PDA

View Full Version : Local Kansas City's Henry Bloch calls for higher taxes on wealthy


banyon
08-14-2011, 11:33 AM
Balance the budget and balance the tax burden
By HENRY W. BLOCH
Special to The Star

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2011/07/30/18/29/1ab7mL.Em.81.jpg
Henry W. Bloch, a co-founder of H&R Block Inc., lives in Mission Hills.


Something has gone terribly wrong in Washington, D.C. Over the last two decades, both Republicans and Democrats have put our country in a financial dilemma largely caused by one simple fact: The government borrows nearly 45 cents for every dollar it spends. Now the ongoing debt-ceiling fiasco has brought the nation to the edge of a fiscal precipice.

I am a registered Republican. But I speak out on this subject not to support the Republicansí or Democratsí position. Instead, I advocate for average, middle-income Americans. Their voices are too often ignored in policy debates.

I am appalled at the behavior of this Congress, which now seems more intent on political maneuvering for power than on making rational public policy. For example, some Republican members of the House appear to be refusing to agree to any solution for which President Obama can claim any credit. Consequently, our country finds itself on the brink of defaulting on the nationís debt, not because of the actions of the American people but because of the actions of certain elected officials.

Clearly we have borrowed from our future to pay for todayís benefits. That practice has now caught up with us. We need Congress to formulate a plan to deal with this problem. The debt gap cannot otherwise be closed. A balanced approach ó a combination of spending cuts and increased revenue, not merely spending cuts ó is the right answer.

Iím not the only one who feels this way. A large majority of Americans are calling for compromise and a fair and balanced approach to resolving this debt crisis. The average American understands that digging our way out of this crisis will require shared sacrifice in the form of fewer benefits and higher taxes on the top income earners. Yet our political leaders continue to go about their business of trying to ďone-upĒ one another and score political points that they will look to cash in when they run for re-election in 2012.

I do not understand some Republicansí resistance to the idea of tax increases on the wealthy. The argument we have been hearing from some politicians about the rich being the ďjob creatorsĒ is misguided. First of all, letís not forget that our economy was doing better and the nationís unemployment rate was lower before the Bush tax cuts, which benefited the top 1 percent of earners the most. Secondly, one would be hard-pressed to prove that low tax rates result in increased job creation. Companies today are holding record levels of cash, yet unemployment remains stubbornly high.

I have been a student of the U.S. tax system for more than half a century. From the mid-1930s to the early-1980s, the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners in this country was between 68 percent and 94 percent. Thatís double and triple of what it is today. Yes, itís time we balance the budget, but it is also time we balance the tax burden.

The strength of our political system has always been our elected officialsí ability to put the countryís interests first and come together in the spirit of compromise.

Those of us earning more than $250,000 a year are very fortunate. We have an obligation to help our nation overcome this challenge. While I donít look forward to paying more taxes, it must be done. And itís a small price to pay for living in this wonderful country. Responsible change that promotes good public policy and tax fairness is to be welcomed.

Henry W. Bloch, co-founder of H&R Block Inc., lives in Mission Hills.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/30/3047297/balance-the-budget-and-balance.html

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 12:15 PM
Lol of course this gets zero replies.

DOES NOT FIT OBAMA BLIND RAGE. IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

(In before patteu with obtuse deflecting argument that deliberately misses the point.)

Chocolate Hog
08-14-2011, 12:18 PM
Raising taxes means nothing just look at how they piss away revenues.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 12:19 PM
It wouldn't fix a damn thing.

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 12:29 PM
Strong assertions. Sorry but I'll take Henry Bloch's opinion.

banyon
08-14-2011, 12:30 PM
It wouldn't fix a damn thing.

The tax cuts we did make resulted in lower revenues didn't they?

petegz28
08-14-2011, 12:35 PM
The tax cuts we did make resulted in lower revenues didn't they?

I think that is debateable. But let's just say for the sake of argument they did, ok? Then how is raising taxes on a small percentage of the overall tax cuts going to help? Now if you said to roll back ALL of the Bush tax cuts you may have an argument.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 12:37 PM
See, the evil myth is only the rich got tax cuts under Bush and that is simply not true. There are less people in the lower incomes paying less if not 0 taxes because of the Bush tax cuts. The mere fact that they want to roll back those cuts only on the wealthy is testiment to the fact that not just the wealthy received tax cuts.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 12:38 PM
The tax cuts we did make resulted in lower revenues didn't they?

pretty much. I will agree that we were probably on the right side of the Laffer curve when Reagan cut taxes from 70% at the top marginal rate. We are clearly on the left side of that curve now. Cutting taxes down from very low levels to very very low levels did not do a damned thing for unemployment. All it did was blow a hole in our budget.

I think just about the only way we could reasonably balance the budget without tax increases would be a Ron Paul approach where defense spending is dramatically cut (closing all bases all over the world including Japan, SK, and Germany, probably need fewer soldiers, etc), thus allowing for only modest politically-acceptable cuts to entitlements.

Presuming he doesn't win or get congress to agree with him if he does and the next president still wants to spend trillions over the next 10 years on a strong defense to maintain an American empire, then tax increases have to be part of the solution. A cuts-only budget that doesn't drastically cut defense is politically impossible.

banyon
08-14-2011, 12:41 PM
I think that is debateable. But let's just say for the sake of argument they did, ok? Then how is raising taxes on a small percentage of the overall tax cuts going to help? Now if you said to roll back ALL of the Bush tax cuts you may have an argument.

The effects as explained by the CRS:

<a title="View Bush.tax.Cuts.crs 10.27 on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/40488953/Bush-tax-Cuts-crs-10-27" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Bush.tax.Cuts.crs 10.27</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/40488953/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-15wmewjr39xroa3r71zl" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="1" scrolling="no" id="doc_42287" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();</script>

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 12:50 PM
See, the evil myth is only the rich got tax cuts under Bush and that is simply not true. There are less people in the lower incomes paying less if not 0 taxes because of the Bush tax cuts. The mere fact that they want to roll back those cuts only on the wealthy is testiment to the fact that not just the wealthy received tax cuts.

No one is saying only the wealthy received cuts. We're saying the cuts inordinately benefited the wealthy. Also we're talking about the proposal Obama put forward to let the Bush cuts expire on the wealthy and make $4t in cuts, which the tea party refused to budge one inch on, and probably would have saved us the downgrade.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 12:54 PM
Raising income tax rates won't necessarily create the additional revenues that everyone thinks. If you raise revenues to 100% it won't solve the deficit problem (thereby undercutting higher income tax rates as a solution). And if you increase income tax rates without capping spending all you will get is more spending (this is something that history illustrates quite vividly).

Freeze spending, raise the debt ceiling to get us through the next decade until growth reaches current spending levels, raise the age of eligibility for SS and Medicare so they can function as originally intended, and add a national sales tax. You'll have the deficit under control in less than 10 years and you'll have a huge portion of the debt paid off within 40 years.

Or you can keep pretending that there really isn't a problem, keep printing and borrowing to deflate the value of what entitlements pay, until the value of currency finally collapses entirely under the weight of government's gluttony.

It's not a choice between having what politicians (stupidly) promised or a percentage of that amount any longer. It's a choice between getting a percentage or receiving nothing.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 12:55 PM
No one is saying only the wealthy received cuts. We're saying the cuts inordinately benefited the wealthy. Also we're talking about the proposal Obama put forward to let the Bush cuts expire on the wealthy and make $4t in cuts, which the tea party refused to budge one inch on, and probably would have saved us the downgrade.

So you're saying that people who make more money and fall into higher tax brackets and pay more $'s in tax saw the biggest imapct?

WOW!

Why did Obama extend the Bush tax cuts in the first place? Secondly, the percentage increase in revenues on raising the tax back on just the "wealthy" is pure bullshit.

Spare me the crap about saving the downgrade. I am sick of hearing the politcal hack points on how this is all the fault of th tea party. It's the fault of the dickheads spending to god damn much money and not wanting to cut a fucking thing in fear it may cost them votes.

suzzer99
08-14-2011, 12:59 PM
How about it's the fault of Bush making reckless tax cuts with no spending decreases, getting us into two costly wars, and even opening a brand new unfunded entitlement in Medicare D? Why does that not seem to stick in your head?

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 12:59 PM
No one is saying only the wealthy received cuts. We're saying the cuts inordinately benefited the wealthy. Also we're talking about the proposal Obama put forward to let the Bush cuts expire on the wealthy and make $4t in cuts, which the tea party refused to budge one inch on, and probably would have saved us the downgrade.

And why do you think the cuts inordinately benefited the wealthy? Could it be because they pay an inordinately high percentage of the overall income tax?

The fact is the evil Bush tax cuts weren't as regressive as everyone thinks if you look at the rate of revenue into the treasury. And I'd trust the free market to apply its capital to create jobs rather than have the government take that money and "buy" jobs (at the rate of $250K per job). When the government runs out of money to buy jobs the job goes away. When the free market invests less money it has the chance to create jobs exponentially. Government cannot, and will never, be able to do such a thing.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 12:59 PM
Raising income tax rates won't necessarily create the additional revenues that everyone thinks. If you raise revenues to 100% it won't solve the deficit problem (thereby undercutting higher income tax rates as a solution). And if you increase income tax rates without capping spending all you will get is more spending (this is something that history illustrates quite vividly).

Freeze spending, raise the debt ceiling to get us through the next decade until growth reaches current spending levels, raise the age of eligibility for SS and Medicare so they can function as originally intended, and add a national sales tax. You'll have the deficit under control in less than 10 years and you'll have a huge portion of the debt paid off within 40 years.

