NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You’re only a hypocrite and idiot if you’ve been > loudly whining about deficit levels and spending > in the past 6 months, like so many tea party > hacks. I don’t know if that applies to you or > not. > > All I cited was a single piece of analysis they > did, based upon CBO data. That’s hardly parroting > their talking points. I don’t think expressing concern about deficit levels and government spending makes one an idiot or a hypocrite. I am not an anarchist. I understand there must be a certain level of government receipts. I also understand that continually reducing tax rates has less of an effect on growth and ultimately hurts revenue, and therefore affects programs that we, collectively, deem important enough to fund. But hey, we can have different opinions about the role of government in our daily lives. Some people want more; some want less. I happen to want less. You might like more. I doubt either one of us are idiots. And I promise you I am not a hypocrite.
aramin79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker. You are perfectly correct in your > analysis based on the “invisible hand” theory > taught in all principles of econ courses. It is a > good general theory that explains the basic method > in which economics works, but it doesn’t explain > everything and has many exceptions. > This is analogous to the efficient market theory > taught in Finance. We understand the idea of EMT, > and it is great to view the market through this > lens. However, we also know that the EMT never > works perfectly and occassionally fails > perfectly. > > In the same way individual self-interest does not > always yield perfect market outcomes. Solely > self-interested spending would never pay for > armies, schools, most roads, etc. > > My favorite example for market inefficiencies is > fisheries. The ideal level of fishing for a > fishery is that which will allow the fish to > replenish their population perpetually. The ideal > level of fishing for each individual fisherman is > that which he can catch from dawn to dusk. With no > governance, every fish an individual fisherman > does not catch, another fisherman will catch. > > In the U.S. we have lavish amounts of spending on > consumable goods, while we seem never to have > money of public transport, infrastructure, > schools, etc. I think the appropriate economic > term for this is “ghetto rich”. It must have been > coined by J.K. Galbraith. Agree with most of what you wrote. There’s got to be a certain amount of “public goods” sponorsed by the government through tax revenues. That’s the why even the rightest supply siders would agree on some level of taxation. The problem in this country is that the administration is so populist and anti-business that its tax policy will prohibit company formation and job creation by taxing the seed capital away. That’s not right, isn’t it?
At the risk of being flamed to death…flat tax anyone? /s
All things considered a flat tax rate is a lot more efficient than a progressive tax rate. What’s wrong with a flat income tax and a flat sales tax? Nothing…. We are all created equal, why should someone’s hard work be taxed more than others? A side benefit of a flat tax rate is that we all spend less time doing our taxes and the IRS will be a lot leaner. <== If you even have a problem with this line, consider yourself an idiot…
i don’t think there is such a thing as a flat tax as there will always be those who will be receiving govt benefits whether it be in the form of programs, welfare, or subsidies. the line will always be skewed.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All things considered a flat tax rate is a lot > more efficient than a progressive tax rate. > > What’s wrong with a flat income tax and a flat > sales tax? Nothing…. > > We are all created equal, why should someone’s > hard work be taxed more than others? > > A side benefit of a flat tax rate is that we all > spend less time doing our taxes and the IRS will > be a lot leaner. <== If you even have a problem > with this line, consider yourself an idiot… Efficient, yes, equitable, probably not. Since most of the revenue comes from the high brackets, the rate cut for the high earners would be relatively low, while the rake hite for the low earners would be very high. Given that low earners have a substantial amount of their income go to “fixed” costs, ie rent, food, diapers, car payment etc, the incremental raise in rates would create significant hardships, civil unrest and further stratification of wealthly vs poor.
goes to eleven Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > You’re only a hypocrite and idiot if you’ve > been > > loudly whining about deficit levels and > spending > > in the past 6 months, like so many tea party > > hacks. I don’t know if that applies to you or > > not. > > > > All I cited was a single piece of analysis they > > did, based upon CBO data. That’s hardly > parroting > > their talking points. > > I don’t think expressing concern about deficit > levels and government spending makes one an idiot > or a hypocrite. I am not an anarchist. I > understand there must be a certain level of > government receipts. I also understand that > continually reducing tax rates has less of an > effect on growth and ultimately hurts revenue, and > therefore affects programs that we, collectively, > deem important enough to fund. > > But hey, we can have different opinions about the > role of government in our daily lives. Some > people want more; some want less. I happen to > want less. You might like more. I doubt either > one of us are idiots. And I promise you I am not > a hypocrite. Well then if you have any REAL concern about deficit levels, you can’t possibly be for extending the tax cuts. You can say you believe they should be extend with corresponding spending cuts, and I would certainly listen, but the only things large enough to cut (and matter) are MC/MA, SS, or military spending. Everything else is farting in the wind.
