it affects their ability to satisfy basic needs or not

As a start.

Any qualified economist would use either total dollars or buying power to measure the effect the taxation has, not subjective things like "basic needs".
Choose.

basic needs are not subjective, they can be relative, however. If I am dead I have not fulfilled my basic needs (basic needs being at the very least the needs to continue life function).

And you do realize basic need are a key part of how buying power is calculated, right?

[Republic of SAS]

That is absolute bullshit.
There is a law that says the more money you have the more buying power per dollar you have.
Therefore, a 10% tax on the rich affects their buying power more than a 10% tax on the poor.

Guess again.

Their lifestyle will not change.

Depends on "rich". A person earning 250,000 a year would be affected by a tax hike.

[Sociobiology]

Yes

Yes, noting the rich mans attitude to wealth and taxation, he will notice a 1% reduction in the 5000 cars he is supposed to have.
Poor factory workers are uneducated so they won't say "government has made a tax rise, this means I eat 1% less food", they will just eat 99% as much and not even notice.
Therefore, the factory worker should have to pay more.

except he wont because we will be starving for those days, something you can't help but notice. While the rich man would likely take several hours just to count all the cars and notice one is missing. Assuming he has even bothered to even look, which is far from guaranteed.

[Obamacult]

The bottom line is that when you tax economically productive individuals and enterprises (by definition these are the only societal actors that can pay taxes) and redistribute this money to political operatives -- you predictably see a decline in growth and with it living standards.

We have to ask ourselves, do we want a system where money. labor and capital is obtained by coercive and confiscatory taxes by politicians for political reasons influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups whose firms and groups can't compete or get what they want by voluntary means without these preferential tax and regulatory policies in a quid pro quo of bribes for favorable policy -- or do we want to nurture a society in which money. labor and capital is allocated by economically sustainable and rational actors influenced and driven to satisfy consumer preferences in a free, voluntary, competitive and dynamic market overseen by a government that protects life, liberty, private property and enforces legal contracts?

Also, economic reality rears its ugly head when you engage in confiscatory tax policy that really doesn't hurt the rich at all, it only hurts the poor by chasing away jobs, capital, goods, and services thereby lowering standards of living. For example, the rich don't get poorer when taxes are raised, they hide or evade their wealth. Also, many of these rich get preferential waivers because they have lobbyists buying influence in Washington. Essentially, government that picks winners and losers becomes a market for corruption to the highest bidder.

[Sociobiology]

Guess again.

Their lifestyle will not change.

Depends on "rich". A person earning 250,000 a year would be affected by a tax hike.

but less than a man making 12,000.

[Sociobiology]

The bottom line is that when you tax economically productive individuals and enterprises (by definition these are the only societal actors that can pay taxes) and redistribute this money to political operatives -- you predictably see a decline in growth and with it living standards.

Source?
because you actually see the opposite.
see the rise of states and infrastructure.

We have to ask ourselves, do we want a system where money. labor and capital is obtained by coercive and confiscatory taxes

Yes because the alternatives do not work on a large scale.

by politicians for political reasons influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups whose firms and groups can't compete or get what they want by voluntary means without these preferential tax and regulatory policies in a quid pro quo of bribes for favorable policy -- or do we want to nurture a society in which money. labor and capital is allocated by economically sustainable and rational actors influenced and driven to satisfy consumer preferences in a free, voluntary, competitive and dynamic market overseen by a government that protects life, liberty, private property and enforces legal contracts?

you actually need the previous thing to get this thing.

Also, economic reality rears its ugly head when you engage in confiscatory tax policy that really doesn't hurt the rich at all, it only hurts the poor by chasing away jobs, capital, goods, and services thereby lowering standards of living.

again source, because it does the opposite. The consumer base creates jobs.

For example, the rich don't get poorer when taxes are raised

then why are they claiming they do?

Also, many of these rich get preferential waivers because they have lobbyists buying influence in Washington.

which is an argument against allowing them to do this not NOT taxing them.