Or you can keep pretending that there really isn't a problem, keep printing and borrowing to deflate the value of what entitlements pay, until the value of currency finally collapses entirely under the weight of government's gluttony.

It's not a choice between having what politicians (stupidly) promised or a percentage of that amount any longer. It's a choice between getting a percentage or receiving nothing.

We are paying some of the lowest tax rates in modern American history, and it doesn't seem to have brought us prosperity. Raising taxes to, say Clinton-era levels will not harm the economy and will bring in much-needed revenues to help balance the budget.

We do not have only a spending problem, we also have a revenue problem caused primarily by the Bush tax cuts. An all-cuts budget where entitlements are slashed to the extent you are probably imagining is politically impossible and will not happen. If the Republicans attempt to solve the problem solely on the big 3 (Medicaid/care, Social Security) without significantly touching defense or raising a dime in taxes, the people will revolt and they will be destroyed in the elections.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:01 PM
How about it's the fault of Bush making reckless tax cuts with no spending decreases, getting us into two costly wars, and even opening a brand new unfunded entitlement in Medicare D? Why does that not seem to stick in your head?

Why cut spending when the revenues to the treasury went up after the tax cuts were implemented? You do remember these are politicians we're talking about don't you?

The wars are open to debate, but did have broad bi-partisan support at the time they were initiated.

Totally agree on Medicare Part D.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 01:01 PM
We are paying some of the lowest tax rates in modern American history, and it doesn't seem to have brought us prosperity. Raising taxes to, say Clinton-era levels will not harm the economy and will bring in much-needed revenues to help balance the budget.

We do not have only a spending problem, we also have a revenue problem caused primarily by the Bush tax cuts. An all-cuts budget where entitlements are slashed to the extent you are probably imagining is politically impossible and will not happen. If the Republicans attempt to solve the problem solely on the big 3 (Medicaid/care, Social Security) without significantly touching defense or raising a dime in taxes, the people will revolt and they will be destroyed in the elections.

Ok, so raise them on EVERYONE! We have a spending problem because our Congress has no concept of what it means to spend beyond your revenues. Thus we don't have a revenue problem, we have a careless spending problem.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 01:03 PM
How about it's the fault of Bush making reckless tax cuts with no spending decreases, getting us into two costly wars, and even opening a brand new unfunded entitlement in Medicare D? Why does that not seem to stick in your head?

Yes becasue Obama and the Dems haven't spent anything at all, right? Nevermind they didn't pass a budget for 2 years so they could just keep on spending. Damn it, Bush!

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:05 PM
We are paying some of the lowest tax rates in modern American history, and it doesn't seem to have brought us prosperity. Raising taxes to, say Clinton-era levels will not harm the economy and will bring in much-needed revenues to help balance the budget.

You don't know this. Taxes are a drag on growth -- as are the kinds of programs that Obama and the Dems enacted between 2008 and 2010. All of the budgets out there (from the terrible Obama budget that was voted down 97-0 to the Ryan budget) depend on economic growth to sustain the economy and if you don't get it you have huge problems (as we're experiencing now).

We do not have only a spending problem, we also have a revenue problem caused primarily by the Bush tax cuts. An all-cuts budget where entitlements are slashed to the extent you are probably imagining is politically impossible and will not happen. If the Republicans attempt to solve the problem solely on the big 3 (Medicaid/care, Social Security) without significantly touching defense or raising a dime in taxes, the people will revolt and they will be destroyed in the elections.

The Bush tax cuts are not the reason we have a revenue problem. We have a revenue problem because there was a contraction in economic activity. Simply increasing income tax rates won't necessarily increase revenues by the amount you raise them.

And I favor what would probably be the largest income tax in world history -- just don't think that income and business income tax rates are the way to derive the additional revenue and would never raise taxes in any event without a way to stop Congress (and especially future Congresses) from spending it.

mnchiefsguy
08-14-2011, 01:07 PM
We are paying some of the lowest tax rates in modern American history, and it doesn't seem to have brought us prosperity. Raising taxes to, say Clinton-era levels will not harm the economy and will bring in much-needed revenues to help balance the budget.

We do not have only a spending problem, we also have a revenue problem caused primarily by the Bush tax cuts. An all-cuts budget where entitlements are slashed to the extent you are probably imagining is politically impossible and will not happen. If the Republicans attempt to solve the problem solely on the big 3 (Medicaid/care, Social Security) without significantly touching defense or raising a dime in taxes, the people will revolt and they will be destroyed in the elections.

Spending cuts need to occur first...without Congress showing a commitment to control spending, raising taxes does nothing. Government is spending too much money, and until they quit spending like a sailor in a whorehouse, all the tax increases in the world are not going to help.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Spending cuts need to occur first...without Congress showing a commitment to control spending, raising taxes does nothing. Government is spending too much money, and until they quit spending like a sailor in a whorehouse, all the tax increases in the world are not going to help.

Even spending cuts aren't enough. We need to stop baseline spending because it gives Congress the ability to do what they have been doing the last decade and apply past success into future projected income. They NEVER anticipate economic contraction. Even if you kept the baseline but revised it against actual growth you would begin to address part of the real problem.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Spending cuts need to occur first...without Congress showing a commitment to control spending, raising taxes does nothing. Government is spending too much money, and until they quit spending like a sailor in a whorehouse, all the tax increases in the world are not going to help.

That's exactly right. That's why the proposed tax increases wouldn't do a damn thing but sound good and look good at the time. Those increased revenues would just be spent like everything else. They need to lay out some serious, tangible spending cuts before any tax hikes are ever considered. Otherwise it just comes off as we don't want to quit our spending, we just want you to pay more.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 01:10 PM
Ok, so raise them on EVERYONE! We have a spending problem because our Congress has no concept of what it means to spend beyond your revenues. Thus we don't have a revenue problem, we have a careless spending problem.

You are simply incorrect about us not having a revenue problem because the benefits that the people will demand, and will throw republicans out on their asses to get if necessary, is higher than our revenue.

The people simply will... not... allow... you to cut entitlement spending down to our revenue. It wont happen, they will allow some cuts, but not enough to balance the budget.

So, since the people absolutely demand, with their vote, a minimum amount of entitlement spending, and since that spending is above our revenue, then yes, we do have a revenue problem as well as a spending problem. If the tea party wants to die on that "cuts-only budget" hill, that is fine. After the tea party hardliner idiots die at the ballot box, then the only debate remaining will be how to raise revenue, and on whom.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 01:12 PM
You are simply incorrect about us not having a revenue problem because the benefits that the people will demand, and will throw republicans out on their asses to get if necessary, is higher than our revenue.

The people simply will... not... allow... you to cut entitlement spending down to our revenue. It wont happen, they will allow some cuts, but not enough to balance the budget.

So, since the people absolutely demand, with their vote, a minimum amount of entitlement spending, and since that spending is above our revenue, then yes, we do have a revenue problem as well as a spending problem. If the tea party wants to die on that "cuts-only budget" hill, that is fine. After the tea party hardliners idiot die at the ballot box, then the only debate remaining will be how to raise revenue, and on whom.

The people don't demand it. The people were sold this shit in efforts to buy votes. Come on!

The more you people blast the Tea Party the stronger they get because you draw attention to them and more people listen to them and more and more are agreeing with them. Status quo has got to go!

alnorth
08-14-2011, 01:12 PM
You don't know this. Taxes are a drag on growth -- as are the kinds of programs that Obama and the Dems enacted between 2008 and 2010. All of the budgets out there (from the terrible Obama budget that was voted down 97-0 to the Ryan budget) depend on economic growth to sustain the economy and if you don't get it you have huge problems (as we're experiencing now).

The Bush tax cuts are not the reason we have a revenue problem. We have a revenue problem because there was a contraction in economic activity. Simply increasing income tax rates won't necessarily increase revenues by the amount you raise them.

And I favor what would probably be the largest income tax in world history -- just don't think that income and business income tax rates are the way to derive the additional revenue and would never raise taxes in any event without a way to stop Congress (and especially future Congresses) from spending it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

I'm not suggesting we go back over 70%, but the 50's and 60's were pretty good.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:12 PM
You are simply incorrect about us not having a revenue problem because the benefits that the people will demand, and will throw republicans out on their asses to get if necessary, is higher than our revenue.

What if lower taxes brought in more revenue?

You have to remember that Obama was asked this very question and said he wouldn't pursue tax cuts even if he knew they would bring in more revenue because it wouldn't be "fair".

And only a fool thinks "fairness" is an economic theory worth testing.

chris
08-14-2011, 01:13 PM
Lol of course this gets zero replies.

DOES NOT FIT OBAMA BLIND RAGE. IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

(In before patteu with obtuse deflecting argument that deliberately misses the point.)

WOW oh WOW!!!

We get ONE rich person stating HIGH taxes and you jump on your increase taxes soapbox.

There a millions of folk making more that $250K a year. Where is your sample data set for them? Wanta guess how many would agree with Henry?

I'm beating the drum again: Flat Tax, Flat Tax, Flat Tax.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 01:14 PM
The people don't demand it. The people were sold this shit in efforts to buy votes. Come on!

The more you people blast the Tea Party the stronger they get because you draw attention to them and more people listen to them and more and more are agreeing with them. Status quo has got to go!

If you believe the people will not destroy the republicans if they advocate balancing the budget solely through gigantic cuts in Social Security and Medicare/caid, you are out of your mind.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:17 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

I'm not suggesting we go back over 70%, but the 50's and 60's were pretty good.

