US going to hell in a hand basket?

Quote from axeman:




Wealth distribution of this scale IS communistic.


You used absolute numbers as if they mean anything.



I'm sure you will ignore the meat of my post again,
so there is no point in arguing.


Tell us how YOU would propose a tax cut that would
benefit the lower class withour raping the wealthy
even more, and without increasing the chasm.
More...

This is the "meat" of your post?

That statement is blatantly absurd it really makes me wonder if have any clue whatsoever?

So our current tax code is "communistic" in it's reapportionment of wealth?

I don't know what planet you live on but somehow we have built the greatest free-market economy under this system of "communistic wealth distribution" through taxation. Somehow US corporations and individuals have thrived and amassed fortunes unprecedented in history - not in their scope but in the fact that they have been built in most cases not through privilege or right of birth (though many have endured that way) but by sheen industriousness and entrepreneurial endeavor within a system of government and commerce that is built and paid for by - you guessed it - taxpayers. Americans enjoy one of the highest standards of living on the planet and you have the nerve to describe the system of taxation that provides a great deal of it as "communistic"?

Here's an exercise for you - compare the average life expectancy of Americans to that of any citizen of any true communist, or even post-communist country.

So successful has been this model that is has been replicated around the globe - ironically producing similar results - albeit with HIGHER taxes in virtually every instance!

In case you were not aware the US enjoys one of the lowest, if not THE lowest tax burdens that individuals and corporation must endure among any of the world's industrialized free-market economies.


So I suppose I should not be all that surprised by your second statement - that "absolute numbers" have no meaning. What a sophomoric dodge that is. Care to offer any specific example in defense of your position - or would it by your own illogic be instantly meaningless by definition?

I will tell you how I would adjust a tax plan to better serve the economy, stimulate demand, and encourage job growth - but you have yet to answer even one of my preceding questions directly.

I await your best efforts.
 
Quote from tatertrader:


This is the "meat" of your post?

That statement is blatantly absurd it really makes me wonder if have any clue whatsoever?

# The only thing that is absurd, is your ability to miss the
# meat of my argument once again, even though I have
# repeated it several time.
# LOOK HERE ---> "You don't see the simple logic that any tax cut will
benefit the rich more than the poor because they
already pay a disproportionately greater percentage
of taxes than the poor."


So our current tax code is "communistic" in it's reapportionment of wealth?

# A tax code which takes well over half my earned income
# IS communistic. It's a grey scale after all. If it took a
# a much smaller percentage, it would be more capitalistic.
# If it took MORE, it would be full out communist, and not just
# communistic. I paid 60-70% of my gross income to taxes
# a few years ago. You don't think this is communis-TIC ?????
# If not, then what WOULD be communistic? 99.9%?
# ( Leaving 100% for full out communist)

I don't know what planet you live on but somehow we have built the greatest free-market economy under this system of "communistic wealth distribution" through taxation.

# Note: It was not always this way. It has gotten progressively
# worse with time. It was not communistic at all in the beginning
# for anyone.

Somehow US corporations and individuals have thrived and amassed fortunes unprecedented in history - not in their scope but in the fact that they have been built in most cases not through privilege or right of birth (though many have endured that way) but by sheen industriousness and entrepreneurial endeavor within a system of government and commerce that is built and paid for by - you guessed it - taxpayers. Americans enjoy one of the highest standards of living on the planet and you have the nerve to describe the system of taxation that provides a great deal of it as "communistic"?


# The lower wage earners do NOT live under
# communistic taxation. Thats exactly my point! Your entire
# previous paragraph doesn't apply to most people in the US.
# If I were only paying 30% of my income like lower wage
# earners, I wouldn't be calling it communistic, now would I?
# I'm asking for FAIR treatement, since I have not commited
# any crime to deserve this unfair taxation.
# My whole problem is with the incredibly unfair ass raping
# I get via predatory taxation against us "wealthy".
# ( Calling myself wealthy makes me laugh, but that is
# exactly what the dems and their types would call me )

Here's an exercise for you - compare the average life expectancy of Americans to that of any citizen of any true communist, or even post-communist country.

