# Yes!



## noodles (Aug 3, 2007)

Senate backs expansion of children's health insurance program - CNN.com

The child health care bill passed with enough votes to kill a veto!


----------



## Regor (Aug 3, 2007)

Dave, next time you're in MI, I'ma introduce you to a school buddy of mine. He's a Libertarian and TOTALLY political about everything he says. I'm betting you two would hit it off with some massive discussions...


... to which I'd sit back with a beer and watch the sparks fly! 


(On topic: I'm glad they're at least looking out for the well-being of children, if they can't do anything about young adults).


----------



## noodles (Aug 3, 2007)

Regor said:


> Dave, next time you're in MI, I'm a introduce you to a school buddy of mine. He's a Libertarian and TOTALLY political about everything he says. I'm betting you two would hit it off with some massive discussions...
> 
> 
> ... to which I'd sit back with a beer and watch the sparks fly!



They would fly, that's for sure. My liberal views on business in this country would run headlong into the libertarian free-market philosophy. That wouldn't be a pretty argument.



> (On topic: I'm glad they're at least looking out for the well-being of children, if they can't do anything about young adults).



Patience, Regor-san. This is the foot in the door. Our government rarely passes massive, sweeping change. It's always a bite at a time, chipping away at the status quo.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 3, 2007)

This is just step one of the USA catching up with the rest of the world on health care


----------



## Matt Crooks (Aug 6, 2007)

noodles said:


> My liberal views on business in this country would run headlong into the libertarian free-market philosophy. That wouldn't be a pretty argument.



Dave,

Why do you hate democracy?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 6, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> This is just step one of the USA catching up with the rest of the world on health care







Matt Crooks said:


> Dave,
> 
> Why do you hate democracy?



WTF?


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 6, 2007)

Matt Crooks said:


> Dave,
> 
> Why do you hate democracy?



Because he's a dwarf. It's hard for him to make his vote heard.

















Sorry Dave


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 6, 2007)

> Bush has proposed spending $5 billion to extend the program. He says the Senate's $35 billion expansion would balloon the decade-old program beyond its original mission of covering children of working-poor parents and would move more people toward government-run health care.



But, what 10$ Bill/Month for killing people in Iraq isnt a problem, somehow?


----------



## Popsyche (Aug 6, 2007)

Zepp88 said:


> Because he's a dwarf. It's hard for him to make his vote heard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey! For his political viewpoint, he has never come up short!


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 6, 2007)

Popsyche said:


> Hey! For his political viewpoint, he has never come up short!


----------



## lailer75 (Aug 6, 2007)

awesome 1 step closer to waiting in line for bread!!!


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 6, 2007)

lailer75 said:


> awesome 1 step closer to waiting in line for bread!!!






Care to explain that statement?


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 6, 2007)

Matt Crooks said:


> Why do you hate democracy?



The U.S. has never been a democracy.


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 7, 2007)

lailer75 said:


> awesome 1 step closer to waiting in line for bread!!!



Happens already:







Link to Detroit Capuchin Service Center.



> The Capuchin Service Center distributes more than 700 articles of clothing to 100 clients, 3-4 families receive 10-15 pieces of furniture or appliances, more than 3,000 take-home meals are distributed, 20-30 showers provided for homeless persons, and more than 150 individuals receive transportation to area job programs, *each day of the week*.



Perhaps you may wish to remind yourself of the words of Emma Lazarus:



> Give me your tired, your poor,
> 
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> 
> ...



I don't see anything in there about having to have the means to pay for curing preventable diseases.

With a statement like that not having a proper healthcare programme strikes me as being a bit like inviting someone round to dinner and then charging them for the food.


----------



## Drew (Aug 8, 2007)

lailer75 said:


> awesome 1 step closer to waiting in line for bread!!!



Actually, one step closer to every child in this nation having access to the emergency health care they need. Clsoe though.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 8, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> The U.S. has never been a democracy.


----------



## lailer75 (Aug 8, 2007)

communism. but hey if you need the government to take complete care of you, keep on voting in bleeding heart libs


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 8, 2007)

lailer75 said:


> communism. but hey if you need the government to take complete care of you, keep on voting in bleeding heart libs



 I'd wager most americans can't afford their health insurance costs...

And By the way... Communism works. People don't. That's the only reason why communism doesn't work. people suck.


----------



## noodles (Aug 8, 2007)

lailer75 said:


> communism. but hey if you need the government to take complete care of you, keep on voting in bleeding heart libs



It's good to see the typical conservative response to this crop up. As usual, no supporting arguments, no thought our response. Just a step above "U D3M0CRATZ IS TEH SUX0RZ!"

As I see it, the GOP has done an excellent job of destroying the average American's ability to take care of himself. I certainly don't need the government to take care of me by wasting my tax dollars in a pointless war in Iraq. I also don't think they need to spend my tax dollars on faith-baised programs, telling me who I can or cannot marry, whether the girl I knocked up can get an abortion, and they damn sure better not be tapping my phone. May I remind you that many Americans cannot provide for their own health care costs because President Nixon--who was definitely not a bleeding heart liberal--took it upon himself to destroy the health care system in this country. Take care of ourselves? We would, sir, if the government would but get out of our way.

I'd like to personally thank you and your attitude for being the reason we are twenty years behind the rest of the industrialized world. I know that I sleep better at night knowing that the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of ignorant, violent, backwards Neanderthals that feel the need to push our interests upon the rest of the world, under the guise of "fighting terrorism". Now, if you wish to present an logical case for your position, then please feel free. Until then, maybe you should go back to your copy of "Guns and Ammo" and leave this thread to the adults. However, I support your right to embarrass yourself further through the power of the first amendment, even though you'd probably have that taken away so you don't have to listen us tree hugger scum.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 8, 2007)

noodles said:


> It's good to see the typical conservative response to this crop up. As usual, no supporting arguments, no thought our response. Just a step above "U D3M0CRATZ IS TEH SUX0RZ!"
> 
> As I see it, the GOP has done an excellent job of destroying the average American's ability to take care of himself. I certainly don't need the government to take care of me by wasting my tax dollars in a pointless war in Iraq. I also don't think they need to spend my tax dollars on faith-baised programs, telling me who I can or cannot marry, whether the girl I knocked up can get an abortion, and they damn sure better not be tapping my phone. May I remind you that many Americans cannot provide for their own health care costs because President Nixon--who was definitely not a bleeding heart liberal--took it upon himself to destroy the health care system in this country. Take care of ourselves? We would, sir, if the government would but get out of our way.
> 
> I'd like to personally thank you and your attitude for being the reason we are twenty years behind the rest of the industrialized world. I know that I sleep better at night knowing that the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of ignorant, violent, backwards Neanderthals that feel the need to push our interests upon the rest of the world, under the guise of "fighting terrorism". Now, if you wish to present an logical case for your position, then please feel free. Until then, maybe you should go back to your copy of "Guns and Ammo" and leave this thread to the adults. However, I support your right to embarrass yourself further through the power of the first amendment, even though you'd probably have that taken away so you don't have to listen us tree hugger scum.


----------



## Drew (Aug 8, 2007)

lailer75 said:


> communism. but hey if you need the government to take complete care of you, keep on voting in bleeding heart libs



Pretty much what noodles said. Though, I'm going to make one addition - we're trying to hold an intelligent discussion here, not spew party-line bullshit. If you're not prepared to do the former, please stay out of this thread. 

Now, considering I believe we're the only 1st world nation without some sort of national health care plan, it begs the question, what the fuck is taking us so long?


----------



## JBroll (Aug 8, 2007)

noodles said:


> It's good to see the typical conservative response to this crop up. As usual, no supporting arguments, no thought our response. Just a step above "U D3M0CRATZ IS TEH SUX0RZ!"
> 
> As I see it, the GOP has done an excellent job of destroying the average American's ability to take care of himself. I certainly don't need the government to take care of me by wasting my tax dollars in a pointless war in Iraq. I also don't think they need to spend my tax dollars on faith-baised programs, telling me who I can or cannot marry, whether the girl I knocked up can get an abortion, and they damn sure better not be tapping my phone. May I remind you that many Americans cannot provide for their own health care costs because President Nixon--who was definitely not a bleeding heart liberal--took it upon himself to destroy the health care system in this country. Take care of ourselves? We would, sir, if the government would but get out of our way.
> 
> I'd like to personally thank you and your attitude for being the reason we are twenty years behind the rest of the industrialized world. I know that I sleep better at night knowing that the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of ignorant, violent, backwards Neanderthals that feel the need to push our interests upon the rest of the world, under the guise of "fighting terrorism". Now, if you wish to present an logical case for your position, then please feel free. Until then, maybe you should go back to your copy of "Guns and Ammo" and leave this thread to the adults. However, I support your right to embarrass yourself further through the power of the first amendment, even though you'd probably have that taken away so you don't have to listen us tree hugger scum.



I'd like to make a distinction between a 'conservative' and a 'twit who can't actually support a point and instead chooses to just make an ass of himself', if that's allowed.

I'd also like to make a distinction between a member of the GOP and an actual conservative - the word should mean 'one who limits the role of government in private affairs' if we're going to be fair about it.

I understand your complaint about the rest of the world thinking we're backasswards lunatics - but at the same time, while his comment was obviously not the peak of intellectual effort in the thread, you can't tell me that everyone who opposes social programs is a violent redneck who prays to Bush and wants to kill hippies.

Jeff


----------



## Drew (Aug 8, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I'd like to make a distinction between a 'conservative' and a 'twit who can't actually support a point and instead chooses to just make an ass of himself', if that's allowed.
> 
> I'd also like to make a distinction between a member of the GOP and an actual conservative - the word should mean 'one who limits the role of government in private affairs' if we're going to be fair about it.
> 
> ...



 Fair enough. For instance, you appear to be able to use proper punctuation and capitalization. That HAS to count for something.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 8, 2007)

I may not have a degree in English, but I's been learned good all the same.

Jeff


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 8, 2007)

lailer75 said:


> communism. but hey if you need the government to take complete care of you, keep on voting in bleeding heart libs



Many points to make let's cut to the chase. 

1. No one wants communism as it was defined by the USSR. What people want is a health care system that emulates the rest of the industrialized world. Most of other industrialized nations have had national health care for decades. They also as a general rule have longer life expectancies than the USA. They also don't have medical expenses as the leading cause of bankruptcy. 

2. I wish I could find the no talent ass clown who started this myth of "I'd rather be independant of the government then be fed or have decent medical care." I would expose the twerp as a self-interested plutocrat. Unregulated capitalism is a in it's own way far worse than communism. At least under communist rule everyone eats. The government should serve the needs of the people. Since any humane school of thought or religion will tell you that food, medicine, housing, education and decent wages are basic and inalienable human rights. Then why shouldn't the government make sure that all people have those things? When will Americans wake up and look around and realize they've been tricked by decades of pro-corporate government that has told them they are better off on their own. When will they realize that watching your kids go hungry or your wife die of a curable illness because you don't have insurance insurance is somehow better than accepting government help is a fallacy? 

OK where are all these bleeding heart liberals in my government? I can name maybe a dozen. The rest of Congress and that bandit of idiot criminals in the White House are far from liberals like FDR and LBJ. The days of the pro-worker and populist Democrat are fading fast. Now both partys operate like seperate wings of the plutocrat party. The political zeitgeist in DC has steadily shifted to the right over the last 25 years or do. Back in the 80's being called a liberal was a borderline insult. Now liberals get painted as wimps and idealistic dreamers. So if you can find me this vast left wing bleeding heart army let me know where it is.


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 8, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> So if you can find me this vast left wing bleeding heart army let me know where it is.



I don't know where the rest of them are, but I'm right here.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 8, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> I wish I could find the no talent ass clown who started this myth of "I'd rather be independant of the government then be fed or have decent medical care." I



I can't say I started it, or that I'm a no talent ass clown, but I wouldn't consider it fair to those around me to demand that other people pay for something I couldn't earn myself, whether it be anything from health care to a television. I don't apply for federal financial aid and I won't apply for food stamps or welfare in any situation, so it's not exactly a myth in any sense that I can think of. I object to something being a right if it infringes on the rights of others, so I don't claim to have a right to anything I couldn't earn by being or making something of value.