I take it you weren't around and paying taxes back then? The percentage on the marginal rate doesn't really translate into the actual revenues that were generated. The lower rates we pay now generates more income as a percentage of individual income than the past decades you referenced.

But it still doesn't address your original point that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for most of the deficit problem. Nor does it reveal that raising taxes would generate more revenue.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 01:17 PM
What if lower taxes brought in more revenue?

You have to remember that Obama was asked this very question and said he wouldn't pursue tax cuts even if he knew they would bring in more revenue because it wouldn't be "fair".

And only a fool thinks "fairness" is an economic theory worth testing.

We are not on the right side of the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve IS a curve, it goes up as well as down. The Laffer curve is not a straight downward-facing slope that only decreases as tax increases. I'll buy it at 70% during Reagan, I will not buy it now especially since our budget blew up after the tax cuts.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/Northjayhawk/LafferCurve.png

petegz28
08-14-2011, 01:17 PM
If you believe the people will not destroy the republicans if they advocate balancing the budget solely through gigantic cuts in Social Security and Medicare/caid, you are out of your mind.

Last time the Repubs advocated balancing the budget they took control of the House and Senate for the first time in what, 4 decades? And Clinton got a good ride off of his claim that he "balanced the budget", did he not?

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:19 PM
If you believe the people will not destroy the republicans if they advocate balancing the budget solely through gigantic cuts in Social Security and Medicare/caid, you are out of your mind.

They might, but without them neither Social Security or Medicare/caid will be worth much in a few decades. And when there is much evidence that those communities that opted out of SS in the 70s/80s are more solvent with returns that in most respects are better you have to ask why we're continuing down a path that is doomed to fail on its present course.

Could it be that politics has something to do with it?

patteeu
08-14-2011, 01:19 PM
First of all, letís not forget that our economy was doing better and the nationís unemployment rate was lower before the Bush tax cuts, which benefited the top 1 percent of earners the most.

Fact check:

This is misleading at best and just plain false at worst. At the time of the tax cuts, 2001 and 2003, unemployment was on the rise and the economy was slowing down. Indeed, the economy was experiencing it's slowest growth in several years. After the tax cuts, unemployment went down and growth went up.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/3332438203_89daec046b.jpg

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/2008/02/18/q_growth_real_gdp.gif

alnorth
08-14-2011, 01:20 PM
Last time the Repubs advocated balancing the budget they took control of the House and Senate for the first time in what, 4 decades? And Clinton got a good ride off of his claim that he "balanced the budget", did he not?

"Balance the budget" means different things to different people. It does not necessarily mean, to the voters, dramatically slashing medicare/aid and social security.

The Republicans will be tarred and feathered by the AARP if they try to pick that fight. Hell, they just recently lost a red house seat due to the Ryan plan.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:23 PM
We are not on the right side of the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve IS a curve, it goes up as well as down. The Laffer curve is not a straight downward-facing slope that only decreases as tax increases. I'll buy it at 70% during Reagan, I will not buy it now especially since our budget blew up after the tax cuts.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/Northjayhawk/LafferCurve.png

Al, the budget did NOT blow up after the Bush tax cuts. If you removed the extraordinary costs of the wars the deficit consistently was reduced during the Bush presidency -- to the point of essentially being balanced in 2007.

There were obviously other considerations to this -- but the Bush tax cuts didn't create the current revenue problems and anything that restricts capital investment to any degree wouldn't be something anyone should be advocating right now, but that's just my opinion.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:25 PM
Fact check:

This is misleading at best and just plain false at worst. At the time of the tax cuts, 2001 and 2003, unemployment was on the rise and the economy was slowing down. Indeed, the economy was experiencing it's slowest growth in several years. After the tax cuts, unemployment went down and growth went up.

Yep. This is a good point. Not only did we consistently reduce the deficit, we did so in spite of the worst attack on American soil ever -- reversing huge job losses that manifested directly as a result of the events of 9/11. That's a difference between the bad hand that Bush drew with respect to jobs and the one that Obama got -- the economy overcame 9/11 but appears to be sinking further under Obama's administration.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 01:30 PM
"Balance the budget" means different things to different people. It does not necessarily mean, to the voters, dramatically slashing medicare/aid and social security.

The Republicans will be tarred and feathered by the AARP if they try to pick that fight. Hell, they just recently lost a red house seat due to the Ryan plan.

What I think you mean, by ignoring the waste and fraud in programs like Medicare and SS and Welfare a certain group of people are made happier.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:31 PM
"You don't raise taxes in a recession." - Barack Obama, August 2009

I guess Obama didn't really believe that then... or doesn't believe it now... or could it be that he's just playing politics... or maybe he thinks "fairness" is more important than a sound economic policy.

You really don't know with this guy which I think is part of the reason why no one wants to make big investments in this economy.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:32 PM
What I think you mean, by ignoring the waste and fraud in programs like Medicare and SS and Welfare a certain group of people are made happier.

Well, it is true that Congress has voted to cut Medicare by $500,000,000,000.00.

patteeu
08-14-2011, 01:41 PM
We are paying some of the lowest tax rates in modern American history, and it doesn't seem to have brought us prosperity. Raising taxes to, say Clinton-era levels will not harm the economy and will bring in much-needed revenues to help balance the budget.

We do not have only a spending problem, we also have a revenue problem caused primarily by the Bush tax cuts. An all-cuts budget where entitlements are slashed to the extent you are probably imagining is politically impossible and will not happen. If the Republicans attempt to solve the problem solely on the big 3 (Medicaid/care, Social Security) without significantly touching defense or raising a dime in taxes, the people will revolt and they will be destroyed in the elections.

We have predominantly a spending problem. More specifically, we have an entitlement and, over the past 2 years, a non-defense discretionary spending problem. The revenue problem is a problem of economic growth, not tax rates.

You may be right that the population won't tolerate addressing the real problems directly, but that's different than identifying the problem as something other than it is.

patteeu
08-14-2011, 01:50 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png

I'm not suggesting we go back over 70%, but the 50's and 60's were pretty good.

Do we reinstate all the tax shelters and loopholes that that tax code contained at the same time we reverse the rate reduction? The 1986 tax reform that brought the top rate down from 50% to 28% achieved that reduction in return for the elimination of a lot of tax advantages previously available to the top bracket.

Besides, if we have a revenue problem (beyond that which would take care of itself in a growing economy) as you insist, raising rates on the bottom end of the salary spectrum will produce far more revenue than raising rates on the top end. There are more people down there and they are far less likely to find ways to avoid producing taxable income.

mlyonsd
08-14-2011, 01:52 PM
The democrats plan to raise taxes on the rich was projected to only bring in 700 billion over 10 years. That's 70 bllion per year. That basically does nothing to the deficit.

If they and Obama were truly being honest about the need for more revenue they would have called for across the board increases. Which of course they didn't.

So this leads to two possible scenarios. Either democrats didn't have the political backbone and thought more about their own skins than do what was right, or they were just using the tax the rich mantra for political class warfare mongering.

It seems like a lot have bought into the second one.

patteeu
08-14-2011, 01:53 PM
We are not on the right side of the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve IS a curve, it goes up as well as down. The Laffer curve is not a straight downward-facing slope that only decreases as tax increases. I'll buy it at 70% during Reagan, I will not buy it now especially since our budget blew up after the tax cuts.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/Northjayhawk/LafferCurve.png

There are different curves for different groups of people. We are certainly on the left side of the curve for people in the lowest tax brackets. It's not so clear that 40 or 50% on the high income earner is on the left side.

At the very least, we're at a steeper point on the left side of the curve for the low income brackets which means that each one percent increase in their rate will generate a larger increase in revenue on a per dollar basis.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 01:59 PM
Besides, if we have a revenue problem (beyond that which would take care of itself in a growing economy) as you insist, raising rates on the bottom end of the salary spectrum will produce far more revenue than raising rates on the top end. There are more people down there and they are far less likely to find ways to avoid producing taxable income.

Fairness.

J Diddy
08-14-2011, 02:02 PM
The democrats plan to raise taxes on the rich was projected to only bring in 700 billion over 10 years. That's 70 bllion per year. That basically does nothing to the deficit.

If they and Obama were truly being honest about the need for more revenue they would have called for across the board increases. Which of course they didn't.

So this leads to two possible scenarios. Either democrats didn't have the political backbone and thought more about their own skins than do what was right, or they were just using the tax the rich mantra for political class warfare mongering.

It seems like a lot have bought into the second one.

Of course they didn't. It would have been political suicide.

petegz28
08-14-2011, 02:04 PM
The democrats plan to raise taxes on the rich was projected to only bring in 700 billion over 10 years. That's 70 bllion per year. That basically does nothing to the deficit.

If they and Obama were truly being honest about the need for more revenue they would have called for across the board increases. Which of course they didn't.

So this leads to two possible scenarios. Either democrats didn't have the political backbone and thought more about their own skins than do what was right, or they were just using the tax the rich mantra for political class warfare mongering.

It seems like a lot have bought into the second one.

Definitely the 2nd one. The $70 bil a year covers 1% of the increased spending that was a resuly of the deficit agreement. But hey, tax the rich more sure sounds good!

Baby Lee
08-14-2011, 03:31 PM
Is there no one capable of analyzing tax revenues foregone through, call them what you will, incentives, loopholes, social engineering, whatever, and compare them to the economic benefit they provide?

Then we could present a cost/benefit sound case for closing ineffective or abused loopholes instead of a generalized case that gets shot down with a dismissive 'they're there for a reason.''

chris
08-14-2011, 05:03 PM
Is there no one capable of analyzing tax revenues foregone through, call them what you will, incentives, loopholes, social engineering, whatever, and compare them to the economic benefit they provide?