# Pay attention. I didn't say we were communists. I said
# that taxation on the higher wage earners was
# communis-TIC is case you miss it again.

So successful has been this model that is has been replicated around the globe - ironically producing similar results - albeit with HIGHER taxes in virtually every instance!

# Strawman.

In case you were not aware the US enjoys one of the lowest, if not THE lowest tax burdens that individuals and corporation must endure among any of the world's industrialized free-market economies.

# Translation: as long as its worse somewhere else, its OK here.
# What happened to that promised 2-3% federal rate? Hmmmm?
# I don't care about elsewhere. I care about HERE and NOW
# where I get taxed at 60-70%, while some lazy ass bum
# gets taxed at 10-20%.

So I suppose I should not be all that surprised by your second statement - that "absolute numbers" have no meaning. What a sophomoric dodge that is.

# Sophmoric dodge? Apprently, you haven't taken
# a statistics 101 course, if you think this is a sophmoric dodge.
# Do I really have to explain what a percentage is to you,
# and why comparing absolute numbers between wage
# earners with drastically different salaries is misleading?
# Say it ain't so.

Care to offer any specific example in defense of your position - or would it by your own illogic be instantly meaningless by definition?

# Not a problem. You clearly compared absolute values
# in a previous post when you quoted:
#"The 226,000 Americans with an Adjusted Gross Income of over $1,000,000 would get an average tax cut of almost $90,000 from the Bush growth package alone --- while the middle 20% of the population would get a tax cut of only $256. (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center).

# Gulty as charged.

# The obvious problem here is we have no idea what
# percentage of their income these numbers represent.
# Secondly, it is further misleading because we have no idea
# if these numbers apply to income, or to investment income.
# Obviously, a tax cut which effects DIVIDENDS will only
# have an effect on people who INVEST. Ahem... the wealthy.
# There you go... proof that you used absolute numbers
# which are just as misleading as Bush's numbers. Bravo.


I will tell you how I would adjust a tax plan to better serve the economy, stimulate demand, and encourage job growth - but you have yet to answer even one of my preceding questions directly.

# I've answered them all.
# Now lets hear your plan which is "fair" to all and doesn't
# further ass rape the so called wealthy.

# peace

# axeman
 
Axe you didn't answer *any* of my previous questions to you.

And - your suggestion that any tax cut would always benefits the rich more than the poor neglects the obvious option of targeted tax cuts aimed at different income brackets.

Your grasp of tax code is so weak I really wonder about your claims at all. I cannot fathom how one who claims to pay so much in taxes could be so ignorant of the system itself.

One thing you are correct in is claiming that is has not always been this way. That is true. At times adjusted tax rates have been lower, at other times higher.

Until World War II, only the rich paid income taxes. Lawmakers had traditionally confined the tax to the upper strata of American society, but wartime mobilization prompted change. Policymakers broadened the base, increasing the number of taxpayers tenfold between 1939 and 1945. They also established a highly progressive rate structure, with rates reaching 94 percent for the richest taxpayers. Together, these changes made the individual income tax a fiscal workhorse; between 1939 and 1945, revenues soared from $1.0 billion to $18.4 billion. By war's end, the tax accounted for 40 percent of total revenue, making it the centerpiece of federal finance.

Odd isn't it that the nation somehow managed to maintain a free-market economy and thrive under such a "communistic" tax structure?

Again - I await your reply to the specific questions I posed to you previously.
 
Let me address a few issues that keep arising. First, I agree with tater to an extent that it is somewhat meaningless to throw around numbers of who benefits by how much without looking at the specifics. So let's look at specifics. Two elements of the Bush plan that are very important to moderate income groups are the elimination of the marriage penalty and the expanded child credit. Frankly, I have some problems with them. I don't know why the government should be subsidizing people for having children, but it is a big component of the plan and sends a lot fo bucks to people who may not on average be paying much to begin with.

Another element is the acceleration of the marginal rate cuts already agreed to. This benefits all taxpayers, but of course those who pay the most will receive the most back. It's a question of percentages versus absolute dollars. Since everything else in the tax code is done with percentages, it seems odd to me to suddenly ditch that and start sayign a few mnillionaires get 90k back. If they paid 400k in taxes, why is that so terrible?