Essentially, government that picks winners and losers

does it better than the market does, when it comes to basic utilities.

[The Black Forrest]

The bottom line is that when you tax economically productive individuals and enterprises (by definition these are the only societal actors that can pay taxes) and redistribute this money to political operatives -- you predictably see a decline in growth and with it living standards.

We have to ask ourselves, do we want a system where money. labor and capital is obtained by coercive and confiscatory taxes by politicians for political reasons influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups whose firms and groups can't compete or get what they want by voluntary means without these preferential tax and regulatory policies in a quid pro quo of bribes for favorable policy -- or do we want to nurture a society in which money. labor and capital is allocated by economically sustainable and rational actors influenced and driven to satisfy consumer preferences in a free, voluntary, competitive and dynamic market overseen by a government that protects life, liberty, private property and enforces legal contracts?

Also, economic reality rears its ugly head when you engage in confiscatory tax policy that really doesn't hurt the rich at all, it only hurts the poor by chasing away jobs, capital, goods, and services thereby lowering standards of living. For example, the rich don't get poorer when taxes are raised, they hide or evade their wealth. Also, many of these rich get preferential waivers because they have lobbyists buying influence in Washington. Essentially, government that picks winners and losers becomes a market for corruption to the highest bidder.

So end all taxes on the wealthy and we will economic prosperity?

it will end corruption?

[Obamacult]

Obama's tax rate increase will raise $80 billion a year which represents far less than 1% of the government budget.

Source? Last I heard, it was $700 billion, also known as roughly half the deficit.

The federal government spent over $3.8 trillion last year. I will do the math for you $80,000,000,000/$3,800,000,000,000 = 0.021 * 100 = 2.1%

I said less than 1% -- you said 50% -- by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure --my assessment is more accurate.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Yes, noting the rich mans attitude to wealth and taxation, he will notice a 1% reduction in the 5000 cars he is supposed to have.
Poor factory workers are uneducated so they won't say "government has made a tax rise, this means I eat 1% less food", they will just eat 99% as much and not even notice.
Therefore, the factory worker should have to pay more.

except he wont because we will be starving for those days, something you can't help but notice. While the rich man would likely take several hours just to count all the cars and notice one is missing. Assuming he has even bothered to even look, which is far from guaranteed.

So a factory workers 1% reduction in food = starvation?
Lol.

But as I said, a right-libertarian with a personality disorder hopped up on illegal drugs would most definitely look at all the deductions and go protest about them.

Factory workers just ignore it.

Whether you notice your taxes or not is not binded to how poor or rich you are.

[Obamacult]

Source?
because you actually see the opposite.
see the rise of states and infrastructure.

Every nation grows somewhat even absolutist regimes like North Korea and Cuba. However, the graph shows clearly that the lower government tax burden the greater the growth.

[Moving Forward Inc]

I searched it up, although the law seems to say the exact opposite of what I thought it was?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
Whoops.

admitting that puts you worlds ahead of most of the posters on NSG.

"Fair" is subjective.

exactly!!!

"Deserve" is subjective.

yes it is.

And why should we draw the line at basic needs?

we shouldn't but it has to at least include that because if they can't fulfill their basic needs they really cant do anything else. So nearly ANY definition has to include that.
I have 0 buying power if I am dead.
I also can't notice anything, but will surely notice dying more than anything else.

You are not saying whether the tax affects the person more or less, you are only referring to whether it affects their ability to satisfy basic needs or not

As a start.

Any qualified economist would use either total dollars or buying power to measure the effect the taxation has, not subjective things like "basic needs".
Choose.

basic needs are not subjective, they can be relative, however. If I am dead I have not fulfilled my basic needs (basic needs being at the very least the needs to continue life function).

And you do realize basic need are a key part of how buying power is calculated, right?