Then we could present a cost/benefit sound case for closing ineffective or abused loopholes instead of a generalized case that gets shot down with a dismissive 'they're there for a reason.''

At that same time to be fair and balanced, figure out a way for the 52% that don't pay income taxes to start contributing to the debt instead of being part of the debt.

alnorth
08-14-2011, 10:08 PM
Al, the budget did NOT blow up after the Bush tax cuts. If you removed the extraordinary costs of the wars the deficit consistently was reduced during the Bush presidency -- to the point of essentially being balanced in 2007.

There were obviously other considerations to this -- but the Bush tax cuts didn't create the current revenue problems and anything that restricts capital investment to any degree wouldn't be something anyone should be advocating right now, but that's just my opinion.

I will definitely concede that defense spending and other spending was a huge part of our recent problem, but Pew does not agree that the Bush Tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit.

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

alnorth
08-14-2011, 10:14 PM
At that same time to be fair and balanced, figure out a way for the 52% that don't pay income taxes to start contributing to the debt instead of being part of the debt.

Well, to put it in proper context you have to include payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are also taxes on income. Social Security and Medicare is not a closed-end system like your company pension or your 401k where if the money runs out, too bad. They are payroll taxes, which we arbitrarily choose to link to benefits, but the link is not real because we'll still pay out if the imaginary account balance runs out.

I do agree that taxes should increase for everyone by the way, not just the rich. The problem is too big not to. (or at least include the middle class, it may be pointless to tax the poor. Their "tax" will be in the form of benefit cuts)

chris
08-14-2011, 10:18 PM
Well, to put it in proper context you have to include payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are also taxes on income. Social Security and Medicare is not a closed-end system like your company pension or your 401k where if the money runs out, too bad. They are payroll taxes, which we arbitrarily choose to link to benefits, but the link is not real because we'll still pay out if the imaginary account balance runs out.

I do agree that taxes should increase for everyone by the way, not just the rich. The problem is too big not to. (or at least include the middle class, it may be pointless to tax the poor. Their "tax" will be in the form of benefit cuts)

Nicely written.

RINGLEADER
08-14-2011, 11:11 PM
I will definitely concede that defense spending and other spending was a huge part of our recent problem, but Pew does not agree that the Bush Tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit.

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

You can't just reduce the cost of the tax decreases as a loss in revenue. Tax policy is one of the few stimulative powers that the government can actually apply -- and to say you can reduce/increase without an impact on growth, though done all the time in charts like this one, just aren't accurate.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 12:53 AM
I nominate alnorth for sanest DC poster. Must feel pretty lonely.

dirk digler
08-15-2011, 07:56 AM
Only on CP do people think they are smarter than a person who built one of the largest tax firms in the country. It is not like he hasn't spent 50+ years in the tax business and has forgotten more about taxes than all of us probably know combined.

Next thing you know there will be people thinking they are smarter than a 4-time Executive of the Year and winner of 3 Super Bowls.

Dave Lane
08-15-2011, 08:18 AM
Raising taxes while lightly trimming spending is the way out of the deficit without collapsing the economy. Raising taxes is far more job neutral that cutting spending. Wait for an economic recover and then lower taxes back if needed. Basically a spending freeze might be good enough.

Dave Lane
08-15-2011, 08:21 AM
Also the crazy claims of 52% pay no taxes goes like this 20% are retired 15% are under 16 and 17% are too poor to pay taxes. Now stop the nonsense of this claim.

phisherman
08-15-2011, 08:30 AM
the bottom line to this is:

even rich people are now saying that the BS has got to stop. they realize that tax reform is needed, along with some drastic spending discipline.

Yes, it will be painful.

Yes, it will not be instant gratification.

But, if we want to regain any sort of fiscal stability, let's cut the blank check crap, make some tough decisions and get to work!

patteeu
08-15-2011, 08:53 AM
the bottom line to this is:

even rich people are now saying that the BS has got to stop. they realize that tax reform is needed, along with some drastic spending discipline.

Yes, it will be painful.

Yes, it will not be instant gratification.

But, if we want to regain any sort of fiscal stability, let's cut the blank check crap, make some tough decisions and get to work!

Speaking of BS, there have always been a small group of rich people saying this. I bet there are more poor people saying that taxes shouldn't be raised only on the rich than there are rich people saying that they should.

If Mr. Bloch thinks the government should have more of his money, I bet he knows a tax preparer who can figure out how he can get that done.

phisherman
08-15-2011, 09:07 AM
say what you want about class warfare. i don't really care. will taxing the rich make a dent? i don't know. but i do know that tax rates are as low or lower than they've been in a long time.

yes, we spend too much. way too much. and that's the crux of the problem, but a bit more tax income combined with aggressive spending cuts will definitely start us in the correct direction.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 09:26 AM
say what you want about class warfare. i don't really care. will taxing the rich make a dent? i don't know. but i do know that tax rates are as low or lower than they've been in a long time.

yes, we spend too much. way too much. and that's the crux of the problem, but a bit more tax income combined with aggressive spending cuts will definitely start us in the correct direction.

From what I've seen, if we took all their money it still wouldn't pay off the debt or even balance the budget.

Not to say that our tax code doesn't need some serious reform* however the idea that we can just take rich people's money to get us out of this mess is not accurate





*the first step is to burn the current tax code and start over.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 09:31 AM
say what you want about class warfare. i don't really care. will taxing the rich make a dent? i don't know. but i do know that tax rates are as low or lower than they've been in a long time.

yes, we spend too much. way too much. and that's the crux of the problem, but a bit more tax income combined with aggressive spending cuts will definitely start us in the correct direction.

The most important thing for raising tax revenue is economic growth.

Do you think your taxes should be raised back to pre-Bush levels?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-15-2011, 09:33 AM
From what I've seen, if we took all their money it still wouldn't pay off the debt or even balance the budget.

Not to say that our tax code doesn't need some serious reform* however the idea that we can just take rich people's money to get us out of this mess is not accurate





*the first step is to burn the current tax code and start over.

That about sums it up.

phisherman
08-15-2011, 09:34 AM
it wouldn't bother me. seems to me that everyone is going to have to take one on the chin, whether it be from losing some entitlements, or having higher taxes.

how do you propose stimulating economic growth?

phisherman
08-15-2011, 09:35 AM
From what I've seen, if we took all their money it still wouldn't pay off the debt or even balance the budget.

Not to say that our tax code doesn't need some serious reform* however the idea that we can just take rich people's money to get us out of this mess is not accurate





*the first step is to burn the current tax code and start over.

i agree 100%.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-15-2011, 09:36 AM
it wouldn't bother me. seems to me that everyone is going to have to take one on the chin, whether it be from losing some entitlements, or having higher taxes.

how do you propose stimulating economic growth?

Have Barry give a speech, that usually fixes everything.

Dave Lane
08-15-2011, 09:39 AM
The most important thing for raising tax revenue is economic growth.

Do you think your taxes should be raised back to pre-Bush levels?

Yes.

phisherman
08-15-2011, 09:41 AM
Have Barry give a speech, that usually fixes everything.

preaching to the choir dude.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 09:41 AM
it wouldn't bother me. seems to me that everyone is going to have to take one on the chin, whether it be from losing some entitlements, or having higher taxes.

how do you propose stimulating economic growth?

My first thought would be to have more appropriate regulations on businesses.

In many cases this means less regulations. What you have to understand is that every regulation a business must adhere to adds a cost to that business. That is almost always passed on to the consumer in some way.

Less regulation = less costs = lower prices = increased sales = increased demand = increased jobs.

Now, some regulations are good. I'm not the type who believes we should have a totally unregulated economy. However, many of these regulations just get in the way and serve no purpose whatsoever. That's why I say more "appropriate" regulations.

I'd also advocate drastically simplfying the tax code.

Next, we repeal the monstrosity known as Obamacare.

phisherman
08-15-2011, 09:50 AM
My first thought would be to have more appropriate regulations on businesses.

In many cases this means less regulations. What you have to understand is that every regulation a business must adhere to adds a cost to that business. That is almost always passed on to the consumer in some way.

Less regulation = less costs = lower prices = increased sales = increased demand = increased jobs.

Now, some regulations are good. I'm not the type who believes we should have a totally unregulated economy. However, many of these regulations just get in the way and serve no purpose whatsoever. That's why I say more "appropriate" regulations.

I'd also advocate drastically simplfying the tax code.

Next, we repeal the monstrosity known as Obamacare.

good post.

it would be nice to see us TRYING to at least keep businesses here.

now, i do think that we need healthcare reform, but i DO NOT think that obamacare is the answer. tort reform maybe?

i work in healthcare and i know that the next few years are going to be interesting, to say the least.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 09:50 AM
it wouldn't bother me. seems to me that everyone is going to have to take one on the chin, whether it be from losing some entitlements, or having higher taxes.

how do you propose stimulating economic growth?

Stop trying to stimulate it by giving poor people money to spend and start trying to stimulate it by permanently decreasing the tax and regulation load on businesses. Reform the individual tax code to be flatter with fewer deductions and then, if necessary, raise the rate on everyone (people, not businesses).

To the extent that there are real infrastructure needs that must be met by government spending, we should stop diverting funds to favored constituencies and pet projects (e.g. government workers, ethanol producers, etc.) and start addressing that infrastructure. To the extent that that infrastructure can be addressed by the private sector, let the private sector do it without too much red tape.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 09:52 AM
Yes.