Accelerating the already passed marginal rate cuts is essential. Future rate reductions have little supply side effect. If a store announces it will hold a sale in two months, who will buy today? In fact, very little of the first tax cut has taken effect yet.

A recurring issue is why not target the cuts at people who will spend them? Why "give" them to people who will invest them instead, particualrly when we have excess capacity in some sectors of the economy? The President kind of walked into this sucker punch by foolishly talking about the tax cuts adding jobs, etc.

Let's stipulate that President Bush may have many wonderful attributes, but being a professional economist is not one of them. Nevertheless, I think his plan is far preferable to carpetbombing America with rebate checks or some other psuedo-Keynsian nonsense. The reasons are perhaps subtle but real.

A one off bump in demand for consumer goods might make GDP look marginally better for a quarter, but it is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. There would be no supply side benefits to counter the revenue cost of the plan. In effect, the government would be loaning taxpayers money to spend, and it would be paid back by those who are already taxed disproportionately. I know many consider that a real plus, but it is poor economics. In truth, it is no different from just ramping up govenrment spending to provide a countercyclical boost. This is exactly the program Japan has pursued fruitlessly for the last 10 or 15 years.

Tax policy should instead attempt to expand the economic pie by encouraging investment, business formation and self-reliance. I think the House bill does a good job of starting us in that direction. The President's plan is inferior, but still vastly preferable to any Democrat alternatives.

I think we have a very unhealthy situation in this country now, with a small group paying virtually the entire cost of the government. a large part of the population pays little or nothing in income taxes, although they do pay payroll taxes that are ear-marked for programs like Social Security and Medicare. This disparity leads to divisive class warfare politics, and engenders extreme resentment among those who must hand over half or more of their earnings.
 
The communists would agree with you.
Tell us, are you really a Marxist? How would you
describe your political philosophy?
This is not an attack, you truly sound like a communist/marxist
by definition, so please set the record set.


No offence taken, but I've said it many times before that I'm neither a communist nor a Marxist. The fact that such an "accusation" keeps getting thrown at me leads me to believe that those making the accusation don't really understand what the terms mean, otherwise they would not be accusing me of such.

The correct name for my political philosophy is that of "Social Democracy".

The fact is, it *IS*legally my money, even before taxes.
Your standing on zero ground here.
Taxes are paid AFTER the fact to support infrastructure, etc.


Your pre-tax gains are not all yours to keep. Pretty simple. If you disagree, try not paying your taxes and tell me what happens.

The dispute is over the the level of taxation, not on the existence of taxation.



I'll give you the analogy one more time, so you MIGHT get
it this time.

You are basically saying it's OK to nearly beat someone
to death, as long as you don't actually kill them.

I've ignored your "analogy" because it's simply not analogous.



Let's follow your logic to it's conclusion. Your logic is
basically saying that we should tax someone
"right up to the point" where he is still able to "improve"
his situation.

No, not really. I mean, that's not what I've suggested. But I suppose such reasoning has validity. The reason being that the incentive -- I recognise it's importance -- for one to attempt to improve the economic condition of one's life is still there.

So let's apply this to Bill Gates when he was worth 40 billion.
The government should take 39.99 billion from him in taxes
because what is left over is still a HUGE improvement
(especially over the average individual. ) Correct?

To a certain extent, axeman, yes. Obviously it's not the best example, since you are taxing his net worth as opposed to his income, but I understand you were trying to make a point.

Now, I'm sure your heart just skipped a beat over the revelation that there are still some who think that way, but you might find comfort in knowing that I'm certainly not completely opposed to the idea of one being able to reach very high levels of wealth; only that, in my opinion, there can be "absurdly" high levels that become problematic for society.

See, as much as I understand that a degree of liberty is important -- hell, essential -- I don't have a problem with putting a cap on it. I don't see why the suggestion that some figure, say $5billion, is "too much" is such an anathema.