Jeff


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 8, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I can't say I started it, or that I'm a no talent ass clown, but I wouldn't consider it fair to those around me to demand that other people pay for something I couldn't earn myself, whether it be anything from health care to a television. I don't apply for federal financial aid and I won't apply for food stamps or welfare in any situation, so it's not exactly a myth in any sense that I can think of. I object to something being a right if it infringes on the rights of others, so I don't claim to have a right to anything I couldn't earn by being or making something of value.
> 
> Jeff



Yes you can say that but what if you had kids that were hungry or a kid that needed medical treatment that you couldn't afford? Would you be so iron-willed then?


----------



## JBroll (Aug 8, 2007)

Why the fuck would I be having kids that I could afford to take care of? I'd rather take responsibility for my own actions and not bite off more than I could chew, it would be irresponsible for me to have children that I couldn't support.

Jeff


----------



## BigM555 (Aug 9, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Why the fuck would I be having kids that I could afford to take care of? I'd rather take responsibility for my own actions and not bite off more than I could chew, it would be irresponsible for me to have children that I couldn't support.
> 
> Jeff



 I'm not into hand outs either but this statement smacks of infinite predictability. Unfortunately life just doesn't work that way.

Sure there are people that take advantage of a social net but there are also people that life has thrown a curve ball or have fallen victim to economic downturn (no thanks to those conservatives.....but I digress).

To assume that your life will never have any set backs and that you will possess the financial resources to "save yourself" if it does........well....you're a bigger optimist than I am.


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 9, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I won't apply for food stamps or welfare in any situation,



Hopefully you'll never be placed into that situation. Speaking from experience; cancer (for example) is a very expensive illness. Even if my previous insurance provider hadn't canceled my coverage, it would not have covered all the costs.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 9, 2007)

Don't get me completely wrong; I'm annoyed at our insurance problems too - I won't say our systems are perfect, or even all that great, although I would move in a slightly different direction than most here - but there's a lot to be said for long-term insurance and savings. While I don't agree that it should be the government's job to insure people, I don't think insurance companies should be given tons of breaks that nobody else gets and there seem to be a lot of things the government could stop doing to suck up to those companies that would help the 'average person' reasonably deal with their problems.

I may be an 'optimist' in that sense, but in my defense I happen to be an optimist who maintains insurance (taking all the discounts available, and taking care to report anything relevant to keep from having cancellations if something unusual comes up) and saves carefully, and at the rate I'm going with school and the job offers I'm getting I'll be well off enough to afford cancer treatment and still retire comfortably at 60. The future is unpredictable, but unless somehow the American dollar gets so devalued that it has negative buying power I'll be able to figure something out.

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 9, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I'm getting I'll be well off enough to afford cancer treatment



That's what I thought until my cancer stopped responding to treatment.


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Why the fuck would I be having kids that I could afford to take care of? I'd rather take responsibility for my own actions and not bite off more than I could chew, it would be irresponsible for me to have children that I couldn't support.



The condom breaks. The pill didn't work. You thought you pulled out in time. Whatever happened, she's pregnant and deciding to keep it. Now what are you going to do?

The real point of this should be quite apparent: children don't deserve to go without medical coverage because their parents can't afford it. Children deserve to be cared for, even if they have irresponsible parents who have bitten off more than they can chew. Children deserve this because they don't have the ability to provide for themselves.

I'll say it once again: their is absolutely no point in developing medical technology if it is not going to be used for the good of mankind. I find the idea of paying for medical care sickening and repugnant. We give our prisoners better medical care by far than half the country gets. Letting capitalism run unchecked like this leads to the disgusting level of greed required to think that it is acceptable for just one person to die because they couldn't afford to pay for expensive treatments. Honestly, what's next? Charging for air? We already charge for water.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 9, 2007)

I live in Canada, and I don't pay for health care, but do you see me raving about communism? There's a shit ton of social programs here, and while there's a few I don't agree with (Methadone treatment for one) I wouldn't give up my health care for anything. If any Canadian government ever tries to take away the health care system we have, I will seriously move to Europe if I can. And to an outsider such as me, this irrational fear of communism that SOME Americans display *coughlailer75* is completely ridiculous. Sure, I bitch about my taxes and stuff, but I'd rather have a chunk taken out now then be stuck in Garcia's position of getting sick, and having insurance cancel my policy. I still say you should start banging a Canadian chick and get up here Garcia


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I may be an 'optimist' in that sense, but in my defense I happen to be an optimist who maintains insurance (taking all the discounts available, and taking care to report anything relevant to keep from having cancellations if something unusual comes up) and saves carefully, and at the rate I'm going with school and the job offers I'm getting I'll be well off enough to afford cancer treatment and still retire comfortably at 60. The future is unpredictable, but unless somehow the American dollar gets so devalued that it has negative buying power I'll be able to figure something out.



What if your cancer destroys your ability to work? When the money stops coming in, how long can you live off of your savings? What if that savings is gone before you beat the cancer? Then what do you do? You declare bankruptcy like many before you, and wonder what you could have done differently to avoid your life coming to this point.

This is why medical care should be provided, free of charge, to every citizen of this country. A disease should not lead to financial ruin, and it should not prevent you from providing for yourself and your family.

The wealthy in this country built their fortunes on the backs of workers like me, and you know what? I think they owe me fucking big time. Since they don't like the idea of giving proper health coverage to their employees, tax those fuckers like no tomorrow. No loopholes, no tax shelters, a flat 50% of their annual income. If they want to play tax exile (like the British), then prevent anyone not residing in this country from owning a business or serving at an executive level.

It's about time these bastards remember that they have a responsibility to their country. If you made $10 million last year, then I have no problem taking $5 million of it from you. Absolutely no problem at all. It's not like leaving you with "only" $5 million is going to prevent you from feeding your kids.


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 9, 2007)

Hi, I'm Michael Tremblay and I approve of this message.


Jbroll, you got pwned.

JJ, got a place for me in Canada?  JK


Really, seriously though, how can Government supported health care EVER be a bad thing, especially for those who REALLY need it. Would you want slightly higher taxes, or a gigantic medical bill that you just can't pay...

Also, another statement.

These people who are extremely wealthy, need to be taken off of their high horses. No tax breaks etc. 

Wealth should be spread around in some fashion.

And yes, I'm a socialist pig. And I wish to feed you socialist bacon.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 9, 2007)

Zepp88 said:


> JJ, got a place for me in Canada?



You can crash on my couch, but you'll have to deal with 4 dogs licking your face all night.


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 9, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> You can crash on my couch, but you'll have to deal with 4 dogs licking your face all night.



Aww fuck that


Do animals get free health care in Canada too?


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2007)

Zepp88 said:


> Do animals get free health care in Canada too?



<vick>Only if they fight for it.</vick>


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 9, 2007)

Unfortunately not  But it's not overly expensive. I don't even think I've taken my dog to the vet in over a year, he's probably due for some shots or something. But then again, he is superman, so he is impervious to disease and injury.


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 9, 2007)

noodles said:


> <vick>Only if they fight for it.</vick>



 Rep



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Unfortunately not  But it's not overly expensive. I don't even think I've taken my dog to the vet in over a year, he's probably due for some shots or something. But then again, he is superman, so he is impervious to disease and injury.


----------



## noodles (Aug 9, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Unfortunately not  But it's not overly expensive. I don't even think I've taken my dog to the vet in over a year, he's probably due for some shots or something. But then again, he is superman, so he is impervious to disease and injury.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 9, 2007)

By day, mild mannered Chihuahua:






But no one would suspect that he is, in fact, Superdog!


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 9, 2007)

holy shit that is badass


i can has [email protected]!?!??!11one?11eleventy!!#@11

That dog really wants out of that suit..


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 9, 2007)

Well, he's a Chihuahua, what the hell can he do? Nothing.


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 9, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Well, he's a Chihuahua, what the hell can he do? Nothing.



Ha! Like a submissive school girl!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 9, 2007)

Zepp88 said:


> Ha! Like a submissive school girl!




Well, he's certainly good for luring those in.


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 9, 2007)

The thing is fuckin bait...


I think 3 pages is the limit here for on topic threads..


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 9, 2007)

So how aboot that children's healthcare thing eh?


----------



## Zepp88 (Aug 9, 2007)

it's aboot! it's aboot! it's aboot! 

Yeah..we need more socialist programs. If Canada grew balls tried to take over the USA I wouldn't even care, I'd probably say "Oh goodie! Mounties!"


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 9, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Why the fuck would I be having kids that I could afford to take care of? I'd rather take responsibility for my own actions and not bite off more than I could chew, it would be irresponsible for me to have children that I couldn't support.
> 
> Jeff






The question wasn't what if you were unemployed and breeding like a bunny. It was what if you were in bad shape and the kids needed help. Say you lose your job after you get married and have kids or one gets extremely ill and your insurance won't pay anymore. Then what are you going to do? 

Lots of people seem to think that you can plan around any problem. If you just think ahead and, like a bumper sticker I've seen, "You can't feed em Don't breed em" then all will be well. But you can't be sure what's going to happen and sometimes life just sucks and you have to adapt.


----------



## Mastodon (Aug 9, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The question wasn't what if you were unemployed and breeding like a bunny. It was what if you were in bad shape and the kids needed help. Say you lose your job after you get married and have kids or one gets extremely ill and your insurance won't pay anymore. Then what are you going to do?
> 
> Lots of people seem to think that you can plan around any problem. If you just think ahead and, like a bumper sticker I've seen, "You can't feed em Don't breed em" then all will be well. But you can't be sure what's going to happen and sometimes life just sucks and you have to adapt.



Quoted for Truth.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 10, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The question wasn't what if you were unemployed and breeding like a bunny. It was what if you were in bad shape and the kids needed help. Say you lose your job after you get married and have kids or one gets extremely ill and your insurance won't pay anymore. Then what are you going to do?
> 
> Lots of people seem to think that you can plan around any problem. If you just think ahead and, like a bumper sticker I've seen, "You can't feed em Don't breed em" then all will be well. But you can't be sure what's going to happen and sometimes life just sucks and you have to adapt.



If the kids need help and I can't provide, I'll ask for donations privately. I have no problems with private charity and do actually work with some myself, but I still think it is wrong to force someone to give up their property for my benefit. I do seem to think that I can plan around any problem, and my insurance (hell, insurance that would cover any costs associated with someone starving to death after nailing themselves to my ceiling) and savings plans are going to agree with me on that one. 

I think it's a bit silly asking doomsday what-if questions about family to someone who's clearly too loony to actually find someone to marry him, and who is going for vasectomy just in case, but I'll keep going with this as long as you want to, provided it goes both ways: suppose you have a child who has cancer of the everything and the only way to treat the child costs so much money that you would have to rob a bank to afford it. Now, take this a step further - the bank doesn't have insurance, so it'll lose quite a bit from a robbery, and if it does lose this money its customers too will be shit out of luck... possibly to the point of not being able to provide for themselves. Would it be morally acceptable to rob that bank? Now, for a bit more - say one person, or two people, or five people (hell, make them children if you want) would certainly die if you robbed that bank. Is it still acceptable?

EDIT: I apologize for not having enough time to check SS on an hourly basis, but I don't think five people asking the same question is helpful - and I don't see how 'Jbroll, you got pwned' is either intelligent or helpful (which I did notice a conservative getting bashed for... not that I'd suggest that we're slightly overrun with liberals here or anything...) so I'm just going to try to keep this brief. I don't think that anyone does in fact have a right to anything that they can't earn. Let's go with that, though, just for grins - even if it were morally necessary for us to ensure the basic 'rights' of other people I don't think it would make a lot of sense to go for making our health care system public when so many people go unfed and the cost of one leukemia patient would feed a million people elsewhere. Sure, that child may deserve health care, but at what cost? Are people in this nation just so much more valuable than those who can't eat? 

I also find it funny that people are bashing capitalism when we can clearly see in India that standards of living rise when private companies, acting in their own self-interests, invest in a new labor market and start pouring money in when charities and interventions failed.

Finally, if we were to actually take it upon ourselves to ensure that everyone is clothed, fed, and cared for medically, would we be able to afford everything we had to? I strongly doubt it, and if we could I doubt even more strongly that modern infrastructure would survive the necessary slicing away at every dollar earned around the world. Sure, wealth redistribution may sound good, and it may be good at bringing about equality in conditions, but we have to admit that the condition everyone's equally at tends to be poverty and need. If we aren't to ensure that everyone is clothed, fed, and cared for, where do we stop? At our own borders? It seems unethical to spend money that could feed everyone on one person's medical treatment, doesn't it?