Thanks for the unsolicited response.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 10:01 AM
good post.

it would be nice to see us TRYING to at least keep businesses here.

now, i do think that we need healthcare reform, but i DO NOT think that obamacare is the answer. tort reform maybe?

i work in healthcare and i know that the next few years are going to be interesting, to say the least.
Regarding healthcare I'm going to plaguerize from a poster on Patriots Planet who makes an excellent point.

There are 3 ways in which we judge healthcare and only 2 of them can coexist at the same time.

Speed
Price
Quality.

If you want it fast and cheap, it won't be good.
If you want it fast and good, it won't be cheap.
If you want it cheap and good, it won't be fast.

That's basic laws of markets for any service. Believing you can change that is foolish.

The other thing to consider is that the more things covered by a healthcare policy, the more it's going to cost. This is for several reasons, however it all boils down very simply to an excercise in supply and demand. You can either attempt to lower the demand for medical services thus lowering the price, or you can attempt to increase the supply of those willing to supply medical services.

How does that translate into the real world? Well I must admit I don't have that answer.

FishingRod
08-15-2011, 11:49 AM
Yes.

They will.

If the Congress does nothing they will expire. Everyone that makes enough money to pay Federal taxes will pay more. It will be the reverse of what many, many people have been complaining about since they went into effect. The dollars coming from the Top 1% will be most of it but I doubt they get many thank you cards. Since the debt has gone down one time and one time only in my life, I doubt this will do much. If we start to pay back just the amount that we raised the debt ceiling the other day, get charged no interest and pay it down $1.00 every second 24-7 with no breaks to pee. In about 50,000 years, we will can start working on the other 14 trillion assuming it didn't grow or have any interest charged.

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:51 PM
My first thought would be to have more appropriate regulations on businesses.

In many cases this means less regulations. What you have to understand is that every regulation a business must adhere to adds a cost to that business. That is almost always passed on to the consumer in some way.

Less regulation = less costs = lower prices = increased sales = increased demand = increased jobs.

Now, some regulations are good. I'm not the type who believes we should have a totally unregulated economy. However, many of these regulations just get in the way and serve no purpose whatsoever. That's why I say more "appropriate" regulations.

I'd also advocate drastically simplfying the tax code.

Next, we repeal the monstrosity known as Obamacare.

People sure don't like regulations these days, but I don't hear many recommendations about what they actually want to get rid of.

There are certainly some silly regulation in many areas, but many, if not most regulations were created because of some problem that wasn't being addressed previously.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:44 PM
People sure don't like regulations these days, but I don't hear many recommendations about what they actually want to get rid of.

There are certainly some silly regulation in many areas, but many, if not most regulations were created because of some problem that wasn't being addressed previously.

Senator Barrasso has tallied the number of new onerous regulations coming from the administration in July. He found 379 new rules were finalized and another 229 proposed regulations that together will cost businesses $9.5 billion and a loss of 11.4 million jobs. These include EPA regulations of coal-fired plants, increased mileage requirements on automakers, delays on drilling in offshore locations and more Obamacare rules
http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/121987_621.htm

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 09:47 PM
I'm sure that's a very scientific tally. Lack of regulations is one of the reasons we had this financial meltdown in the first place, helped out with the gulf oil spill as well.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 09:52 PM
I'm sure that's a very scientific tally. Lack of regulations is one of the reasons we had this financial meltdown in the first place, helped out with the gulf oil spill as well.

Horseshit! Lack of regulation was not the reason. It was laziness and people not doing their jobs. The additional regulations are nothing more than old hat than the Fed Gov. The Fed Gov could fix a lot of the current problems by enforcing the current laws, instead they dream up new laws to fix the ones they didn't want to enforce in the first place.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 09:57 PM
I'm sure that's a very scientific tally. Lack of regulations is one of the reasons we had this financial meltdown in the first place, helped out with the gulf oil spill as well.

Lack of regulation is a common problem. The only thing worse than lack of regulation is the wrong kind of regulation. Unfortunately, most efforts to regulate usually end up being wrong to one degree or another. Unintended consequences are a real bitch.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 10:02 PM
Glass-Steagall was a great idea learned through hard fought lessons of the depression. It shouldn't have been repealed. Neither did the margin requirements. The derivatives market was a gigantic black hole that single-handedly brought down the world's economy. It should have been monitored and regulated. And now they're trying to kill Dodd-Frank so we can go through this all over again in a few years. And you guys are carrying water for them of course. But I'm sure you'll find a way to blame regulations then as well, or whichever democrat is nearby and handy.

petegz28
08-15-2011, 10:04 PM
Glass-Steagall was a great idea learned through hard fought lessons of the depression. It shouldn't have been repealed. Neither did the margin requirements. The derivatives market was a gigantic black hole that single-handedly brought down the world's economy. It should have been monitored and regulated. And now they're trying to kill Dodd-Frank so we can go through this all over again in a few years. And you guys are carrying water for them of course. But I'm sure you'll find a way to blame regulations then as well, or whichever democrat is nearby and handy.

I'll agree Clinton and the Repubs never should have repealed Glass-Steagall. Dodd-Frank is a piece of worthless shit.

suzzer99
08-15-2011, 10:05 PM
Why is Dodd-Frank a piece of worthless shit (other than ldo Obama is behind it)?

petegz28
08-15-2011, 10:10 PM
Why is Dodd-Frank a piece of worthless shit (other than ldo Obama is behind it)?

It did nothing to fix any of the problems. They could have just re-instated Glass-Steagall and been done with it. What did Dodd-Frank do besides grow the government?

BigChiefFan
08-15-2011, 11:52 PM
$250,000 per year is hardly rich. The top 1% is who needs to ante up.

ClevelandBronco
08-16-2011, 12:34 AM
I advocate for average, middle-income Americans.

Thank you, Mr Bloch.

Now when exactly was the last time that you were an average middle-income American?

KC native
08-16-2011, 01:55 AM
$250,000 per year is hardly rich. The top 1% is who needs to ante up.

250k a year is part of the top 1%

patteeu
08-16-2011, 06:58 AM
Glass-Steagall was a great idea learned through hard fought lessons of the depression. It shouldn't have been repealed. Neither did the margin requirements. The derivatives market was a gigantic black hole that single-handedly brought down the world's economy. It should have been monitored and regulated. And now they're trying to kill Dodd-Frank so we can go through this all over again in a few years. And you guys are carrying water for them of course. But I'm sure you'll find a way to blame regulations then as well, or whichever democrat is nearby and handy.

Even the Glass-Steagall act had negative unintended consequences. I'm not saying that every regulation is a bad regulation. I'm saying that no regulations work exactly as intended. Some are better than others, but in your cartoon world Republicans want no regulation and democrats have regulatory answers for everything. There is at least as much to gain by figuring out which regulations to relax, modify or abolish as there is by figuring out what new regulations to apply.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 07:00 AM
$250,000 per year is hardly rich. The top 1% is who needs to ante up.

Looking to dip into someone else's pocket, eh?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 07:13 AM
$250,000 per year is hardly rich. The top 1% is who needs to ante up.

In 98% of all cities and towns in America, that salary is rich. In select cities, that salary is wealthy.

And it is the top 1-2%.

You got to know the facts before you give the commentary.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 07:15 AM
Looking to dip into someone else's pocket, eh?

All taxes come from someone's pocket, and if you want a good country, you have to pay for it -- and in a private enterprise market country, it's from taxes.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 07:28 AM
All taxes come from someone's pocket, and if you want a good country, you have to pay for it -- and in a private enterprise market country, it's from taxes.

Of course.

I'm assuming that BigChiefFan doesn't make top 1% money. By calling for a tax increase only on other people, he's looking to dip into someone else's pocket. This type of political envy is essentially a lust for legalized theft.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 07:31 AM
Of course.

I'm assuming that BigChiefFan doesn't make top 1% money. By calling for a tax increase only on other people, he's looking to dip into someone else's pocket. This type of political envy is essentially a lust for legalized theft.

Do you think if the tax code were reformed today to tax those making $1 million or more a special, higher percentage, it would be legalized theft?

patteeu
08-16-2011, 07:41 AM
Do you think if the tax code were reformed today to tax those making $1 million or more a special, higher percentage, it would be legalized theft?

I wouldn't advocate it and, yes, I think that for people who aren't in that category but who are looking for the rich to pay more than an equal share it is.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 08:35 AM
I wouldn't advocate it and, yes, I think that for people who aren't in that category but who are looking for the rich to pay more than an equal share it is.

Doesn't theft involve some sort of lack of consent by the victim?

patteeu
08-16-2011, 10:21 AM
Doesn't theft involve some sort of lack of consent by the victim?

Are you talking about statutory theft?

evenfall
08-16-2011, 10:39 AM
Question:

Why does some rich guy saying "tax me more" mean anything? It's like a bodybuilder bragging about his abs and telling you to punch him in the gut. It isn't going to hurt him. There won't be any significant impact to his lifestyle. These wealthy businessmen don't realize a lot of income per year anyway, most of their wealth come fron avenues other than annual salary. Sounds more like a way to brag about their wealth than anything.

It would mean more if middle class people on the street with bachelor's or below, low net worths, two car payments and kids that need braces were saying "tax us more" They actually have some "skin in the game" to borrow a phrase.

The "Kansas City's own" is a nice touch. You should agree with this guy, by the way, because he is from your home town...