I would simply say it's a realisation that as good as market economies are, they create certain absurdities; many of them related to the levels of compensation that are created for various activities.
For example, (you might disagree) I think it's ridiculous that people like Marshall Mathers (Eminem) or Mike Tyson are rewarded so lavishly -- and thus become role models; cos afterall, dollars=success, in America -- while medical researchers labor in anonymity on far less.




Yeah - we disagree. I believe in America the land of
the free. Where the pursuit of happiness is a RIGHT.

Well, we do disagree, but it's certainly not about the right of a person to pursue his happiness. With the respect to happiness, it is the means of achieving it that we appear to disagree on; not on the question of whether its pursuit is worthwhile.

As I discussed with you on another thread, I really think you are equating pursuit of wealth with pursuit of happiness. I agreed that the two are correlated, but you are yet to concede that the increase in the latter is not contingent upon an increase in the former.

If you do not concede that, then you must believe that Americans fifty years ago were a desperately unhappy bunch; they must have been, they had far less wealth than the Americans of today.


This is not America, land of the taxed to death, land of the
"you only get enough to improve", land of the "whats yours
is mine", land of the "we take what you are capable
of contributing".

These are all communistic concepts, and have no place
in our country.

Well, if you are going to describe ANY policy that attempts to improve the lot of the underprivileged, the poor, the destitute, the proleteriat, the less educated, etc as "communistic", then so be it. Just understand that that doesn't really have very much at all to do with what communism or Marxism have traditionally stood for.

If I had been advocating things like workers owning the means of production, or the determination of production via a central agency, then you could rightly call me a communist; afterall, those are some of it's central tenets. But, on the contrary, I have clearly stated that, in my view of the world, it is the risker of capital that is entitled to after-tax profits, that markets, although imperfect, are the optimal means of allocating resources; both very capitalistIC ideas.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


I think we have a very unhealthy situation in this country now, with a small group paying virtually the entire cost of the government. a large part of the population pays little or nothing in income taxes, although they do pay payroll taxes that are ear-marked for programs like Social Security and Medicare. This disparity leads to divisive class warfare politics, and engenders extreme resentment among those who must hand over half or more of their earnings.
More...



Well, consider the alternative, AAA, where everybody pays the same, absolute dollar level of taxation, regardless of their earnings; or where everyone is taxed on the same percentage rate. Since anyone with an elementary understanding of arithmetic can tell you that there is no way this side of reality that government revenues are going to even approach their current levels, that the America you know now would certainly be quite different indeed. Using your imagination a little, do you really think such a situation would lead to less (perceived) disparity, to less class warfare, to less resentment? Or to more? (Whether or not you, yourself, consider the ensuing social unrest 'justifiable' or 'irrational' notwithstanding.)

Furthermore, it's been highlighted by tatertrader and myself that very reason some are able to -- the "small group" you refer to -- amass such riches is very much because of the superb social infrastructure that their taxes helped to build (among other reasons).
 
Quote from alfonso:

The correct name for my political philosophy is that of "Social Democracy".

More...


http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm defines Social Democracy as follows:


Social Democracy

The term "Social-Democracy" has been used by Marxists since the time of the First International of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The term is both an organizational appellation, meaning it describes a particular political affiliation within a political culture and an adjective describing a "kind" of politics within the broader socialist movement. Simply put, a social-democrat was for democratic socialism. That is, the extension of political democracy to the economic level, the elimination of capitalism and the institution of a broad based workers democracy.

Chronologically "Social-Democracy" described both the adherents of the First and Second Internationals through 1914-1919. Everyone in the various socialist movements who were at all affiliated with these internationals were described as being "social-democrats", whether they represented the staid reformism of US socialist Morris Hilquit to the revolutionary Marxism of V.I. Lenin. They were all "social-democrats."

With the failure of the Second International to rally the international working class against the onslaught of the First World War the social-democracy split, eventually culminating in the Communist, or 3rd International in 1919, which was based, in large part, of the left wing of the Russian social-democracy, the Bolsheviks, in assuming power in October of 1917, the first successful socialist revolution in the world. At this point, most supporters of the Communist International ceased calling themselves "social-democrats" and simply called themselves "Communists." Thus, social-democracy became the purview of the remnants of the Second International, who eventually reconstituted themselves into the early 1920s. The term social-democracy therefore became largely synonymous with the pale reformism of these now established socialist parties, such as the German Social-Democrats and the British Labour Party.