Throw me a fucking bone here; I'm far from outnumbered and dealing with people who are much more than likely not going to accept any argument I give regardless of how I make my case. I already see nothing but appeals to emotion, which are far from being a good way to run much of anything on a large scale, completely far-fetched what-ifs, and 'you got pwned' - are you trying to run me off and completely destroy any chance of actual conversation here, or do you think that throwing a hundred questions at once is a good idea? If it makes you feel any better, I don't vote and I don't participate in anything more political than what I often hope (obviously mistakenly) to be rational discussions. I don't wipe my ass with Benjamins and laugh at the poor; I'm fucking broke myself. It just happens that emotional arguments don't work on me and I tend to respect private property because making people see that working brings about reward seems to be the only way to bring about progress. Are you trying to actually converse, or just get together in a mob and burn effigies of conservatives in hopes that I'll go away and you can pretend that everyone believes like you do?

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 10, 2007)

I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on the poor than on Wal-Mart.

World's Biggest Corporation is a Welfare Queen


----------



## JBroll (Aug 10, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on the poor than on Wal-Mart.
> 
> World's Biggest Corporation is a Welfare Queen



What part of my stance suggests that I'd like to see government money go to Wal-Mart? Or are we just attacking straw men now? Don't think I'm not also opposed to the money the government throws at big business - I'd spend just as much time attacking the money given to farmers to not grow anything on their land if there was anyone who actually opposed it.

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 10, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I don't think five people asking the same question is helpful.
> I also find it funny that people are bashing capitalism when we can clearly see in India that standards of living rise when private companies, acting in their own self-interests, invest in a new labor market and start pouring money in when charities and interventions failed.



I was breaking away from the 'what if questions'.

But Since you mention India:



> non-development revenue expenditure comprises revenue defence expenditure, administrative expenditure, subsidies, debt relief to farmers, postal deficit, pensions, social and economic services (education, health, agriculture, science and technology), grants to states and union territories and foreign governments.



Economy of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBroll (Aug 10, 2007)

I wasn't mainly referring to you. The problem is emotionalargumentemotionalargumentblanketassertionaboutpropertyrightsemotionalargumentohlookyougotpwnedbecausesomeoneelsesaidsomethingiagreewith - I would enjoy a discussion with a few of the people on this thread but there gets to be a point where people are just making sweeping assertions and pretending that saying them is the same as them being 100% proven and documented. Hey, you don't have a problem with cutting out half of people's earnings? Congratulations, you have a viewpoint. I disagree. I do have a problem with that. Some people here make sense, and I do have to say that I'm just guaranteeing that I'll be bashing my head into the wall when I discuss things like this with people who are so far left I'm afraid I'll see them coming around the other side and turning far right, but this place just gets ridiculous.

Oh, and as for India... aid was there before people started shipping business over there, and while the aid helped we give plenty of aid to countries that don't start developing strong economic structures like India did, and it doesn't seem to be working quite as well.

Hey, bash capitalism, but if two hundred years ago all the wealth in the world had been spread around equally, would we have all of the knowledge that was bought with the money of people who earned a fortune and spent it on researching and developing new things? Look at how well communist countries develop new technology... like the Russian space program and North Vietnamese weaponry. Can't help but be skeptical here.

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 10, 2007)

JBroll said:


> and while the aid helped we give plenty of aid to countries that don't start developing strong economic structures like India did, and it doesn't seem to be working quite as well.



More Audits Uncover AID Failures



> These IG reports once again confirm that U.S. foreign assistance too often finances projects that ignore local needs.


----------



## Drew (Aug 10, 2007)

Not sure how I missed the India comment previously, but as someone who is both politically aware, has a gut-level grasp on economic theory, and has been given the chance to see an outsourcing operation firsthand, I can't necessarily say that what's happening in India is entirely a good thing, or at least is sustainable. 

At a very high level, outsourcing marks the death of "trickle-down ecomomics" as even a potentially valid economic theory. In the days when US infastructure was largely based within the US, if a company did well and business was string, then they would be inclined to increase production, hire new staff, give bonuses, and you COULD argue that what was best for an american company was best for the American economy. However, these days I can't quote actual statistics off the top of my head, but I can say that the majority of profit from major American products is being generated overseas (currently, well over half, today probably well over 3/4) and accordingly most business growth is happening over seas. American companies are making most of their money abroad, and thus are expanding abroad. In the case of India, if they can hire six Indian employees for the price of one American, then that's a tremendous growth opportunity. So, they funnel operating products into infastructure growth, and they build a new office and hire many new employees. Life is good. Problem is, the employees, the construction company getting the project, the maintenance firm doing groundskeeping and cleaning after it's completed, and all the various "support" jobs needed to maintain an office are going to Indian companies when on a smaller scale if they'd stayed domestically they'd have gone back into the american economy. The American firm is seeing plenty of growth, but India's economy is the one that benefits. The result of outsourcing may generate jobs and improve the standard of life abroad, but the net impact is a major cashflow OUT of the american economy and into the Indian one.

Honestly, I don't think I'm being melodramatic when I say that the American financial industry is going to collapse within the next 20 years, most likely taking the entire American macroeconomy with it. As it is, we're hemmoraging revinue to low cost operational centers abroad. 

From an India perspective, true, employees taking outsourced jobs in India are being given opportunities they couldn't have dreamed about 15 or even 10 years ago, and their standard of living is improving tremendously. However, you have to remember that in many ways India is still a caste-based culture, and that whatever the government position may be there is still a massive group of "untouchables" present in their economy. Whereas in America we have welfare programs in place to help our poor at least survive, and priivate charity is a powerful force as well, in India there is little to no interaction between the traditional caste systems. So, what we're doing is further stratiifying the Indian economy - we're beginning to create a vibrant upper and middle class, but none of that will really roll down to the poorest of their poor, who still live in squalor as our corporations spend millions and millions building gorgeous corporate offices in their cities and hiring their educated middle class. 

Hell, I will be spending a period of time in one of these offices in India later this fall as part of a project I'm involved in. Our office is in a complex we've built there. It's walled off from the city. If I want to go into the city where we're located, I have to go through a gated security checkpoint. I think that in itself is telling.


----------



## Drew (Aug 10, 2007)

US AID is a joke, by the way - they're basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state department. We direct something like $18k per capita to Israel because we believe it's of strategic import to have a strong US-friendly nation in the middle east, whereas many African nations where starvation is rampant we're spending mere dollars per head. 

Now, if this was a foreign policy office, that might be one thing. However, the job of US AID is simple - give money where it's needed most to ease suffering and fight poverty.


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 10, 2007)

JBroll said:


> If the kids need help and I can't provide, I'll ask for donations privately. I have no problems with private charity and do actually work with some myself, but I still think it is wrong to force someone to give up their property for my benefit. I do seem to think that I can plan around any problem, and my insurance (hell, insurance that would cover any costs associated with someone starving to death after nailing themselves to my ceiling) and savings plans are going to agree with me on that one.
> 
> I think it's a bit silly asking doomsday what-if questions about family to someone who's clearly too loony to actually find someone to marry him, and who is going for vasectomy just in case, but I'll keep going with this as long as you want to, provided it goes both ways: suppose you have a child who has cancer of the everything and the only way to treat the child costs so much money that you would have to rob a bank to afford it. Now, take this a step further - the bank doesn't have insurance, so it'll lose quite a bit from a robbery, and if it does lose this money its customers too will be shit out of luck... possibly to the point of not being able to provide for themselves. Would it be morally acceptable to rob that bank? Now, for a bit more - say one person, or two people, or five people (hell, make them children if you want) would certainly die if you robbed that bank. Is it still acceptable?
> 
> ...



I think what most people reacts about is that your government has no problem dumping billion of billions of dollars into Iraq but refuse to help children. 
Yes people should be allowed to keep there savings, but you already pay a little tax, why not use that tax money for free healtcare instead of buying weapons and fighting a war in a country 90% of you cant even find on a map.


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 10, 2007)

Desecrated said:


> I think what most people reacts about is that your government has no problem dumping billion of billions of dollars into Iraq but refuse to help children.
> Yes people should be allowed to keep there savings, but you already pay a little tax, why not use that tax money for free healthcare instead of buying weapons and fighting a war in a country 90% of you cant even find on a map.




[off-topic]I just gave you positive rep for your post, but I forgot to sign it.[/off-topic]


----------



## Drew (Aug 10, 2007)

Desecrated said:


> I think what most people reacts about is that your government has no problem dumping billion of billions of dollars into Iraq but refuse to help children.
> Yes people should be allowed to keep there savings, but you already pay a little tax, why not use that tax money for free healtcare instead of buying weapons and fighting a war in a country 90% of you cant even find on a map.



Off-topic - actually, Americans are pretty good about finding nations on a map when we've gone to war with them. It's the nations we've never invaded that we're a little fuzzy on. I've got a friend in Zambia right now doing work with refugees coming from Rwanda, I believe. I can't tell you any more than "oh, it's in africa somewhere" if you ask me where it is, yet from all I've heard Zambia and Rwanda make Iraq look like a McDonalds Kiddie Zone.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 10, 2007)

Desecrated said:


> I think what most people reacts about is that your government has no problem dumping billion of billions of dollars into Iraq but refuse to help children.
> Yes people should be allowed to keep there savings, but you already pay a little tax, why not use that tax money for free healtcare instead of buying weapons and fighting a war in a country 90% of you cant even find on a map.







> Taxpayers in United States will pay $456 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007.
> For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
> 
> 130,040,634 People with Health Care
> ...



National Priorities Project - Trade Offs


----------



## JBroll (Aug 10, 2007)

Desecrated said:


> I think what most people reacts about is that your government has no problem dumping billion of billions of dollars into Iraq but refuse to help children.
> Yes people should be allowed to keep there savings, but you already pay a little tax, why not use that tax money for free healtcare instead of buying weapons and fighting a war in a country 90% of you cant even find on a map.



No, I don't like the war in Iraq either; I'd rather just see it all get chopped to shreds. Personally, I'd rather see the money go to education, but I agree that if somewhere it were written that the world would end if people got to keep all of their money I'd much rather see it going to something better than war. I hope that I didn't come across as being pro-war though; that kind of thing happens whenever people say 'conservative' but it's hardly conservative to destroy your government's economic stability to go force your way on other countries. I also don't like the whole Israel thing, as it's a huge loss of money and it's not helping our image over there at all to be supporting Israel.

Drew, do you think that the money coming out of the American economy and into the Indian economy is from the poor or middle class? Yes, it's there, but since it's coming out of medium-to-large companies like our tech firms... I'll take 'Redistribution of wealth without coercion' for 500. I'd also like to know why it shows the death of trickle-down, seeing as how its claim is to 



Wikipedia article on Trickle-Down said:


> ...promote new investment and economic growth...



and it's doing just that. Now, what happened in the first half of the century when cities boomed and people started flooding in? We had an insanely rich upper class and an insanely poor lower class, but as factories were built and jobs were created people were able to afford more - and demand more. What's happening in India? We may be creating an insanely rich upper class while an insanely poor lower class still exists, but that concentrated wealth isn't going to go towards platinum toilets - they'll be developing a stronger economy too.

I'm not just talking about government aid - NGOs do quite a bit of good, too. No, before anyone asks, I don't like the ones that force kids to sit through Bible lessons before getting fed, but plenty of good could come from the *sane* NGOs but as they aren't building a strong economic foundation with labor and technology there's not a whole lot going on - it's the whole 'teach a man to fish' problem.

More later, got class in fifteen.

Jeff


----------



## Drew (Aug 10, 2007)

At a very high level...

The premise of "trickle-down economics" was not merely that it would "...promote new investment and economic growth..." but rather that this would be good for the average American. This was the premise of Reaganomics, that tax policies that aided the wealthiest Americans and American companies would "trickle down" to lower class Americans by spurring economic growth, and that if it was good by then, due to this growth and development, it would be good for us all.

I don't deny that what we're seeing due to outsourcing is "new investment and economic growth," however what I DO see, and why I see this as the turning point past which trickle-down ecomonics is no longer even remotely valid, is that all this growth and investment is occuring in an economy other than the American (specicially, the Indian economy), and that today policies which reward the wealthiest Americans and American companies promote "new investment and economic growth" in India, which (short term, anyhow) aids the average Indian citizen of a high-enough caste level to be an economic participant. 