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 10:50 AM
Looking to dip into someone else's pocket, eh?They've got no problem dipping into mine. Turn about is fair play, wouldn't you say? Personally I'm for very few taxes, but since that's the way these crooks have set up the system, it's only fair that they pay, after all they are the wealthy, not paying into the system and still taking-that's inherently wrong. I'm not asking them to do anymore, than all the rest have been doing all along.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 10:56 AM
In 98% of all cities and towns in America, that salary is rich. In select cities, that salary is wealthy.

And it is the top 1-2%.

You got to know the facts before you give the commentary.The top 1% isn't those making $250,000 or less. The top 1% are the CEOs(and various other titles) of major corporations that make tens of millions per year. That's who I speak of. So I think you'll ascertain that my facts, are indeed, on the money.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 10:58 AM
They've got no problem dipping into mine. Turn about is fair play, wouldn't you say? Personally I'm for very few taxes, but since that's the way these crooks have set up the system, it's only fair that they pay, after all they are the wealthy, not paying into the system and still taking-that's inherently wrong. I'm not asking them to do anymore, than all the rest have been doing all along.

No top 1%er is dipping into your pockets for anything.

Not paying into the system? Where do you get your information? You seem very confused.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 11:05 AM
No top 1%er is dipping into your pockets for anything.

Not paying into the system? Where do you get your information? You seem very confused.

I'm not confused at all. Millionaires take SS and don't pay in. I know first hand. Here's your education for the day, since you seem to want to call me out...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/millionaire_taxes_irs_calif.php

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 11:07 AM
Also, those that make around $110, 000 or more per year, don't pay in, but you can damn sure bet they'll be taking their SS check.

Even more pertinent...enjoy...

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/why-cant-everybody-pay-the-same-social-security-tax-even-millionaires/

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 11:12 AM
I'm not confused at all. Millionaires take SS and don't pay in. I know first hand. Here's your education for the day, since you seem to want to call me out...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/millionaire_taxes_irs_calif.php

I'm curious, do you have a problem with the Cap Gains Tax at 15%?

patteeu
08-16-2011, 11:14 AM
I'm not confused at all. Millionaires take SS and don't pay in. I know first hand. Here's your education for the day, since you seem to want to call me out...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/millionaire_taxes_irs_calif.php

As usual, you're wrong. Anyone who works for a wage pays into SS. Anyone with wages in excess of about $110k pays a maximum amount into SS.

Anyone who doesn't pay into SS, doesn't collect from SS unless they collect dependent/survivor benefits. So if you're a coupon clipper who makes a 7 figure income off of dividends and capital gains without ever holding a job, you don't pay into SS, but you also don't collect from SS (unless you marry a SS contributor who dies before you do or something along those lines).

patteeu
08-16-2011, 11:15 AM
Also, those that make around $110, 000 or more per year, don't pay in, but you can damn sure bet they'll be taking their SS check.

Even more pertinent...enjoy...

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/why-cant-everybody-pay-the-same-social-security-tax-even-millionaires/

:facepalm:

Don't pay in? As I mentioned in my previous post, those people actually pay the maximum amount into SS.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 11:19 AM
:facepalm:

Don't pay in? As I mentioned in my previous post, those people actually pay the maximum amount into SS.

Yes, and Millionaires reach their SS limit in probably the first week of their paychecks.

mlyonsd
08-16-2011, 11:21 AM
Yes, and Millionaires reach their SS limit in probably the first week of their paychecks.Which is a pretty silly limitation in the system IMO.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 11:22 AM
Which is a pretty silly limitation in the system IMO.

? Why

mlyonsd
08-16-2011, 11:25 AM
? WhyI see no reason to cap the amount. I understand a millionaire will never see those dollars again but that should be the price of doing business.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 11:31 AM
Which is a pretty silly limitation in the system IMO.

It depends on whether SS is supposed to be a welfare system or a forced retirement system. High dollar earners have their taxes capped, but they also have a limit on their benefits. The formula for benefits is already progressive in the sense that lower income people end up with a benefit that represents a higher percentage of their max earned income than higher income people. People whose max income was above $250k end up getting a very small percentage of that as a benefit. Eliminating the cap (or raising it) is a move toward making it more of a welfare program. Means testing for benefits will strip away the last remaining pretense.

When the system was set up, it was supposed to be primarily a forced retirement system with a small degree of wealth transfer mixed in, but big government creep has set in. *sigh*

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 11:36 AM
I see no reason to cap the amount. I understand a millionaire will never see those dollars again but that should be the price of doing business.

That's fkn BS. What SS has become is a retirement program for te lower to middle class, funded by wealthier American's for those who don't save. I will put way more into to that crap Program than I will ever get out of it. It's a faulty Program that is way past it's time, and should be scrapped for something the Gov't can't continually rob from.

mlyonsd
08-16-2011, 11:42 AM
It depends on whether SS is supposed to be a welfare system or a forced retirement system. High dollar earners have their taxes capped, but they also have a limit on their benefits. The formula for benefits is already progressive in the sense that lower income people end up with a benefit that represents a higher percentage of their max earned income than higher income people. People whose max income was above $250k end up getting a very small percentage of that as a benefit. Eliminating the cap (or raising it) is a move toward making it more of a welfare program. Means testing for benefits will strip away the last remaining pretense.

When the system was set up, it was supposed to be primarily a forced retirement system with a small degree of wealth transfer mixed in, but big government creep has set in. *sigh*

I guess my stance comes from the same reasoning I believe in a flat tax and I view the cap as just another loophole.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 12:02 PM
I guess my stance comes from the same reasoning I believe in a flat tax and I view the cap as just another loophole.

I think it would be a good compromise to replace both the regressive payroll taxes and the progressive income tax with a flat tax. Use the tax code for revenue and we can use spending programs for the wealth transfer that we, as a society, agree upon.

go bowe
08-16-2011, 12:07 PM
At that same time to be fair and balanced, figure out a way for the 52% that don't pay income taxes to start contributing to the debt instead of being part of the debt.

the obvious and most effective way to do that is to increase the number of jobs available...

it's hard to pay income tax when you don't have a job, and as it has been pointed out in this thread, growth in the economy (more jobs) will largely fix the revenue problem (for awhile at least)...

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:13 PM
Are you talking about statutory theft?

No. Theft as generally defined.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:15 PM
I see no reason to cap the amount. I understand a millionaire will never see those dollars again but that should be the price of doing business.

Socialist. Thief.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 12:17 PM
Socialist. Thief.

God, I know you are young, but you are also infinitely naive.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 12:30 PM
No. Theft as generally defined.

Yes, I would say so.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 12:31 PM
God, I know you are young, but you are also infinitely naive.

Don't be too hard on him. He's just a kid.

(:Poke:)

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:32 PM
God, I know you are young, but you are also infinitely naive.

*yawn*

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 12:34 PM
*yawn*

Nap Time after your snackie?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:34 PM
Yes, I would say so.

So if we tax Warren Buffett and other rich people at a higher rate, because Warren Buffett and other rich people say to do so, that wouldn't be legalized theft, would it?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:35 PM
Nap Time after your snackie?

I DONT WANT TO TAKE A NAP

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Don't be too hard on him. He's just a kid.

(:Poke:)

By the time Alexander the Great conquered half of the known world, he was a mere 21 years old.

I am the reincarnation of Alexander the Great.

vailpass
08-16-2011, 12:39 PM
That's fkn BS. What SS has become is a retirement program for te lower to middle class, funded by wealthier American's for those who don't save. I will put way more into to that crap Program than I will ever get out of it. It's a faulty Program that is way past it's time, and should be scrapped for something the Gov't can't continually rob from.

This. The statement that comes each year showing how much $ you have contributed to SS is so depressing.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 12:40 PM
By the time Alexander the Great conquered half of the known world, he was a mere 21 years old.

I am the reincarnation of Alexander the Great.

WE'RE DOOMED!!!!!111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:40 PM
By the time Alexander the Great conquered half of the known world, he was a mere 21 years old.

I am the reincarnation of Alexander the Great.

You should probably step things up then. You've got a lot to conquer and not much time.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:44 PM
You should probably step things up then. You've got a lot to conquer and not much time.

I'm actually two years behind. Catching up with all the technology changes.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:46 PM
I'm actually two years behind. Catching up with all the technology changes.

Just a suggestion, you might want to start thinking about getting an army together. Unless you plan conquest through some sort of non-violent means (in which case bravo and good luck)

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 12:53 PM
As usual, you're wrong. Anyone who works for a wage pays into SS. Anyone with wages in excess of about $110k pays a maximum amount into SS.

Anyone who doesn't pay into SS, doesn't collect from SS unless they collect dependent/survivor benefits. So if you're a coupon clipper who makes a 7 figure income off of dividends and capital gains without ever holding a job, you don't pay into SS, but you also don't collect from SS (unless you marry a SS contributor who dies before you do or something along those lines).It was meant to say "don't continue to pay in". I realize each person pays the same amount per year and that's what I think is inherently wrong with it. Personally, I think SS is a money grab, in the first place, but since it's what we have, I really believe they need to change the system.

Back to the crux of the article, it calls for taxes to be increased and we both know that's alot more than just SS.