I would LOVE to address SS and MC - talk about sticking it to the low-earners. The 200 billion at labor, and over 100 billion at ag and education are not anything to sneeze at. A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon we’re talking about real money. Re: Flat tax. Flat tax on what? Income? Determining “income” is the most difficult part of the return. The actual tax calc is a cakewalk.
goes to eleven Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- about real money. > > Re: Flat tax. Flat tax on what? Income? > Determining “income” is the most difficult part of > the return. The actual tax calc is a cakewalk. Exactly.
1morelevel Wrote: > Given that low > earners have a substantial amount of their income > go to “fixed” costs, ie rent, food, diapers, car > payment etc, the incremental raise in rates would > create significant hardships, civil unrest and > further stratification of wealthly vs poor. Is it your fault that low earners make less money? Is it God’s fault? It’s nobody’s fault but the low earners themselves. 8 out of the 10 richest people in the world accumlated their wealth by self-made, only two Indian brothers by inheritance. If those 8 guys can succeed, anybody can.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it your fault that low earners make less money? > Is it God’s fault? No, it’s Satan’s fault.
Dude why are you so worried about paying a measly 3-4 percent more in taxes when the tax cuts expire…no matter how rich you are and how worthless you think poor people are…in the end everyone dies and you can’t take your money to the grave with you. Lighten up a bit.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dude why are you so worried about paying a measly > 3-4 percent more in taxes when the tax cuts > expire…no matter how rich you are and how > worthless you think poor people are…in the end > everyone dies and you can’t take your money to the > grave with you. Lighten up a bit. Ha! Bite me. Why would you want the government spend your money in ways that you may not agree with? Like supporting terrorist groups against India, directly or indirectly? Why not keep it and spend it on on the cause you believe in, in the way you want? At the end of the day, its your money. 3-4% is a s%$& load of money when everyone impacted is considered.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If those 8 guys can succeed, anybody can. Unless you’re not a guy…
Think about taxes as “insurance against foreign invasion and civil disrest.” Say you have a job at the local bank paying you $200K, a nice little house in the hills, a gleaming 5-series, a pretty woman to look at, 2 li’l kids in montessori school, etc. You want to insure against invasions from foreign nations trying to get at your “gold”, and in the process throwing the economy into disarray (ruining the bank), raping your wife and conscripting your kids. You should be willing to pay good money for this. On the other hand, the guy renting a studio in some old tenement washing dishes for $6/hr at the restaurant around the corner, isn’t really as worried if the Russians show up. He’ll get a job washing Pirogi off the plates instead of apple pie. The same logic applies to civil disrest. Roving bands of looters and disaffected youth that cannot find the means to support themselves won’t be good for banking or the safety of your property and loved ones.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If those 8 guys can succeed, anybody can. > > Unless you’re not a guy… Good point. Revision ==> if those 8 people can succeed, anybody can. Naked, are you a girl?
Does one have to be a girl to make Naked’s point?
^^ LOL… You are a silly rabbit. I was more tongue in cheek. Can you imagine a girl uses a login name like that…?
goes to eleven Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > But hey, we can have different opinions about the > role of government in our daily lives. Some > people want more; some want less. I happen to > want less. You might like more. I doubt either > one of us are idiots. And I promise you I am not > a hypocrite. Both Democrats and Republicans believe in big government. One wants it for financial issues, the other for social issues.
I have a hard time understanding how a flat tax would be more efficient. The tax brackets could be based on calculus and TurboTax or some other free program could figure it out in a second.