So, again we're talking at a very abstract and high level, trickle down economics can no longer be considered valid in a post-outsourcing world because any policy that gives an economic boost to the wealthiest Americans and Amercan citizens no longer trickles down and helps all Americans - that investment in infastructure and creation of new jobs is occuring outside of the american economy, and your average american won't see one dime of it. 

As to your first comment about how "it's not coming from the lower and middle classes," on a strictly literal level you're right, that it's money the top economic players are sending out to India, and not the middle class and lower class. However, the difference is it's money that, without outsourcing, would be going TO the middle class and low class, the people who would otherwise be working these jobs. So, they're not paying it, exactly, but they're not getting it either. 

In short, the American economy is running the risk of becoming so top-heavy that it can no longer hold itself up. When this happens, and there is no middle class left to speak of, it's a matter of time before it collapses under its own weight. Currently, India's economy exists mostly to provide IT and business support to foriegn countries. If the American economy were to collapse (which would ripple through the European economy, and if not cause an actual collapse at least lead to recession), suddenly India would have a service-oriented economy with no market for its services. With a product to sell and no one to buy it, they're going to be in rough shape too. 

This is a very high level back of envelope sort of sketch here and should be taken as such, but at the same time as a high level approximation I think if you can let your free-market biases down for a second you can see that I'm not just some full-of-shit protectionist and that this is a VERY different economic world we're living in today than when Adam Smith was writing "Wealth of Nations."


----------



## JBroll (Aug 10, 2007)

Yeah, but as a broader theory I've been exposed to it as being less about the state and more about the distribution of wealth and the effects on the lower classes indirectly through upper class spending. I can't defend how it's been painted in popular culture, but the idea that the rich will benefit the poor by bringing in more labor and thus raising the standard of living is what's supposed to be the point.

I do agree that the economy is going to have serious problems with the economy in the future, but to an extent I think that America would benefit from having its untrained labor elsewhere and being more oriented towards advancement - the college town and research center, surrounded by the farms and the factories but not in need of its own manual labor, if you will - so I'd rather see money going to education and R&D. You might be a little too close to doomsday prediction for my taste but I do see where you're going with it - it just seems to me that if a nation like the US can build the structures that bring about technological advancement and research to the extent that we have, it would be in our best interests to keep that up. 

Yes, we built our former economic prowess on solid labor and reliability, but now people come to us for study and technology - it would be hard to revert to the 50s, given the expectations of our society, so I'm hesitant to approach that. Maybe we couldn't keep the GM plants or the tech support calls in the States, but we still have MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, Cal Tech, and Princeton, and as that goes it's hard to put us anywhere but close to the top of the ladder, so that's what I'd think would be better.

I don't really think you're a full-of-shit protectionist, although you might be a little too paranoid (but we'll see, so I may eat my words), but to be honest I prefer Mises and Friedman - Smith's world is a bit dated.

Jeff


----------



## noodles (Aug 10, 2007)

Boy, do you ever take a philanthropic view of the way the wealthy operate in this country. I thought we already proved that trickle down economics don't work. 

Here is the problem with your idea: you're assuming that if the rich benefit, they middle and lower class will as well, through stimulation of the economy. The problem is the wealthy in this country don't invest in business or spend their money: they invest, usually in off shore tax shelters, in order to make more money. The more wealth that the upper class accumulates, the more money that is taken out of the economy. Trickle down economics didn't work because the money never actually trickled down. Middle class destroyer economics would be a far more accurate name.

Tax the wealthy, and tax them harshly. Use the money for a college education for every single citizen of this country. If you made $15 million last year, and I took 66%, you would still have $5 million, and I just gave 200+ teenagers a bachelor's degree. I will not feel sorry for you, because you'd still be loaded, and your money would help elevate people from the lower to the middle class. The wealthy in this country are more of a drain on our economy than social programs for the poor ever have a hope of being. They have proven time and again that they only care for themselves, which is completely unacceptable when the proletariat is responsible for their advantaged position. Bleed 'em like a stuck pig.

Now, why do conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular, fight this? Because educated people tend to think for themselves, pay attention to what their government is doing, demand fair treatment, vote in higher numbers, and tend to be more liberal. You can't control educated people with religion, because most are mildly religious at most. You can't refocus elections on issues that don't fucking matter--abortion, gay marriage, and other "moral values"--because they will see right through it and demand you talk about government waste, civil liberties, pointless wars, corporate corruption, job outsourcing, and so on.

Most of the low income jobs in this country are filled by immigrants. Most of the population growth comes from the same. Your average American family has one, maybe two kids, while immigrants come in droves. That is why white, middle class citizens will be in the minority in another twenty years. These are exactly the people that are targeted by Republicans, via outsourcing of technical and financial jobs. Why? Well, a) you can't outsource your janitors to India, and b) your janitors don't represent a threat to the way you wanna run the country.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 10, 2007)

Your use of the phrase 'off shore tax shelters' lays out what the problem is right away - they're going to tax shelters because they're being taxed as much as they are, and with trickle-down you cut those taxes so that they don't have to do that. The fact that they're doing that means that we're not working in a system trickle-down applies to. 

I don't think it's philanthropy so much as acting in one's own interests to invest in business.

I know you want to tax the fuck out of the rich; we've established that. I consider that immoral, do you want to keep just contradicting each other on that one until we're blue in the face or actually have a discussion?

Educated people do tend to think for themselves and pay attention to what's going on. I just think for myself in a different direction. Do I like wealthy fat bastards who jack off to ten-digit numbers? No, but I also don't consider government to be a good solution to that. I'm not like the average American 'conservative' or at all like what the Republicans have come to represent - they don't show anything like what I'm in favor of, they skew the system even more in the favor of the rich so that they can have campaign funding for their next election. Unfortunately, the majority of people don't 'educated' in the sense you're expecting, where they won't allow discussions to be about 'moral values' - the fact that so many people get elected primarily for their anti-choice positions or their defense of the death penalty doesn't speak well for that. Even at public universities in religious areas (like Texas, where I'm stuck right now) those with degrees all over the place are pretty much going to be sheep; environment influences beliefs, too, and right now a lot of the environment children grow up with is saturated with party-line horseshit.

I'm not so sure janitors don't represent a threat to the way people want to run the country - France, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba. The average politician, we have to admit, isn't the brightest of the bunch and is going to have a hard time planning all of this stuff out. I don't think an evil state can construct outsourcing; Americans just don't do as much work for the money as foreigners, so what are we going to do?

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 10, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I know you want to tax the fuck out of the rich; we've established that.



When the income tax system was first implemented, only the rich paid taxes.

UE News Feature: Tax Struggle - Making the Rich Pay Their Fair Share


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 10, 2007)

I'd rep you for that link garcia but the man won't let me. 

It's as bad today, if not worse, as it was when Teddy Roosevelt had to start up all the anti-trust legislation and battle the robber barrons.


----------



## Samer (Aug 10, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> When the income tax system was first implemented, only the rich paid taxes.
> 
> UE News Feature: Tax Struggle - Making the Rich Pay Their Fair Share



Great link bro, as George Carlin said it "there is somthing wrong with a country where a rich lady refueses food and a poor man has to go dumpester diving for a peach pit"


----------



## JBroll (Aug 11, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> When the income tax system was first implemented, only the rich paid taxes.
> 
> UE News Feature: Tax Struggle - Making the Rich Pay Their Fair Share



No, I mean as in 'he's made his point clear', not as in 'oh, yes, we tax the fuck out of the rich in a way that will satisfy the average socialist'.

Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 11, 2007)

BBC NEWS | Business | US lender on brink of bankruptcy

Interesting that after a number of years with American politics lurching ever rightwards there is still less evidence of a trickle-down of wealth.

Exchange rate as I write:

£1 = $2.0241


----------



## JBroll (Aug 11, 2007)

Say what you want about it lurching rightwards, but with as much money as there is going out of the country you're just expecting things out of context from trickle-down. We still tax the wealthy quite a bit - just look at the IRS website, hit somewhere in the area of 100 grand for singles and 150 grand for couples filing jointly and you're at 30% of your income, just from the federal income tax - and there are state and local taxes on top of that. That's not exactly what trickle-down is going for - see, that whole thing about lowering taxes on the wealthy to make keeping money here more reasonable doesn't actually work when you aren't lowering taxes on the wealthy. You might as well be bouncing a balloon up in the air, cackling maniacally and screaming "Where's your gravity NOW, bitch?" at your high school science teacher. Of course we're not getting what trickle-down predicts - we're not in the scenario trickle-down applies to, what the fuck do you expect?

Jeff


----------



## Samer (Aug 11, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Say what you want about it lurching rightwards, but with as much money as there is going out of the country you're just expecting things out of context from trickle-down. We still tax the wealthy quite a bit - just look at the IRS website, hit somewhere in the area of 100 grand for singles and 150 grand for couples filing jointly and you're at 30% of your income, just from the federal income tax - and there are state and local taxes on top of that. That's not exactly what trickle-down is going for - see, that whole thing about lowering taxes on the wealthy to make keeping money here more reasonable doesn't actually work when you aren't lowering taxes on the wealthy. You might as well be bouncing a balloon up in the air, cackling maniacally and screaming "Where's your gravity NOW, bitch?" at your high school science teacher. Of course we're not getting what trickle-down predicts - we're not in the scenario trickle-down applies to, what the fuck do you expect?
> 
> Jeff



The reason some one making 150 k a year can pay 30% and some one making $8.00 an hour will pay maybe 20% is because the person making 150 k a year can afford more. 

I don&#8217;t think there is anything wrong with more taxes or higher taxes as long as we get more services. I would be willing to pay more taxes to help single mothers or homeless people, or even get national health care. A lot of countries do this (like Canada) and they are just a nicer place to live for everyone. 

I will give you an example between the differences between the rich and the poor. My family lives in one the richest areas of south California were I would say no body makes fewer than 300k a year. In that area every one is driving an expensive car, the kids can go to any college they want, and money isn&#8217;t really an issue for any one. These days I live in Milwaukee WI, around people who are making maybe $8 - $12 an hour on average. These people can barley pay there rent yet alone support there kids. 

What made me really sad one day is when this single mother was talking on the phone and I over heard her, she was saying she could not afford to get her kids backpacks for school. 

Now, I don&#8217;t mind charging the guy driving a 250k dollar car and living in a 4 million dollar house more so that poor mother can buy her kids food. You might not see it this way, but fortunately you are the minority.


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 11, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Say what you want about it lurching rightwards, but with as much money as there is going out of the country you're just expecting things out of context from trickle-down.



"Out of context"? In what way is expecting the poorest in the economy to have had the income gap between them and the wealthiest reduced by the reduction in marginal rates of taxation for the wealthiest (and for corporations) - i.e. the very definition of "trickle down" be "out of context"?



JBroll said:


> We still tax the wealthy quite a bit - just look at the IRS website, hit somewhere in the area of 100 grand for singles and 150 grand for couples filing jointly and you're at 30% of your income, just from the federal income tax - and there are state and local taxes on top of that. That's not exactly what trickle-down is going for - see, that whole thing about lowering taxes on the wealthy to make keeping money here more reasonable doesn't actually work when you aren't lowering taxes on the wealthy.



In what way are taxes on the wealthy not being lowered? Someone single with an income of $31,850 basically pays c.13% in Federal income tax (according to 2007 Tax Tables from irs.gov), whilst someone earning $500,000 pays c.29%, and someone earning (or being paid, depending on your point of view) $1,000,000 pays c.32%, $5,000,000 pays c.35% and so forth.

The marginal rates of taxation are, in fact, highest for the lower and middle classes, who are also, coincidentally the people who are not able to afford the sort of tax avoidance schemes that are marketed at the wealthiest sector of the population (artificial tax losses, offshore havens, payment in chattels etc.).



JBroll said:


> You might as well be bouncing a balloon up in the air, cackling maniacally and screaming "Where's your gravity NOW, bitch?" at your high school science teacher. Of course we're not getting what trickle-down predicts - we're not in the scenario trickle-down applies to, what the fuck do you expect?
> 
> Jeff



So in summary what scenario do you expect "trickle-down" to apply in?

EDIT: This link may be of interest.



BBC said:


> The incomes of the top 20% have grown much faster than earnings of those at the middle or bottom of the income distribution. The income of the top 1% and top 0.1% have grown particularly rapidly.
> 
> From 1992 to 2005, the pay of chief executive officers of major companies rose by 186%.
> 
> ...



(The expletive and hint of a personal insult are unnecessary, by the way. Can you please refrain from such tactics in future? They do you no credit. Thanks.)