Here's my main contention...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/1500-millionaires-pay-income-tax/story?id=14242254

mlyonsd
08-16-2011, 01:04 PM
That's fkn BS. What SS has become is a retirement program for te lower to middle class, funded by wealthier American's for those who don't save. I will put way more into to that crap Program than I will ever get out of it. It's a faulty Program that is way past it's time, and should be scrapped for something the Gov't can't continually rob from.I understand your frustration and agree with the fact our elected officials screwed it up but it is what it is. Until something else is implemented funding the current plan is necessary. And when something better is proposed I'll jump on that bandwagon with you.

mlyonsd
08-16-2011, 01:15 PM
I think it would be a good compromise to replace both the regressive payroll taxes and the progressive income tax with a flat tax. Use the tax code for revenue and we can use spending programs for the wealth transfer that we, as a society, agree upon.I'd be open to that.

mlyonsd
08-16-2011, 01:16 PM
Socialist. Thief.Just when you probably thought you had me figured out too.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 02:01 PM
So if we tax Warren Buffett and other rich people at a higher rate, because Warren Buffett and other rich people say to do so, that wouldn't be legalized theft, would it?

Nope. And I'll go so far as to accept that if a progressive rate structure is the result of a political process where everyone is fairly represented, it's distinguishable from actual theft where it's against the victim's wishes.

None of that relates to my initial point though, AFAICS. People who call for higher taxes on the rich out of some sense of class envy, like BCF, have theft in their hearts. That doesn't mean that there aren't others who favor progressive taxes for other (merely misguided) reasons.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 02:59 PM
Nope. And I'll go so far as to accept that if a progressive rate structure is the result of a political process where everyone is fairly represented, it's distinguishable from actual theft where it's against the victim's wishes.

None of that relates to my initial point though, AFAICS. People who call for higher taxes on the rich out of some sense of class envy, like BCF, have theft in their hearts. That doesn't mean that there aren't others who favor progressive taxes for other (merely misguided) reasons.I'll just chalk it up to your usual spin, because if you think I have class envy, you don't know me, at all. It's actually quite laughable, but keep speculating, it's entertaining and good for a chuckle. When the richest don't pay, that's absurd to think they shouldn't contribute back to the government, when everyone else making LESS, DOES. That's my entire point. If you refuse to acknowledge that, that's on you. You've spun it so much, I think you might be trying to convince yourself that the wealthiest of the wealthy shouldn't pay their share...and you'd be wrong. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:14 PM
Even the Glass-Steagall act had negative unintended consequences. I'm not saying that every regulation is a bad regulation. I'm saying that no regulations work exactly as intended. Some are better than others, but in your cartoon world Republicans want no regulation and democrats have regulatory answers for everything. There is at least as much to gain by figuring out which regulations to relax, modify or abolish as there is by figuring out what new regulations to apply.

I'm sorry but Glass STeagall had negative unintended consequences? What are those? Keeping a stable and well capitalized banking sector for 60+ years?

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 03:16 PM
In 98% of all cities and towns in America, that salary is rich. In select cities, that salary is wealthy.

And it is the top 1-2%.

You got to know the facts before you give the commentary.Sorry, buddy, I'm not just flying blindly, when I say something, I can back it up...

Answer: Improve



Answer
As of 2005, the latest data released by the US government, one would have to earn over $100,000 to be included the top 10% of wage earners in the US.

To be in the top 1%, one would have to make more than $348,000.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_salary_would_you_need_to_earn_to_be_in_top_10_of_wage_earners_in_the_United_States#ixzz1VDzCxS9 n

Fall on your sword.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:16 PM
The top 1% isn't those making $250,000 or less. The top 1% are the CEOs(and various other titles) of major corporations that make tens of millions per year. That's who I speak of. So I think you'll ascertain that my facts, are indeed, on the money.

Go look up the numbers. If you make $250k, then you are part of the top 1%.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 03:18 PM
Go look up the numbers. If you make $250k, then you are part of the top 1%.

Answer: Improve



Answer
As of 2005, the latest data released by the US government, one would have to earn over $100,000 to be included the top 10% of wage earners in the US.

To be in the top 1%, one would have to make more than $348,000.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_salary_would_you_need_to_earn_to_be_in_top_10_of_wage_earners_in_the_United_States#ixzz1VDzCxS9 n

Nope, you stand corrected.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:21 PM
Or we could look at census data, right here that shows that $250k, is the top 1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States#Top_percentiles

You want to try again?

vailpass
08-16-2011, 03:25 PM
$250k is upper middle class in today's world, especially if you live in an urban area. Let's see Henry Bloch agree to live on $250k/year for the rest of his life and see how eager he is to get his taxes raised.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 03:27 PM
Or we could look at census data, right here that shows that $250k, is the top 1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States#Top_percentiles

You want to try again?

Sorry, nice try, but that says top 1.5%. I know that's splitting hairs, but it makes a world difference. I stand by what I said and the evidence supports it. Here's a real interesting read, if you're so inclined...


http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:27 PM
$250k is upper middle class in today's world, especially if you live in an urban area. Let's see Henry Bloch agree to live on $250k/year for the rest of his life and see how eager he is to get his taxes raised.

$250k is the top 1%. It isn't upper middle class. It is upper class.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 03:28 PM
Answer: Improve



Answer
As of 2005, the latest data released by the US government, one would have to earn over $100,000 to be included the top 10% of wage earners in the US.

To be in the top 1%, one would have to make more than $348,000.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_salary_would_you_need_to_earn_to_be_in_top_10_of_wage_earners_in_the_United_States#ixzz1VDzCxS9 n

Nope, you stand corrected.

As of 2010, it's actually +$380K.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:29 PM
Sorry, nice try, but that says top 1.5%. I know that's splitting hairs, but it makes a world difference. I stand by what I said and the evidence supports it. Here's a real interesting read, if you're so inclined...


http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

A world of difference between 1% and 1.5%? Are you fucking serious?

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:29 PM
As of 2010, it's actually +$380K.

Citation needed.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 03:30 PM
$250k is upper middle class in today's world, especially if you live in an urban area. Let's see Henry Bloch agree to live on $250k/year for the rest of his life and see how eager he is to get his taxes raised.

Thank you for injecting some sanity into the conversation. It's a great living, but hardly the top 1%.

vailpass
08-16-2011, 03:30 PM
$250k is the top 1%. It isn't upper middle class. It is upper class.

Tell yourself whatever you want. Again, I'd like to see Henry Bloch agree to live on 250k/year for the rest of his life and see how eager he is to take a tax increase disproportionate to the rest of the country.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 03:31 PM
A world of difference between 1% and 1.5%? Are you ****ing serious?Enough to make you wrong and me right, is that a world of difference? I would say right is opposite of wrong, wouldn't you? So, yeah, a world of difference.

BigChiefFan
08-16-2011, 03:32 PM
As of 2010, it's actually +$380K.Thank you, sir.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:32 PM
Thank you for injecting some sanity into the conversation. It's a great living, but hardly the top 1%.

It's not sanity if it's incorrect. $250k is the top 1%. Now, if you want to look at the difference between the top .01% and the rest of the top 1% that's a different matter.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:33 PM
Tell yourself whatever you want. Again, I'd like to see Henry Bloch agree to live on 250k/year for the rest of his life and see how eager he is to take a tax increase disproportionate to the rest of the country.

Nonsequitor.

$250k is still the upper class.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 03:33 PM
Citation needed.

http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?
Financial SamuraiLeave a commentGo to comments
Americans are rich by world standards. With an average per capita income of ~$47,500, America ranks in the Top 10 in the world. The other nine include Qatar ($88,300), Luxembourg ($80,000), Singapore ($57,230), Norway ($52,230), Brunei (~$47,500), Hong Kong ($45,000), Switzerland ($41,800), Netherlands ($40,800), Australia ($39,632), and Austria ($39,100). The data comes from the IMF (2010), and the World Bank and CIA World Factbook collect and corroborate similar data.

If at birth, you had the mental capacity to choose where youíd like to live for most of your life, one of these 10 countries should be on your list. Even if you end up being the most mediocre income producer, you are still miles ahead of much of the world. Too bad many of us canít pick and choose where we want to grow up and earn a living. As such, itís nice to understand how we compare against the rest of the world to give us some perspective. However, the wages of the rest of the world donít impact us significantly, unless we are solely focused on trade and competitive advantage.

What we should be curious about is how we stack up against the rest of our countriesí citizens. If everybody earns $1 million a year, being a millionaire isnít very special anymore. Everything is relative. Letís learn about each othersí incomes shall we?

WHAT THE TOP 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50% MAKE IN AMERICA

Based on the Internal Revenue Serviceís 2010 database below, hereís how much the top Americans make:

Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

Top 25%: $67,280

Top 50%: >$33,048

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010



Based on a previous 500+ survey study on Financial Samurai in 2009, about 80% of readers are in the Top 25%. Good to know that many of you are doing well. The table also tells us a number of things about equality or inequality, namely that the Top 1% of tax payers pay 38% of all income taxes. You can also see that the Top 50% of tax payers pay practically all of the nationís taxes (97.30%), which once again shows that 40-45% of American income earners pay zero taxes.

If you do another little exercise and compare your Top 25% of American income to the Top 10 per capita income countries in the world, you can once again see further how lucky most of us are. If only we can get all American wage earns to pay some taxes, it would go a long way to help shoring up our budget. Congress is bickering over cutting $40 billion to $60 billion a year. All we have to do is make the bottom 50% who pay no taxes pay just $43 a month in taxes and weíd raise $60 billion a year right there.

NO REASON TO EVER COMPLAIN

If you work in America, you can see from a top down and bottoms up perspective youíre doing fantastic. If you are in the bottom 50% of Americans who earn less than $33,048 a year, know that you can earn more if you want to. Half the battle is just moving to a vibrant location such as the San Francisco Bay Area where billions of dollars are flowing in due to the Social Media craze.