I'll admit you are right.
The law was opposite to what I thought it was, and just choosing dollars or buying power is pointless when they are not the only form of effect.
What you were claiming originally is that taxes effect poor more than rich.
The question we have to ask, is what effect?
Change comes in many different forms, sound, image, pressure, weight, height, width etc.

To propose that you are going to tax based on how much it affects the person is stupidity at it's finest.
There are many different effects that taxes have that require different measurements to be understood.

It would be ignorant to choose one measurement, as the other measurements are worthy of consideration too.

Not the best argument.

[Obamacult]

Yes because the alternatives do not work on a large scale. -- sociobiology

All of the government revenue comes from the free market, so to assert that the market can't deliver goods and services on a grand scale is a fallacy. Moreover, many socialists disagree with your sentiment because they fear private sector monopolies that consume competition. They are correct that economies of scale are possible and probable within a free market but they are wrong that these are dangerous since government still protects life, liberty, private property and contracts. Hence government has all the guns and gavels and can easily use these to trump any upstart firm that gets too big for its britches.

Ironically, the sad alternative that we have today is a government that has a tax and regulatory monopoly over virtually the entire economy and with it they are even more dangerous than any shortlived private sector monopoly since the government monopoly will never be checked since they have all the big guns and gavels.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Not quite yet, though it will be in the future. At the moment it's still the tax cuts.
(Image)
(Image)

The following graph is from the CBO. It is unbiased. The graphs cited above are from leftwing organizations.



Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... seline.pdf

In sum, you can easily see from the CBO chart that the Bush tax cuts represents $1.8 trillion (EGTRRA and JGTRRA). The total shift from predicted surplus to actual deficit is $11.7 trillion. Hence, basic math shows that the Bush tax cuts represent 16% of the budget mess. Not the bullshit shown in the bogus charts above.

But if you still don't get it, feel free to pursue the CBO data here on page 2:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-07-ChangesSince2001Baseline.pdf

Wait.

Graphs that display what caused what and to what extent over timespans A and B are wrong beacause your graph that shows what caused what and to what extent over timespan C has different numbers?

Did you consider that the difference is not because the first set of graphs is wrong, but because they deal with a totally different timespan than what your graph does?

Once again, I'm fairly certain you're smart enough to recognize this, yet you dishonestly put it up anyway hoping we wouldn't notice.

EDIT: In fact, the two sets of graphs largely agree with one another. For instance, the first graph ("The Causes of the National Deficit") shows that over '09-'10, the Bush tax cuts were (at the time the graph was created) projected to contribute roughly $300 billion to the deficit. Your graph shows that over a six-year period ('01-'07) the Bush tax cuts contributed, cumulatively, $1.8 trillion to the deficit.

Do you think we won't be smart enough to figure out what $300 billion times six is?

Or the second graph. The bar on the top right says that, from 2001 to 2011 (a ten-year period), the Bush tax cuts, cumulatively. contributed $3 trillion to the budget deficit. Again, your graph shows that over a six year period, they contributed $1.8 trillion to the deficit. What's 1.8 divided by six, and then multiplied by ten?

[Obamacult]

again source, because it does the opposite. The consumer base creates jobs.

Consumers can't purchase anything unless they first have a job and earn a wage. And jobs can't be created by labor since labor doesn't have or risk capital to open a company. For example, entrepreneurs and capitalists forego instant gratification by risking capital to hire workers and invested in a factory or some other entity to satisfy consumer preferences. The worker risks nothing compared to what the capitalist risks. The capitalist risks his entire savings in many instances to provide the worker with gainful employment.

IF the company fails, the worker moves on with little or no permanent losses and he pockets some wages until then. But the big risk taker is the investor and entrepreneur who without them the economy would grind to a halt.

When government is the capitalist, you have politicians and bureaucrats recklessly and carelessly investing other people's money obtained by coercive taxation. Moreover, if any endeavor they invest in fails, they can use this failure to justify ever more confiscatory tax policy. Hence, the government operates in an environment devoid of economic reality or discipline -- at least till they bankrupt society to a halt.