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 11, 2007)

JBroll said:


> No, I mean as in 'he's made his point clear', not as in 'oh, yes, we tax the fuck out of the rich in a way that will satisfy the average socialist'.
> 
> Jeff



Actually the link was to reinforce what Dave said.

But this link speaks volumes about what is wrong with the current tax system:

EvilCON » Warren Buffett Criticizes Tax System Where He Pays Less Tax Than His Secretary


----------



## Samer (Aug 11, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> Actually the link was to reinforce what Dave said.
> 
> But this link speaks volumes about what is wrong with the current tax system:
> 
> EvilCON » Warren Buffett Criticizes Tax System Where He Pays Less Tax Than His Secretary



Great link 
It is sad though how the tax situation is in this country.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 11, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> "Out of context"? In what way is expecting the poorest in the economy to have had the income gap between them and the wealthiest reduced by the reduction in marginal rates of taxation for the wealthiest (and for corporations) - i.e. the very definition of "trickle down" be "out of context"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think there was a hint of an insult so much as surprise and confusion; if I start insulting people, you'll know, I just find it surprising what people expect sometimes. The point was that (and I've said this before, but apparently I'm just going to have to repeat it over and over again until I die of asphyxiation) the system trickle-down applies to wouldn't have the kind of taxation we do (lower all across the board, less complex, possibly based on something other than income) so it is absurd to expect that the expected outcome of trickle-down should come about and even more absurd to say that failure of trickle-down's predictions here implies that it is entirely invalid - hence the balloon analogy.

And if it's that hard to get at, the tax rates here are too high for trickle-down. 

Yes, Samer, I understand that the rich can afford to pay more because they earn more, that is not the issue.

I'm not going to defend income tax - hell, I won't really defend *any* tax, they all have problems - but if you want to start cutting back on those tax problems and see the kind of thing supply-side is meant to apply to, go for a sales tax. The FAIR Tax is a much better solution (fairtax.org) for equality and efficiency, and that, coupled with more efficient government, cuts on expensive nonsense like the war, and more checks to get rid of pork and excessive spending, would get us closer. What I was saying with India was that we see upward mobility and increased living standards because the benefiting party predicted would be the new labor in India - and yes, they have their problems, from corruption to incredible bias in the culture against people because of the circumstances of their birth - and we're seeing improvements.

Jeff


----------



## Vince (Aug 11, 2007)

Not to completely sidetrack the entire conversation (and I also realize I'm a bit late to the party here), but while I'm definitely for the rich paying a higher tax rate, I'd like to see no increases in taxes until we spend about, oh I don't know, maybe 95% less on defense spending & maybe work on our foreign relations a bit.

The biggest problem with this country is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about. The military industrial complex is out of control. Perpetual war = perpetually needing military supplies. Hence, it's in the best interests of Lockheed Martin, Hughes, Halliburton, etc., to have political leaders in place purposely that piss off other nations & keep us in war or threatened by attacks.

So, basically my point, we can go around in circles all day about who should pay higher taxes or lower taxes, and that's a valid argument too, but how about we fix the big fucking problem first. The big fat fucking pink elephant in the room of any political discussion, IMO.


----------



## Samer (Aug 11, 2007)

Vince said:


> Not to completely sidetrack the entire conversation (and I also realize I'm a bit late to the party here), but while I'm definitely for the rich paying a higher tax rate, I'd like to see no increases in taxes until we spend about, oh I don't know, maybe 95% less on defense spending & maybe work on our foreign relations a bit.
> 
> The biggest problem with this country is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about. The military industrial complex is out of control. Perpetual war = perpetually needing military supplies. Hence, it's in the best interests of Lockheed Martin, Hughes, Halliburton, etc., to have political leaders in place purposely that piss off other nations & keep us in war or threatened by attacks.
> 
> So, basically my point, we can go around in circles all day about who should pay higher taxes or lower taxes, and that's a valid argument too, but how about we fix the big fucking problem first. The big fat fucking pink elephant in the room of any political discussion, IMO.



Good point, we waste way to much money on the military.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 11, 2007)

Agreed completely. I actually remember sitting in class a few years back when the bombing campaigns were a big issue and being the one fucker there who didn't think it was a good idea... I knew I'd win. If we took care of that we'd have plenty of money to spend on better things.

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 11, 2007)

JBroll said:


> The FAIR Tax is a much better solution (fairtax.org) for equality and efficiency, and that, coupled with more efficient government, cuts on expensive nonsense like the war, and more checks to get rid of pork and excessive spending, would get us closer.




The FairTax: A Trojan Horse for America?, By Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman


----------



## JBroll (Aug 11, 2007)

Note that updates have been made, and updates are being made. Also remember that I'm saying cut things like the war, so the rate won't be that high. 

That article also is making some assumptions that are a bit on the dangerous side - like assuming that we'll have an income tax as well as the sales tax (which would, of course, be a problem... but so would making the 'death tax' 150% of the estate in question - not going to happen unless someone really just hates income or gets really stupid), assuming that nobody could possibly decide that adjusting for inflation is a good idea, and that the government would rather make cash purchases illegal than try to track them better. That's pretty far out there - granted, 'Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.' sounds like the kind of name a parody think tank would cream themselves over, but this isn't exactly the most compelling prediction out there.

A sales tax rate in the twenties may sound high, but guess what? You're going to have 30% more income when the income tax rate drops. Combine a simpler way of getting the same tax revenue with a reduction of bureaucracy and you've just make everyone's April easier.

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 11, 2007)

Against the FairTax Proposal by Jim Cox


The Fair Tax Fraud - Mises Institute



JBroll said:


> That article also is making some assumptions that are a bit on the dangerous side - like assuming that we'll have an income tax as well as the sales tax



[Open letter posted on Fairtax.org]We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and undesirable.[/open letter posted on fairtax.org]


----------



## JBroll (Aug 11, 2007)

Federal taxation =/= income tax. What are you trying to say with that?

I know the Mises Institute opposes it (usually I tend to agree with them, and Mises is part of the reason I've gone down this evil, evil path), but it's not the end - it's a start. Part of their issue with it is, of course, government size - and I want to see that reduced as well - and I don't see how it's the business of a new tax law to cut down government spending - that should be done for its own merit, not as a part of this program.

Jeff


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 11, 2007)

> The national retail sales tax rate under the FairTax plan is 23 percent. That is on top of state sales taxes that are currently collected by forty-five states. That is on top of the sales tax that many cities and counties also collect. That is on top of the special taxes that exist on hotel rooms in most areas of the country. I suppose that a national retail sales tax would also apply to gasoline. There is no mention of the federal gas tax anywhere in the Fair Tax Act of 2005. No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax. Does this mean that there will be an additional 23 percent tax on each gallon of gasoline?



The fair tax/flat tax/national sales tax idea has been around since the 1800's. The idea is basically the same, but they keep changing the name.


----------



## ohio_eric (Aug 12, 2007)

Vince said:


> Not to completely sidetrack the entire conversation (and I also realize I'm a bit late to the party here), but while I'm definitely for the rich paying a higher tax rate, I'd like to see no increases in taxes until we spend about, oh I don't know, maybe 95% less on defense spending & maybe work on our foreign relations a bit.
> 
> The biggest problem with this country is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about. The military industrial complex is out of control. Perpetual war = perpetually needing military supplies. Hence, it's in the best interests of Lockheed Martin, Hughes, Halliburton, etc., to have political leaders in place purposely that piss off other nations & keep us in war or threatened by attacks.
> 
> So, basically my point, we can go around in circles all day about who should pay higher taxes or lower taxes, and that's a valid argument too, but how about we fix the big fucking problem first. The big fat fucking pink elephant in the room of any political discussion, IMO.





Vince has hit the nail right on the head. The United States spends hundreds of billions on its military. The last time I saw any numbers we spent more than the next 20 highest nations combined.


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 12, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> Vince has hit the nail right on the head. The United States spends hundreds of billions on its military. The last time I saw any numbers we spent more than the next 20 highest nations combined.




Military of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> As of 2007, the United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of all other nations combined.[citation needed] The United States and its closest allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of global military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the vast majority). Military spending accounts for 19% of the United States' federal budget, and approximately half of its federal discretionary spending, which comprises all of the U.S. government's money not accounted for by pre-existing obligations.[2] [8]
> 
> However, in terms of per capita spending, the U.S. ranks third behind Israel and Singapore[9]. It is also number 27 in terms of military spending per dollar GDP.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 12, 2007)

> The military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 is:
> Total Funding $439.3 Billion



439.3 Billion divided by 300 million is just under $1400 a person for the country's military spending. Finally we can agree on something - fucking obscene.

Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 12, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I don't think there was a hint of an insult so much as surprise and confusion; if I start insulting people, you'll know, I just find it surprising what people expect sometimes. The point was that (and I've said this before, but apparently I'm just going to have to repeat it over and over again until I die of asphyxiation) the system trickle-down applies to wouldn't have the kind of taxation we do (lower all across the board, less complex, possibly based on something other than income) so it is absurd to expect that the expected outcome of trickle-down should come about and even more absurd to say that failure of trickle-down's predictions here implies that it is entirely invalid - hence the balloon analogy.
> 
> And if it's that hard to get at, the tax rates here are too high for trickle-down.



And what _absolute_ rate of tax is acceptable for "trickle down" to occur? 34%? 33%? 27.2856576623862438%?

Surely the whole point is about marginal tax rates, not absolute ones.

Sorry, but your argument here just doesn't appear to stand up. Unless, of course, you can define absolute tax rates that will enable "trickle down".



JBroll said:


> Yes, Samer, I understand that the rich can afford to pay more because they earn more, that is not the issue.
> 
> I'm not going to defend income tax - hell, I won't really defend *any* tax, they all have problems - but if you want to start cutting back on those tax problems and see the kind of thing supply-side is meant to apply to, go for a sales tax.



Let's try an example of regressive taxation here. Some assumptions:

All cars work a 1mpg. A gallon of fuel cost $1, of which sales tax accounts for 10c.

So - a person living 20 miles from work who drives a car who earns $500 a week and will buy 40 * 5 = 200 gallons of fuel per working week, costing $200, $20 tax, an effective tax rate of 4%.

A person living 20 miles from work who drives a car who earns $5000 a week will buy 200 gallons of fuel per week @ $200, $20 tax, an effective tax rate of 0.4%.

I guess that here you will suggest that the remaining $4800 will all be spent on US-made goods and US-based services therefore trickling down through the economy. I would be interested for you to provide some evidence to support the function of this model without the use of protectionism measures.



JBroll said:


> The FAIR Tax is a much better solution (fairtax.org) for equality and efficiency, and that, coupled with more efficient government, cuts on expensive nonsense like the war, and more checks to get rid of pork and excessive spending, would get us closer. What I was saying with India was that we see upward mobility and increased living standards because the benefiting party predicted would be the new labor in India - and yes, they have their problems, from corruption to incredible bias in the culture against people because of the circumstances of their birth - and we're seeing improvements.
> 
> Jeff



Fairtax proposes a "progressive" sales tax to reduce the administrative burden of operation (and therefore the efficiency of collection):



fairtax.org said:


> The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
> 
> The FairTax:
> 
> ...



Problems here:

1) The IRS, being the largest tax collection agency actually offers greatest scope for efficiency and for reduction of administrative burden, so by abolishing it and instead duplicating its function across a number of local tax-collection agencies you reduce efficiency and eliminate scope for economies of scale.
2) 'Closing all loopholes and bringing fairness' - how? There is scant detail here.
3) Transparency how? If I live in Michigan, work in Wisconsin during the week and shop occasionally on the internet to whom to do I pay my sales tax? Where does the money go?
4) 'Allows American products to compete fairly' - how? By protectionism and subsidy?
5) 'Reimburses on purchase of essentials' - an administrative nightmare, it's much simpler to follow the UK model, for example, of VAT which is administered (effectively) by retailers and suppliers and operate a zero rate (or 5% rate for tax harmonisation within the EU) for defined essential goods rather than having people have to claim back overpaid tax - which, of course, the tax authority has collected interest on in the interim. Unless you expect the retailers/suppliers to operate this rebate system, which would duplicate the administrative burden on them millions of times over within the economy (UK VAT Registration is optional for companies with turnovers below a threshold, or VAT liabilities can be estimated subject to investigation/audit). Or perhaps you propose that I have to show proof of earnings every time I buy anything?
6) "Enables retirees to keep their entire pension" - provided they never buy anything like fuel, food, housing or use any services like water, gas, electricity... Or unless you expect every purchase to be accompanied by verified proof of earnings to show that you are exempt from taxation, otherwise you would have one of the loopholes for evasion and avoidance that you promised to close earlier, and has a colossal cost in administration as every purchaser and every supplier has to audit every economic transaction for tax liability.
7) "Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck" - provided they never buy anything etc. etc.