Social democracy? You mean your philosophy is that the majority of the poor try to get the money from the minority of the rich without having to work for it, right?
 
Alfonso,

Really, man; what is up with that Lincoln Quote? It has been mentioned a few times before.

What is your point? And where did you find this alleged quote?

:confused:

MarcD
 
Busted.... this pretty much solidifies my position
that your ideas are communis-TIC. I never called
you a communist, but "the elimination of capitalism ",
and the idea of wealth distribution of the scale
which Alfonso speaks ( which is one of the corner
stones of communism ) certainly deserves the
label "communistic".

peace

axeman


Quote from OPTIONAL777:




http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm defines Social Democracy as follows:


Social Democracy

The term "Social-Democracy" has been used by Marxists since the time of the First International of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The term is both an organizational appellation, meaning it describes a particular political affiliation within a political culture and an adjective describing a "kind" of politics within the broader socialist movement. Simply put, a social-democrat was for democratic socialism. That is, the extension of political democracy to the economic level, the elimination of capitalism and the institution of a broad based workers democracy.

Chronologically "Social-Democracy" described both the adherents of the First and Second Internationals through 1914-1919. Everyone in the various socialist movements who were at all affiliated with these internationals were described as being "social-democrats", whether they represented the staid reformism of US socialist Morris Hilquit to the revolutionary Marxism of V.I. Lenin. They were all "social-democrats."

With the failure of the Second International to rally the international working class against the onslaught of the First World War the social-democracy split, eventually culminating in the Communist, or 3rd International in 1919, which was based, in large part, of the left wing of the Russian social-democracy, the Bolsheviks, in assuming power in October of 1917, the first successful socialist revolution in the world. At this point, most supporters of the Communist International ceased calling themselves "social-democrats" and simply called themselves "Communists." Thus, social-democracy became the purview of the remnants of the Second International, who eventually reconstituted themselves into the early 1920s. The term social-democracy therefore became largely synonymous with the pale reformism of these now established socialist parties, such as the German Social-Democrats and the British Labour Party.



Social democracy? You mean your philosophy is that the majority of the poor try to get the money from the minority of the rich without having to work for it, right?
More...
 
"Axe you didn't answer *any* of my previous questions to you"

Huh???? You better pose them a little better then...
Your questions from your previous post were:

1) This is the "meat" of your post?
I answered NO, and showed you the meat.

2) So our current tax code is "communistic" in it's reapportionment of wealth?

I answer YES , for the higher brackets only.

3) ...you have the nerve to describe the system of taxation that provides a great deal of it as "communistic"?

I answered YES, for the higher tax brackets.


4) Care to offer any specific example...
I showed where you used absolute numbers.

5) ...or would it by your own illogic be instantly meaningless by definition?

Do I really have to answer this drivel?


There you go, proof that I answered a bunch of your
questions.

Your post previous to this one didn't contain a single question!

The post previous to that one was to AAA.

The post previous to THAT one contained the following questions:

1) Why don't we hear the "compassionate conservatives" talking about relieving this unjust burden to put "cash back into the hands of people who will spend it."?

Ask them. I can't answer for them. I'm not a mind reader.
For the record, I don't like the conservatives. They are simply
the lessor of two evils. But still morons, in general.

2) How does a tax relief program that encourages both large corporations (dividend tax cuts) and small businesses (remember all those job creators) to disperse more of their earnings in "tax-relieved" pay-outs to shareholders and owners (rather than to reinvest it in capital and payroll expansion) create more jobs - or put money into the hands of those most likely to spend it?

Simple... Trader Vic explained this nicely. High taxes
on things like dividens and cap gains, keep the public away
from investing in small businesses which are higher risk.
I've mentioned this before.


Not sure how much further back I should go, but those
are all the questions I could find.

Maybe you could summarize so I can figure out which
questions you think I havent answered.

peace

axeman



Quote from tatertrader:

Axe you didn't answer *any* of my previous questions to you.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top