The Federal government has indeed accumulated far too much economic power and it has become the quintessential too big to fail enterprise -- sadly it will fail as shown by its $120 trillion in unfunded debt.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Source?
because you actually see the opposite.
see the rise of states and infrastructure.

Every nation grows somewhat even absolutist regimes like North Korea and Cuba. However, the graph shows clearly that the lower government tax burden the greater the growth.

Which really doesn't do anything for almost anyone if the benefit from that growth almost exclusively goes to the 1%.

2% year-on-year growth that is evenly distributed among everyone is better than 5% growth, of which 99.99999% goes to 1% of the people.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Source? Last I heard, it was $700 billion, also known as roughly half the deficit.

The federal government spent over $3.8 trillion last year. I will do the math for you $80,000,000,000/$3,800,000,000,000 = 0.021 * 100 = 2.1%

I said less than 1% -- you said 50% -- by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure --my assessment is more accurate.

Of course, you have to hope we won't notice that Wikkiwallana was saying that $700 billion amounted to half the deficit.

You're right that eighty billion is roughly 2% of the federal budget. But Wikkiwallana said that $700 billion was half the deficit, not half the budget.

Sorry, I know you were really really really hoping we wouldn't notice this bit of knowing and willful dishonesty on your part.

[Obamacult]

The following graph is from the CBO. It is unbiased. The graphs cited above are from leftwing organizations.



Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... seline.pdf

In sum, you can easily see from the CBO chart that the Bush tax cuts represents $1.8 trillion (EGTRRA and JGTRRA). The total shift from predicted surplus to actual deficit is $11.7 trillion. Hence, basic math shows that the Bush tax cuts represent 16% of the budget mess. Not the bullshit shown in the bogus charts above.

But if you still don't get it, feel free to pursue the CBO data here on page 2:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-07-ChangesSince2001Baseline.pdf

Wait.

Graphs that display what caused what and to what extent over timespans A and B are wrong beacause your graph that shows what caused what and to what extent over timespan C has different numbers?

Did you consider that the difference is not because the first set of graphs is wrong, but because they deal with a totally different timespan than what your graph does?

Once again, I'm fairly certain you're smart enough to recognize this, yet you dishonestly put it up anyway hoping we wouldn't notice.

Thanks for recognizing that I am 'smart enough' that is big of you.

But understand that the destructive deficits are not merely a function of revenue -- they are primarily a function of spending. And the graphs that cite the Bush administration as the primary driver of the deficit discount, nay that omit completely, the two biggest drivers of government spending Social Security and government health care. Incredibly, government claims that these programs fund themselves, yet the money has already been allocated and spent (really wasted bailing out cronies, filling in potholes two or three times every few years and paying for substandard education, etc..).

For example, the money government takes out of my paycheck to put away for my retirement and health care is long gone -- because of this irresponsible generational theft -- the US government now owes over $120 trillion to these programs without a dime to show for it but IOUs to itself.

Have you ever seen Dumb and Dumber?

Think of government as Lloyd Christmas and your retirement and health care future is the suitcase they are carrying around Aspen and you should understand what I am saying.

[Grave_n_idle]

What are your views on higher taxes for the rich? In my oppinion, it is a rather bad idea. However, who cares, because I asked you about yours.

Flat Tax is the only fair taxing system.

Flat tax is not 'fair'. It's disproportionately punitive on the poor.

Progressive taxation is closer to fair. Progressive taxation based on wealth, not income, might be fairest - if 'fair' is really what you're looking for.

[Galloism]

Flat Tax is the only fair taxing system.

Flat tax is not 'fair'. It's disproportionately punitive on the poor.

Progressive taxation is closer to fair. Progressive taxation based on wealth, not income, might be fairest - if 'fair' is really what you're looking for.

That might result in some... undesirable effects, though.

I'm not sure, of course. I'm just thinking it might.