With regard to India it would be useful to see evidence to support the implication that corruption within the taxation system is more widespread than in comparable economies (or within the US economy), and on the effect of the caste and bonded labour system (which actually can be exploited to keep the price of labour-intensive manufacture down without the need for investment in modernising with capital equipment).


----------



## JBroll (Aug 12, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> And what _absolute_ rate of tax is acceptable for "trickle down" to occur? 34%? 33%? 27.2856576623862438%?
> 
> Surely the whole point is about marginal tax rates, not absolute ones.
> 
> Sorry, but your argument here just doesn't appear to stand up. Unless, of course, you can define absolute tax rates that will enable "trickle down".



For the tax rate, I'd be quite a bit lower. Half of that would still be high in my view. Note that I'm also trying to point out that spending from the rich in other countries is pointing fairly clearly towards what I'm going for - in that sense we're seeing a lot of good from people just acting in their own interests. I can't just pull a tax rate out of my ass, sorry to disappoint you, but I'll say that it'll be low enough for us to need to cut back on government waste (a lot!) - not a bad thing in itself, but it's not going to happen more easily while we're just adding more and more bureaucracy. I'll work on this if you actually want to know, but there's also a reason why I said that a different form of taxation would help.



stuz719 said:


> Let's try an example of regressive taxation here. Some assumptions:
> 
> All cars work a 1mpg. A gallon of fuel cost $1, of which sales tax accounts for 10c.
> 
> ...



Usually we go for more factual accuracy in our examples but I'll run with it. Are you suggesting that the rich should pay more for these things? You're also just taking one tiny subset of expenses and acting as if that were the end of it all - the rich who buy million-dollar engagement rings and expensive dresses are going to get pounded in the ass by this, and those who live more modestly will be taxed less. In a sense, it's also encouraging more responsibility - I'll admit that when I see the celebrity nonsense walking around Hollywood on the news I wish someone could have just dropped a 75% wasteful spending tax on the fritzy bullshit and paid a year's salary for a decent schoolteacher - and giving more incentive to those who use their money in R&D and job creation, which improves the standard of living for others.





stuz719 said:


> Fairtax proposes a "progressive" sales tax to reduce the administrative burden of operation (and therefore the efficiency of collection):
> 
> Problems here:
> 
> 1) The IRS, being the largest tax collection agency actually offers greatest scope for efficiency and for reduction of administrative burden, so by abolishing it and instead duplicating its function across a number of local tax-collection agencies you reduce efficiency and eliminate scope for economies of scale.



I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not - claiming that the IRS is efficient is nuts. A sales tax can be automatically implemented at a cash register or by anyone who can do basic mental math - you want to come over and do my family's taxes? If we want to automate the income taxes we have to turn to an advisor or spend hours in front of something like TurboTax. Sales tax is a matter of multiplying by 1.3 and collection is a matter of division by the same.



stuz719 said:


> 2) 'Closing all loopholes and bringing fairness' - how? There is scant detail here.



Can't claim omniscience here, but there are loopholes in loopholes in the current tax systems and by closing off easy ways out the process is simpler.



stuz719 said:


> 3) Transparency how? If I live in Michigan, work in Wisconsin during the week and shop occasionally on the internet to whom to do I pay my sales tax? Where does the money go?



Your merchants collect it at the time of purchase and it gets sent off. Reading the FAQ might help.



stuz719 said:


> 4) 'Allows American products to compete fairly' - how? By protectionism and subsidy?



Exported goods aren't taxed. Imported goods are. Again, FAQ.



stuz719 said:


> 5) 'Reimburses on purchase of essentials' - an administrative nightmare, it's much simpler to follow the UK model, for example, of VAT which is administered (effectively) by retailers and suppliers and operate a zero rate (or 5% rate for tax harmonisation within the EU) for defined essential goods rather than having people have to claim back overpaid tax - which, of course, the tax authority has collected interest on in the interim. Unless you expect the retailers/suppliers to operate this rebate system, which would duplicate the administrative burden on them millions of times over within the economy (UK VAT Registration is optional for companies with turnovers below a threshold, or VAT liabilities can be estimated subject to investigation/audit). Or perhaps you propose that I have to show proof of earnings every time I buy anything?



This is something I personally disagree with; the site explains that the rich spend more on essentials and thus that exempting them benefits the rich more than the poor, but if you don't buy that I'm with you. I'd rather just not see tax on essential medicine (like Tylenol, not like Enzyte), gas, food, and suchlike.



stuz719 said:


> 6) "Enables retirees to keep their entire pension" - provided they never buy anything like fuel, food, housing or use any services like water, gas, electricity... Or unless you expect every purchase to be accompanied by verified proof of earnings to show that you are exempt from taxation, otherwise you would have one of the loopholes for evasion and avoidance that you promised to close earlier, and has a colossal cost in administration as every purchaser and every supplier has to audit every economic transaction for tax liability.



Those will be rebated - or in a system I'd rather see, exempted.



stuz719 said:


> 7) "Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck" - provided they never buy anything etc. etc.



There's also the issue that there's basically an effective sales tax being paid already because of the number of people employed along every step of a product's development and eliminating those taxes would drop prices because employers wouldn't be having to pay taxes on their workers and make taxation simpler. Again, I'd rather see exemption for essentials and development, but one could come out effectively even if money were spent on essentials and other non-taxed items.



stuz719 said:


> With regard to India it would be useful to see evidence to support the implication that corruption within the taxation system is more widespread than in comparable economies (or within the US economy), and on the effect of the caste and bonded labour system (which actually can be exploited to keep the price of labour-intensive manufacture down without the need for investment in modernising with capital equipment).



I can't just pull this out of my ass either but I'll work on it - it should be no surprise to anyone that India is corrupt as hell and I wouldn't hesitate to say that they're worse than we care to imagine, but I'll get to this. The caste system thing sounds like the kind of Ph.D thesis that has to be floating around somewhere, but the best comparison would be the racism the United States showed a century or so ago but taken to the point where blacks couldn't touch whites.

Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 12, 2007)

JBroll said:


> For the tax rate, I'd be quite a bit lower. Half of that would still be high in my view.



Thanks for the reply, but this isn't an answer. "Quite a bit lower"? How much? 1%, 2%, 0.1%?



JBroll said:


> Note that I'm also trying to point out that spending from the rich in other countries is pointing fairly clearly towards what I'm going for - in that sense we're seeing a lot of good from people just acting in their own interests. I can't just pull a tax rate out of my ass, sorry to disappoint you, but I'll say that it'll be low enough for us to need to cut back on government waste (a lot!) - not a bad thing in itself, but it's not going to happen more easily while we're just adding more and more bureaucracy. I'll work on this if you actually want to know, but there's also a reason why I said that a different form of taxation would help.



I'd suggest that you can't pull a tax rate out because there isn't one, and your movement towards a different (regressive) form of taxation is a tacit admission of the non-viability of "trickle down", a concept you actually advocated in earlier posts saying that the only reason it hadn't materialised was that tax rates were "too high" to allow it. 

I'd like to know, also, what qualifies as this "government waste", given that the government operates one of the largest players in the economy and can operate economies of scale unheard of in large chunks of the private sector.

You make the assumptions that the public sector is inherently more wasteful, inherently more corrupt and inherently insulated from market-place pressures, and provide no evidence to support.



JBroll said:


> Usually we go for more factual accuracy in our examples but I'll run with it.



If you cannot model you economic theory then how will you prove that it has worked in reality? For example, "neuro-linguistic programming" can posit numerous theories of how the mind works but cannot verify any one of them empirically - thus the models remain just that, and they work "because they just do, ok?". I suggest that you are following a similar path.



JBroll said:


> Are you suggesting that the rich should pay more for these things?



Err, no. 



JBroll said:


> You're also just taking one tiny subset of expenses and acting as if that were the end of it all - the rich who buy million-dollar engagement rings and expensive dresses are going to get pounded in the ass by this, and those who live more modestly will be taxed less. In a sense, it's also encouraging more responsibility - I'll admit that when I see the celebrity nonsense walking around Hollywood on the news I wish someone could have just dropped a 75% wasteful spending tax on the fritzy bullshit and paid a year's salary for a decent schoolteacher - and giving more incentive to those who use their money in R&D and job creation, which improves the standard of living for others.



It's a model, and demonstrates the regressiveness of sales taxation - unless, of course, you are suggesting that the rich should pay more the same goods and services as the poor do.



JBroll said:


> I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not - claiming that the IRS is efficient is nuts.



Do you have evidence that this is not the case? Or evidence that private taxation agencies are inherently more efficient and less prone to corruption?



JBroll said:


> A sales tax can be automatically implemented at a cash register or by anyone who can do basic mental math - you want to come over and do my family's taxes?



Basic mental math?



American Educational Research Association said:


> The results of several studies indicate that K-12 students in the U. S. lack strong basic conceptual understanding and skills in mathematics.



American Educational Research Association



JBroll said:


> If we want to automate the income taxes we have to turn to an advisor or spend hours in front of something like TurboTax. Sales tax is a matter of multiplying by 1.3 and collection is a matter of division by the same.



So a sales tax of 30%?

Let's see, a good is priced at $100, so I pay $130 ($100 * 1.3).

The retailer pays over tax revenue $130 / 1.3, or $100? Or do you mean they pay $100 / 1.3, which is $76.92, or do you mean...

See, not so simple as just multiplying or dividing by a figure, is it?

And what if the rate of taxation changes? ALL tills will need updating - maybe easy for Wal-Mart with networked systems, but for the local shop on the corner...?



JBroll said:


> Can't claim omniscience here, but there are loopholes in loopholes in the current tax systems and by closing off easy ways out the process is simpler.
> 
> Your merchants collect it at the time of purchase and it gets sent off. Reading the FAQ might help.



So the administrative burden lies with the private sector, driving up their costs.



JBroll said:


> Exported goods aren't taxed. Imported goods are. Again, FAQ.



Fair enough, I will re-read in more detail.



JBroll said:


> This is something I personally disagree with; the site explains that the rich spend more on essentials and thus that exempting them benefits the rich more than the poor, but if you don't buy that I'm with you. I'd rather just not see tax on essential medicine (like Tylenol, not like Enzyte), gas, food, and suchlike.
> 
> Those will be rebated - or in a system I'd rather see, exempted.



But how will they be rebated unless I have to send proof of all earnings and purchases to a central tax authority, or the rebate is calculated by the retailer having again reviewed all my evidence (administrative burden again) - using their basic mental maths skills. Or if exempted then retailers will need to carry a list of which products are/aren't tax-free, and the exemptions will need to be centrally authorised...



JBroll said:


> There's also the issue that there's basically an effective sales tax being paid already because of the number of people employed along every step of a product's development and eliminating those taxes would drop prices because employers wouldn't be having to pay taxes on their workers and make taxation simpler. Again, I'd rather see exemption for essentials and development, but one could come out effectively even if money were spent on essentials and other non-taxed items.



"Essentials"? Asthma inhalers? Cancer drugs? Retrovirals? Alcohol for alcoholics? Methodone for heroin addicts?



JBroll said:


> I can't just pull this out of my ass either but I'll work on it - it should be no surprise to anyone that India is corrupt as hell and I wouldn't hesitate to say that they're worse than we care to imagine, but I'll get to this. The caste system thing sounds like the kind of Ph.D thesis that has to be floating around somewhere, but the best comparison would be the racism the United States showed a century or so ago but taken to the point where blacks couldn't touch whites.
> 
> Jeff



Sorry, but your answers are very vague - the Mises Instutite is, in my experience, very long on big ideas and sweeping statements but comes up short in the detail ("government waste!", "federal corruption!" etc. etc.).

The caste system is absolutely fundamental to many aspects of Indian society - I think even a comparison with recent US history would come up very short.

I'm not sure we'll ever agree, to be honest - I think you're opening line that you couldn't come with a rate at which "trickle down" would work and that you couldn't model it so suggested going for regressive taxation instead basically said it all for me.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 12, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> Thanks for the reply, but this isn't an answer. "Quite a bit lower"? How much? 1%, 2%, 0.1%?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest that you can't pull a tax rate out because there isn't one, and your movement towards a different (regressive) form of taxation is a tacit admission of the non-viability of "trickle down", a concept you actually advocated in earlier posts saying that the only reason it hadn't materialised was that tax rates were "too high" to allow it.