I remember making $550 a month just working at McDonaldís for $3.50/hour, 20 years ago. With wages 3X higher now, Iíd be raking in a nice $$1,650 a month or $20,000 a year! Tack on another side job that pays $1,200 a month and Iím in the Top 50%. Anybody can do it!

Back to my point where if everybody earns a million dollars a year, nobody is rich. Living in San Francisco, it really feels like most are in the top 5% of income earners ($159,619), if not top 1% ($380,354). Iím sure many who live and work in Manhattan, and potentially LA and Chicago feel the same way. The cost of living is expensive out here, and thatís predominantly driven by high wages. Combine two income earners with these amounts, and you can really start understanding why surpassing what the government deems as wealthy ($200,000) is so easy.

THE RICH WILL ALWAYS PAY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE

As the economy continues to recover, itís likely that the top 1% of income earners will likely pay an even higher percentage share of overall income taxes than 38%. Ironically, itís during downturns where the less wealthy are relatively better off on an absolute basis. Just think, back in 2008-2009, we were $8 billion closer to Warren Buffetís wealth not because we made so much, but because he lost so much! Letís just hope that for the good of all America our tax base broadens beyond just the top 50%.

vailpass
08-16-2011, 03:34 PM
Thank you for injecting some sanity into the conversation. It's a great living, but hardly the top 1%.

That's all I'm saying. I know a lot of people that earn 250k or so. Nice house and cars but nothing crazy.

I know a very few Paradise Valley and Cave Creek freaks that are truly top1% and there is an enormous gap between the two.

When people like H. Bloch say these things it is just words, when people read them they are still just words. When you apply them to specific people they become reality and the reality here is that Bloch is off target in saying 250k earners are among the earning elite to the point where they should be subject to extreme taxation.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 03:34 PM
http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:38 PM
http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?


Those are dubious numbers. He gets his numbers from taxfoundation.org (hardly an impartial organization).

Generally these numbers are available 3-4 years after filing taxes.

vailpass
08-16-2011, 03:41 PM
Thanks for the data, I was wrong.

How we do it over here.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:41 PM
http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

Again, these come from the taxfoundation.org. You can check them out yourself to see they are far from impartial data observers.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:43 PM
How we do it over here.

You're a fucking idiot. These numbers come from a right wing think tank. The census and IRS release the official numbers 3-4 years after the fact. I doubt that a right wing think tank has better access to tax data than the actual IRS and Census Bureau.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:44 PM
That's all I'm saying. I know a lot of people that earn 250k or so. Nice house and cars but nothing crazy.

I know a very few Paradise Valley and Cave Creek freaks that are truly top1% and there is an enormous gap between the two.

When people like H. Bloch say these things it is just words, when people read them they are still just words. When you apply them to specific people they become reality and the reality here is that Bloch is off target in saying 250k earners are among the earning elite to the point where they should be subject to extreme taxation.

That is impossible. Statistics alone invalidate your argument. The top 1% is 1 in 100 people.

Keep making shit up though.

vailpass
08-16-2011, 03:45 PM
You're a ****ing idiot. These numbers come from a right wing think tank. The census and IRS release the official numbers 3-4 years after the fact. I doubt that a right wing think tank has better access to tax data than the actual IRS and Census Bureau.

Dance mono, dance.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:45 PM
What's even more shit from the link that Chitown posted, is I had to scroll through the comments to find where he got the data from. But there's nothing dubious about those numbers though :rolleyes:

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 03:47 PM
Those are dubious numbers. He gets his numbers from taxfoundation.org (hardly an impartial organization).

Generally these numbers are available 3-4 years after filing taxes.

No those numbers are legit

patteeu
08-16-2011, 03:50 PM
I'm sorry but Glass STeagall had negative unintended consequences? What are those? Keeping a stable and well capitalized banking sector for 60+ years?

Preventing US banks from competing on a level playing field with foreign banks, for one. When Glass Steagall was originally passed, the flow of capital across international borders was much more limited. Most people wouldn't have been thinking about how it might impact domestic financial institutions in a more global economy.

It pretty much goes without saying that every regulation has good intended effects, bad side effects, unintended consequences. This goes for good regulation as well as bad. It would be easy to pass only good regulations (where the good outweighs the bad) if the unintended consequences didn't exist. But they always do so regulations should always be re-evaluated after they've had a time to manifest themselves.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 03:51 PM
Sorry, buddy, I'm not just flying blindly, when I say something, I can back it up...

LMAO That's an audacious thing to say after you've already been proven wrong in this thread.

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:52 PM
No those numbers are legit

Wow, great rebuttal. They're legit huh? Then why haven't the IRS or the Census bureau released this data past 2006?

KC native
08-16-2011, 03:57 PM
Preventing US banks from competing on a level playing field with foreign banks, for one. When Glass Steagall was originally passed, the flow of capital across international borders was much more limited. Most people wouldn't have been thinking about how it might impact domestic financial institutions in a more global economy.

It pretty much goes without saying that every regulation has good intended effects, bad side effects, unintended consequences. This goes for good regulation as well as bad. It would be easy to pass only good regulations (where the good outweighs the bad) if the unintended consequences didn't exist. But they always do so regulations should always be re-evaluated after they've had a time to manifest themselves.

ROFL level playing field with foreign banks. I hope you're not serious about this because they've been on an advantageous playing field. Their base of operations are in the most developed financial market in the world and they have access to the largest economy in the worl.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 04:02 PM
ROFL level playing field with foreign banks. I hope you're not serious about this because they've been on an advantageous playing field. Their base of operations are in the most developed financial market in the world and they have access to the largest economy in the worl.

That's an advantage completely independent of the issues addressed by Glass Steagall. Try to focus.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 04:04 PM
Wow, great rebuttal. They're legit huh? Then why haven't the IRS or the Census bureau released this data past 2006?

So, until it's published by the US Census Bureau or the IRS, it's not legit?

KC native
08-16-2011, 04:07 PM
So, unless it's published by the US Census Bureau or the IRS, it's not legit?

Or the CBO, but pretty much. I'm definitely not going to trust a think tank that has an obvious right wing bias, the same way I'd not cite a left wing think tank for this.

Beyond that, this is based on the summary data. It's impossible for someone like, tax foundation, to make conclusions when the full data set isn't even available.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 04:09 PM
Or the CBO, but pretty much. I'm definitely not going to trust a think tank that has an obvious right wing bias, the same way I'd not cite a left wing think tank for this.

Beyond that, this is based on the summary data. It's impossible for someone like, tax foundation, to make conclusions when the full data set isn't even available.

FWIW, I've seen similar numbers as to what the top 1% make posted on sites that are not "right-winged" think tanks. If I can find them, I'll post them later.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Sorry, buddy, I'm not just flying blindly, when I say something, I can back it up...

Answer: Improve



Answer
As of 2005, the latest data released by the US government, one would have to earn over $100,000 to be included the top 10% of wage earners in the US.

To be in the top 1%, one would have to make more than $348,000.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_salary_would_you_need_to_earn_to_be_in_top_10_of_wage_earners_in_the_United_States#ixzz1VDzCxS9 n

Fall on your sword.

I said it was in the top 1-2%. Since it's 1.5%, it looks like I was right. You were advocating that the top 1% ante up, but CERTAINLY not the top 1.5%? It's reasonable to think you had some confusion on the numbers. But since you thought the hardly rich was just 0.5 population difference from the rich that needed to ante up, I just think you were factually correct, but analytically dubious.

BigChiefFan
08-17-2011, 12:31 AM
I said it was in the top 1-2%. Since it's 1.5%, it looks like I was right. You were advocating that the top 1% ante up, but CERTAINLY not the top 1.5%? It's reasonable to think you had some confusion on the numbers. But since you thought the hardly rich was just 0.5 population difference from the rich that needed to ante up, I just think you were factually correct, but analytically dubious.I appreciate you being honest and realizing I wasn't making up what I said. It's takes a big person to admit a mistake. I commend you. Believe or not, some of us actually do know a thing or two.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 10:25 AM
I appreciate you being honest and realizing I wasn't making up what I said. It's takes a big person to admit a mistake. I commend you. Believe or not, some of us actually do know a thing or two.

More irony.

BigChiefFan
08-17-2011, 11:20 AM
More irony.

Nah. I just showed you for the true neo-con that you are and you don't like it, so now you prefer to take issue with everything I say. I don't think he would admit he was wrong, if I was, now would he? I also addressed the one issue you brought up in another post, so you're now beating a dead horse. The forum is for discussion and there is going to be disagreements, but I find you intentionally being an ass for nothing more than a bruised ego. Back off.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 11:29 AM
Nah. I just showed you for the true neo-con that you are and you don't like it, so now you prefer to take issue with everything I say. I don't think he would admit he was wrong, if I was, now would he? I also addressed the one issue you brought up in another post, so you're now beating a dead horse. The forum is for discussion and there is going to be disagreements, but I find you intentionally being an ass for nothing more than a bruised ego. Back off.

How would my ego have been bruised? I'm just pointing out that you have yet to admit you were wrong earlier in this very thread. I agree that you seem to be right about where the top 1% line is drawn, but I wasn't one of the people criticizing you on that point.

When I proved you were wrong, instead of admitting it like a "big man", you pretended that you knew what you were talking about all along and simply used the wrong words. Pretty lame, small guy.

I'm not confused at all. Millionaires take SS and don't pay in. I know first hand. Here's your education for the day, since you seem to want to call me out...

Wrong.

Also, those that make around $110, 000 or more per year, don't pay in, but you can damn sure bet they'll be taking their SS check.

Wrong.

As usual, you're wrong.

Explanation

It was meant to say "don't continue to pay in".

Little man.