Hold for a moment, I've got Milton Friedman on line 3... seeing as how I don't know how much the government will have to spend with new programs like the one this thread was started over, how many programs we'll be able to get rid of, and how a different form of taxation would help right off the top of my head (note that there's a reason I'm pulling for the FAIR tax as well), I suppose my point is completely and totally refuted, modern economists know absolutely nothing, and all non-liberals should be taken to the vet and put down. Seriously, I doubt anyone is going to give you a magic bullet answer. When I said that they were too high I was referring to a statement about money going out of the country, whether to outsourced labor or to tax shelters for someone's plush retirement at 45, and while this is going on to such a large degree we're not going to start seeing its effects all in this country. But... fuck it, whatever, the tax rate should be 6.2831 and not a penny more. Happy yet?



stuz719 said:


> I'd like to know, also, what qualifies as this "government waste", given that the government operates one of the largest players in the economy and can operate economies of scale unheard of in large chunks of the private sector.
> 
> You make the assumptions that the public sector is inherently more wasteful, inherently more corrupt and inherently insulated from market-place pressures, and provide no evidence to support.



Apart from obvious and flagrant things like pet projects that don't serve any purpose to the American people but to help their sponsor get reelected (Gravina Island, anyone?), things that the government just shouldn't be doing like the war on drugs and excessive military spending, waste is inherently more likely because the government doesn't have competition and can take its sweet time and money without having to worry about outperforming anyone else. I didn't think I'd have to show evidence of government inefficiency, and if you don't know of any such examples then I'm really just confused. When corporations are inefficient they lose money and go down the drain; their need for profit to sustain themselves in a competitive market is obvious. When government gets inefficient it just masks its mistakes behind $640 on a toilet seat.



stuz719 said:


> If you cannot model you economic theory then how will you prove that it has worked in reality? For example, "neuro-linguistic programming" can posit numerous theories of how the mind works but cannot verify any one of them empirically - thus the models remain just that, and they work "because they just do, ok?". I suggest that you are following a similar path.



Sure, because I *didn't* discuss any other regions of the world that might be benefiting from the sponsorship of the rich in this country... 



stuz719 said:


> Err, no.
> 
> It's a model, and demonstrates the regressiveness of sales taxation - unless, of course, you are suggesting that the rich should pay more the same goods and services as the poor do.



Ok, you really got me here... things like gas and food are inherently going to be relatively more expensive to the poor than the rich, nobody hides this. However, if one person spends 10 times as much on taxable items then 10 times the tax money will be owed. You're using a very limited model, ignoring that I'm also in favor of getting rid of the tax on the 'essentials' like this, and somehow ignoring that the rich person will be spending much more money on other stuff and thus being taxed more. This comparison is like saying that the laws of gravity are refuted because a feather falls slower than a bowling ball if you drop them both from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.



stuz719 said:


> Do you have evidence that this is not the case? Or evidence that private taxation agencies are inherently more efficient and less prone to corruption?



Evidence that the IRS is inefficient? Evidence that the current tax system is inefficient? How about that FAQ?



The FAQ said:


> As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion in 2001 is beyond 2.6 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. This represents over 16 percent of taxes due. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars.



Oops. I have numbers on my side.



stuz719 said:


> Basic mental math?



Okay, okay... you've caught me. I have a tiny little streak of optimist in me somewhere that just wants, just for a moment, to be able to not assume that everyone in the system is completely incompetent and unable to count to eleven without sticking their hands in their pants, and you've just crushed that. Thank you. Just when I thought I wasn't cynical and pessimistic enough... goddamnit, now I need a hug.



stuz719 said:


> So a sales tax of 30%?
> 
> Let's see, a good is priced at $100, so I pay $130 ($100 * 1.3).
> 
> ...



That was just an example. With the 23% they propose it's 1.23%. If it's 15% it would be 1.15. If it's 10% it'll be 11.37... no, wait, 1.1% (Curse you, American education system!). Is that clear enough now? I'm just trying to get a point across without being completely anal retentive, and you're just taking the opportunity to be paranoid. Down in Texas we have a sales tax just a little over 8%, and you know what we do? We multiply the purchase price by 1.08whatever and we're good to fucking go.



stuz719 said:


> And what if the rate of taxation changes? ALL tills will need updating - maybe easy for Wal-Mart with networked systems, but for the local shop on the corner...?



In Texas we've had quite a few sales tax changes as new programs are added and other taxes are changed, and... well, that one time the world ended because computers wouldn't allow us to change our precious little numbers, but usually we're fine.



stuz719 said:


> So the administrative burden lies with the private sector, driving up their costs.





The FAQ said:


> Does the FairTax burden the retail industry?
> 
> All businesses are tax collectors today. They withhold income and payroll taxes from their employees. Moreover, the vast majority of retail businesses operating in states with a sales tax (45 states currently use a sales tax) are already sales tax collectors. Under the FairTax, retailers are paid a fee equal to one-quarter of one percent of federal sales tax they collect and remit. In addition, of course, retailers no longer bear the cost of complying with the income tax, including the uniform capitalization requirements, the various depreciation schemes, and the various employee benefit and pension rules. Finally, the economic growth resulting from the aggregate, beneficial effects of dramatically lower income tax compliance costs and no payroll or income taxes, customers having substantially more money the greatest influence on retail sales and a reasonable fee for collecting the FairTax, all ensure that retailers do quite well.





stuz719 said:


> Fair enough, I will re-read in more detail.
> 
> But how will they be rebated unless I have to send proof of all earnings and purchases to a central tax authority, or the rebate is calculated by the retailer having again reviewed all my evidence (administrative burden again) - using their basic mental maths skills. Or if exempted then retailers will need to carry a list of which products are/aren't tax-free, and the exemptions will need to be centrally authorised...



Read the FAQ, a model is in there.



stuz719 said:


> "Essentials"? Asthma inhalers? Cancer drugs? Retrovirals? Alcohol for alcoholics? Methodone for heroin addicts?



I shouldn't have to draw the line between cancer drugs and methadone, but I guess I will. If someone has a treatable medical condition that didn't come about through direct negligence on their own part (someone who got breast cancer is good to go, someone who shot PCP into their eyeball and now wonders why the colors don't stop dancing is going to have some problems) then treatment should not be taxed. Yeah, pick that one apart if you think it has to happen (well, what if during a circus a purple midget jumped off the trapeze, collided with someone who was sharpening their knife collection in their lap, and caused severe internal bleeding?), there's really nothing I can do to stop you, this is just getting beyond absurd.



stuz719 said:


> Sorry, but your answers are very vague - the Mises Instutite is, in my experience, very long on big ideas and sweeping statements but comes up short in the detail ("government waste!", "federal corruption!" etc. etc.).
> 
> The caste system is absolutely fundamental to many aspects of Indian society - I think even a comparison with recent US history would come up very short.
> 
> I'm not sure we'll ever agree, to be honest - I think you're opening line that you couldn't come with a rate at which "trickle down" would work and that you couldn't model it so suggested going for regressive taxation instead basically said it all for me.



If you have a problem with me not being able to just divine numbers from the sky, you're going to have a problem with anyone who actually tries to do something new without just prescribing arbitrary solutions to problems not yet known. If we had a sales tax and someone were to advocate income tax, and they couldn't give you a 100% perfect answer to what the income tax would have to be to fund everything off the top of their head, the same argument would defeat that as well. I understand that you want more details, but that's not really one that can be given right away - as I said before, when there are benefits for people to move their money elsewhere, we won't see the benefits here. Then again, I did bring up benefits we were seeing elsewhere, but since that's not a number you can think to be the magical solution to every problem that ever existed I see how that isn't valid. I don't have a problem with disagreeing, and I enjoy people who can actually put a point across well (Drew, where the FUCK have you gone?), but this is getting absurd and I don't think there's going to be a way to satisfy your conditions because you're assuming that people can just look into a crystal ball and have everything at their fingertips.

Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 13, 2007)

JBroll said:


> the tax rates here are too high for trickle-down.





JBroll said:


> For the tax rate, I'd be quite a bit lower. Half of that would still be high in my view.





stuz719 said:


> I'd suggest that you can't pull a tax rate out because there isn't one, and your movement towards a different (regressive) form of taxation is a tacit admission of the non-viability of "trickle down", a concept you actually advocated in earlier posts saying that the only reason it hadn't materialised was that tax rates were "too high" to allow it.





JBroll said:


> Hold for a moment, I've got Milton Friedman on line 3... seeing as how I don't know how much the government will have to spend with new programs like the one this thread was started over, how many programs we'll be able to get rid of, and how a different form of taxation would help right off the top of my head (note that there's a reason I'm pulling for the FAIR tax as well), I suppose my point is completely and totally refuted, modern economists know absolutely nothing, and all non-liberals should be taken to the vet and put down. Seriously, I doubt anyone is going to give you a magic bullet answer. When I said that they were too high I was referring to a statement about money going out of the country, whether to outsourced labor or to tax shelters for someone's plush retirement at 45, and while this is going on to such a large degree we're not going to start seeing its effects all in this country. But... fuck it, whatever, the tax rate should be 6.2831 and not a penny more. Happy yet?



Are you happy yet? You have gone from a position of (apparently) supporting "trickle down", saying that it would happen if only tax rates were lower, sidestepped the fact that marginal taxation rates are highest for the lower and middle classes, to a position where the overall conditions are not right for "trickle down" to (apparently) saying that "trickle down" would never work anyway so let's bring in regressive taxation instead because it's fairer if you provide rebates and special rates for people.

Of course you realise that these rebates are arbitrarily discriminatory, in that they are based on arbitrary distinctions based on age, disability and income? They could also be construed as indirectly racially discriminatory, given the fact that the average salary of a white American is higher than for other racial groups.

Any regressive tax can be made more progressive if you start implementing rebates and credits and offering the kind of loopholes that you are allegedly seeking to close. It would be simpler and more progressive to operate a PAYE scheme in the first place.



fairtax.org said:


> *Is the FairTax progressive? Do the rich pay more and the poor pay less as a percentage of their spending?*
> 
> Absolutely, as you can see in Figure 6 below where the graph shows annual expenditures for a family of four and the corresponding FairTax effective tax rates. The poor actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes. Especially if they are frugal and buy mostly used products. On the other hand, the wealthy approach a maximum of 23-percent retail sales tax on their spending.



So the tax is regressive but we're going to make it progressive by offering a series of credits and rebates against it. Not a very efficient way of doing things.

So as long as the poor live on hand-me-downs they don't get taxed... FAQ 31 and FAQ 32 make huge assumptions, such as:



fairtax.org said:


> It is unlikely that &#8220;shopping across the border&#8221; in Canada or Mexico will result in any cost savings to the consumer.



With the dollar exchange rate as it stands this is an even bigger assumption.

And by the way FAQ 45 regarding VAT is factually incorrect when it says:



fairtax.org said:


> While VATs are also consumption taxes, and better than income taxes, the FairTax is not a VAT. A VAT works very differently. It taxes every stage of production. It is much more complex, and is typically hidden from the retail consumer.



a) It is not inherently more complex (note the FAQ provides no evidence to support this assertion)
b) Transactions between VAT-registered companies in the UK (i.e. "every stage of production") are zero-rated/VAT-free
c) VAT is not "hidden" from the retail consumer as the amount of VAT paid is on every retail receipt
d) Individuals carrying out transactions can reclaim VAT overpaid (i.e. if I but petrol for my car for business mileage if my business is VAT registered).

Let's call it a day.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 13, 2007)

That last quote was sarcastic. Claiming to have a dead economist on hold should have been a dead giveaway, I thought, but...

Comparison of marginal tax rates aren't relevant here - the issue is that one can get more money out of investing in other countries than one can get here. Rich people aren't going overseas because they feel like the poor should be taxed more, they're going overseas because there's something in it for them. Just a brief look at context should show that I am also noting that the benefits of trickle-down are out of the country because it's more beneficial to invest elsewhere and while that block is in place we won't see the effects in this country. I pointed to India as an example of what the theory predicts, but apparently that doesn't count for reasons nobody has explained to me.

The problem is with the country not being a closed system and the assumption people have made that it is a closed system for intents and purposes related to trickle-down. Of course, if America's economy were to suddenly become isolated we'd see a different picture, but that's not the case. It's like you're arguing that a remote control doesn't work after you put the battery in an alarm clock and as a result we have to conclude that electronics don't work. I can't tell if you're actually reading what I'm saying anymore, or if there's a no-sarcasm-zone that I haven't yet noticed in here.

Jeff


----------



## Durero (Aug 13, 2007)

An interesting artwork in reference to the original post by Noodles:

current work


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 13, 2007)

JBroll said:


> That last quote was sarcastic. Claiming to have a dead economist on hold should have been a dead giveaway, I thought, but...



Sarcasm is generally used to get a point across (and is the lowest form of wit, by the way), rather than used to discredit one's own point. Ah well.



JBroll said:


> Comparison of marginal tax rates aren't relevant here - the issue is that one can get more money out of investing in other countries than one can get here. Rich people aren't going overseas because they feel like the poor should be taxed more, they're going overseas because there's something in it for them.



This is a contradiction in terms.

If "comparison of marginal rates aren't [sic] relevant here" but "rich people ... are going overseas because there's something in it for them" then marginal taxation rates are the _whole point_.

By the way, you've not presented any evidence that rich people _are_ going overseas, particularly given that evidence previously provided shows that taxation is effectively lower for the rich than it is for the lower and middle classes.

There is also the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996 gives the US Government power to prevent the re-entry into the country any citizen of whom it takes the view that their primary reason for renouncing citizenship was to avoid US taxes, and the fact that the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of the same year reserved the right to levy US taxes for up to 10 years after leaving the country.

Of course if anyone rich decided to leave the US after seeing these Acts passed they would either need to move ALL their assets with them or sell their houses, cars and other chattels so as to avoid the risk of them being subject to IRS scrutiny and possible sequestration.

I could find no evidence of a mass exodus of the rich from the US as a result of these Acts - although I did find a lot of rhetoric advocating regressive taxation as a panacea.

If fact if you look here, and particularly at the chart Figure 1 "Average Real Wealth and Consumer Price Index in the United States, 1916-2002" (p.45) you will see that average real wealth grew considerably during the Clinton years, even allowing for the drop of Stock Exchanges post-9/11. Figure 2 "The Top 1% Wealth Share in the United States, 1916-2000" tends to suggest that the overall wealth share of the top 1% is also fairly stable, and significantly higher then during the Carter administration (p.46).

Figure 3 "Average Real Wealth of bottom 99% and top 1% in the United States, 1916-2000" (p.47) shows that the gap between the top 1% and the lower 99% has also widened, wider in 2001 than it was in 1996.

Taken together these would tend to refute the predication of many of the arguments in favour of regressive taxation.

Rich people's money may be going overseas, but that's primarily because interest rates are higher there ergo they can earn more on their capital than they can by investing in the domestic economy where the lower and middle classes are taxed to a greater extent than they are and therefore do not have the disposable income available to them to spend on goods and services that are produced domestically and that the rich would then wish to invest in producing and supplying.


----------



## Drew (Aug 13, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> Sarcasm is generally used to get a point across (and is the lowest form of wit, by the way), rather than used to discredit one's own point. Ah well.



Nah. Sarcasm is capable of being a VERY high form of wit, it's just also easy to use cheaply. For an example of the former, see Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."

Since you're wrong, I'm not going to tell you not to try to insult people who disagree with you, but it's worth thinking about... JBRoll, probably the same to you just in case, but to be fair I didn't actually read any of your posts. I'm just covering all bases.


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 13, 2007)

Drew said:


> Nah. Sarcasm is capable of being a VERY high form of wit, it's just also easy to use cheaply. For an example of the former, see Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
> 
> Since you're wrong, I'm not going to tell you not to try to insult people who disagree with you, but it's worth thinking about... JBRoll, probably the same to you just in case, but to be fair I didn't actually read any of your posts. I'm just covering all bases.





I'd suggest Jonathan Swift tended to satire rather than sarcasm, but point taken. 

Although then if sarcasm is taken as it's dictionary definition of mockery then surely any use of it would be against forum rules...


----------



## Drew (Aug 13, 2007)

good point, I guess it's more closely id'd as sarcasm, but anyway it IS a fine line in that I think a good working definition of sarcasm is to say one thing to mean another, and Swift simply does it with more finesse and endurance than most in that piece. 

good natured ball busting is fine, just don't let it get ugly or personal.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 13, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> Sarcasm is generally used to get a point across (and is the lowest form of wit, by the way), rather than used to discredit one's own point. Ah well.



No, poop jokes are lower. And I wanted to see if you were actually paying attention to what I was saying and trying to get my point or just trying to look for buzzwords and argue those.




stuz719 said:


> If "comparison of marginal rates aren't [sic] relevant here" but "rich people ... are going overseas because there's something in it for them" then marginal taxation rates are the _whole point_.



I should have noted 'going overseas with their investments, as opposed to here' - my mistake. The marginal tax rate compared to the middle and lower classes is irrelevant - that's what the statement meant; rich people don't care how Joe McAverage is paying his bills, they just want to get the most out of their money and if that means investing in other countries then that's what they'll do.



stuz719 said:


> By the way, you've not presented any evidence that rich people _are_ going overseas, particularly given that evidence previously provided shows that taxation is effectively lower for the rich than it is for the lower and middle classes.



I just said that that was irrelevant - they don't give a fuck about how much the poor are paying. 



stuz719 said:


> There is also the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996 gives the US Government power to prevent the re-entry into the country any citizen of whom it takes the view that their primary reason for renouncing citizenship was to avoid US taxes, and the fact that the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of the same year reserved the right to levy US taxes for up to 10 years after leaving the country.
> 
> Of course if anyone rich decided to leave the US after seeing these Acts passed they would either need to move ALL their assets with them or sell their houses, cars and other chattels so as to avoid the risk of them being subject to IRS scrutiny and possible sequestration.
> 
> I could find no evidence of a mass exodus of the rich from the US as a result of these Acts - although I did find a lot of rhetoric advocating regressive taxation as a panacea.



Since I made the mistake of not being clear, 'going overseas' was referring to investing in other countries and having work done there, as opposed to keeping it all in the United States. Happy?



stuz719 said:


> Rich people's money may be going overseas, but that's primarily because interest rates are higher there ergo they can earn more on their capital than they can by investing in the domestic economy where the lower and middle classes are taxed to a greater extent than they are and therefore do not have the disposable income available to them to spend on goods and services that are produced domestically and that the rich would then wish to invest in producing and supplying.



They also like having cheaper labor in other countries. I think hiring three for the price of one beats interest rates.

Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 13, 2007)

JBroll said:


> No, poop jokes are lower. And I wanted to see if you were actually paying attention to what I was saying and trying to get my point or just trying to look for buzzwords and argue those.



I'm sure you return me the courtesy of trying to get my point, too.



JBroll said:


> Say what you want about it lurching rightwards, but with as much money as there is going out of the country you're just expecting things out of context from trickle-down. We still tax the wealthy quite a bit - just look at the IRS website, hit somewhere in the area of 100 grand for singles and 150 grand for couples filing jointly and you're at 30% of your income, just from the federal income tax - and there are state and local taxes on top of that. That's not exactly what trickle-down is going for - *see, that whole thing about lowering taxes on the wealthy to make keeping money here more reasonable doesn't actually work when you aren't lowering taxes on the wealthy.*



(Emphasis added).



JBroll said:


> I should have noted 'going overseas with their investments, as opposed to here' - my mistake. *The marginal tax rate compared to the middle and lower classes is irrelevant - that's what the statement meant; rich people don't care how Joe McAverage is paying his bills, they just want to get the most out of their money and if that means investing in other countries then that's what they'll do.*



(Emphasis added).



JBroll said:


> (Rich people) don't give a fuck about how much the poor are paying.



Sorry, I am genuinely confused here.

Whilst the rich may not care how much others are paying in tax (other than to know that they are "paying their fair share") I don't see how your argument is consistent.

On the one hand you say people don't care about marginal tax rates, but on the other you say that they are so high that people invest overseas instead, when there is evidence, that has been presented here, that in actual fact the wealthiest in the economy are paying a lower marginal rate of tax (i.e. taxes on the wealthy are actually being proportionally lowered and they are getting relatively richer compared to the lower and middle classes).

(Actually your argument may also be inconsistent because earnings from foreign investments are still liable to domestic tax, the important factor is the domicile of the recipient of the benefit - as established by a number of international double-taxation agreements).



JBroll said:


> They also like having cheaper labor in other countries. I think hiring three for the price of one beats interest rates.
> 
> Jeff



I think this may be an oversimplification which leads to an erroneous conclusion.

For example, the rate currently effective for the US Federal minimum wage is $5.85.

The current rate of the UK minimum wage is £5.35 (c.$10.67 at current exchange rates).

Figures for 04-05 showed a 47% increase year-on-year of US investment in the UK, with the trend continuing, suggesting that the relatively high minimum wage level was not a disincentive. ROI would be the only incentive I would care about, to be honest.

Can you tell that I work in taxation yet?!


----------



## JBroll (Aug 13, 2007)

When I said lower taxes on the wealthy, I didn't mean raise it or keep it the same for the lower and middle classes. I'm usually pretty straightforward about wanting to cut taxes down all across the board. I'm not in favor of a regressive tax just to piss poor people off - I want it lower across the board.

I am not - repeat, not - saying the rich should pay less than everyone else. I'm saying that everyone should pay less.

The *comparison* of marginal tax rates is irrelevant, not the marginal tax rates themselves - I'm talking about motivating investment here and less channeling of money (legally or illegally), not making the rich laugh at the poor who have three times the marginal rate. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying if it sounds like I want to have the country funded solely by McDonald's clerks and plumbers. I don't say that people don't care about marginal tax rates, I say that a rich person isn't looking at how much the poor are paying when money is being sent to India and China for goods and services, and that is my point. 

I'm also referring to tools for production as 'investments' because in a very loose sense they're expecting their own gain from factories and service centers overseas. It's not like nobody has ever used loopholes to channel money out of the country tax-free.

I'm not referring to the UK for the cheaper labor, obviously. Tell me the average factory worker in China is pulling in fifteen an hour.

Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 14, 2007)

OK, my last post on this subject.



JBroll said:


> When I said lower taxes on the wealthy, I didn't mean raise it or keep it the same for the lower and middle classes. I'm usually pretty straightforward about wanting to cut taxes down all across the board. I'm not in favor of a regressive tax just to piss poor people off - I want it lower across the board.
> 
> I am not - repeat, not - saying the rich should pay less than everyone else. I'm saying that everyone should pay less.



I presumed that the first part was true, but a regressive tax is precisely that - regressive, so lower and middle income earners will pay proportionately more. Regressive taxes can effectively disincentivise work and increasing earnings because more and more of your income is taken in taxation as you earn more.



JBroll said:


> The *comparison* of marginal tax rates is irrelevant, not the marginal tax rates themselves - I'm talking about motivating investment here and less channeling of money (legally or illegally), not making the rich laugh at the poor who have three times the marginal rate. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying if it sounds like I want to have the country funded solely by McDonald's clerks and plumbers. I don't say that people don't care about marginal tax rates, I say that a rich person isn't looking at how much the poor are paying when money is being sent to India and China for goods and services, and that is my point.



But this is precisely what a regressive tax will do - lead to an country largely funded my lower and middle income earners (assuming that tax revenues are invested domestically). Hence marginal tax rates and the comparison of them becomes the central issue.



JBroll said:


> I'm also referring to tools for production as 'investments' because in a very loose sense they're expecting their own gain from factories and service centers overseas. It's not like nobody has ever used loopholes to channel money out of the country tax-free.
> 
> I'm not referring to the UK for the cheaper labor, obviously. Tell me the average factory worker in China is pulling in fifteen an hour.
> 
> Jeff



Of course labour costs in China are lower - but the ROI is higher from UK investments than it is from US investments (for US investors) _despite the higher wage costs_. As I said, also consider domicile and double taxation conventions.


----------



## garcia3441 (Aug 14, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I'm not referring to the UK for the cheaper labor, obviously. Tell me the average factory worker in China is pulling in fifteen an hour.



Some don't get paid at all.

U.S.-China Commission Makes Recommendations On Chinese Prison Labor


----------



## JBroll (Aug 14, 2007)

I don't recall being in favor of a regressive tax, I don't see what you're referring to.

Jeff


----------

