Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Taxing the Rich: The (Politically) Smart Way to Pa...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-12T03:38:23.464-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路...

2009-09-06T03:37:22.686-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^

自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,情趣,情趣,視訊交友,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒...

2009-08-03T23:14:29.373-04:00

自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,情趣,情趣,視訊交友,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套

A片下載|成人影片下載|免費A片下載|日本A片|情色A片|免費A片|成人影城|成人電影|線上A片|A...

2009-07-22T04:02:24.389-04:00

Raising rich people tax to provide healthcare for ...

2009-07-17T17:40:15.865-04:00

Raising rich people tax to provide healthcare for everybody is supported by only 68% of the respondents because 30% of the missing 32% are retard and 2% are actually negatively affected.

The 30% are mostly poor and they use the Joe The Plumber retarded argument:
"I make 30k a year now, but what if next year I will make 2 million?"
Too much magic thinking for the near-the-poverty-line population of America.

shrinkers: The fatal defect in the Social Securit...

2009-07-15T12:01:03.761-04:00

shrinkers:

The fatal defect in the Social Security lock box idea is that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to keep this money off to the side as if it were a bank. This problem was actually a matter of discussion when silly people thought that the Gingrich surpluses would last forever and we would run out of debt to repay.

The government instead spent the excess SS revenues and give the SSA IOUs. The unstated plan was to simply issue debt to replace the IOUs as they became due. However, our current profligacy has endangered this plan. Under the current CBO projections, the government will accumulate so much debt by the time the SSA IOUs come due that it is questionable whether investors will lend us even more to pay off our SS obligations. The US will also be in competition with other aging nations trying to finance their pensions through debt.

Unless the market turns around so I can make my own retirement, I anticipate working into my 70s.

there are not enough workers to support the boomer...

2009-07-14T13:21:32.222-04:00

there are not enough workers to support the boomers as they retire.

What does that mean, "support the boomers?" Obviously, some money can still go to the boomers, just not as much as retirees are getting today.

Actually, there was a fix put into place in the 1970s, when it was obvious that this problem was coming.

In the 1970s, SocSec taxes were increased beyond what was needed to pay the then-current retirees (until then, SocSec was a pay-as-you-go system). The extra funds were supposed to be kept and invested - the "Social Security Trust Fund" - to be available for when the boomers needed it. The Trust Fund was supposed to begin paying out in about the year 2010 or so (which is why you hear today that in a few years SocSec will begin paying out more than it takes in) and was supposed to be completely depleted in about the year 2040 or so (when the last of the baby boomers should be dying off). That's why you hear the scare line about how Social Security will "go broke" in about 2040 (give or take a couple of years).

In other words, what we are seeing is exactly what is supposed to happen. Afterwards, SocSec was supposed to go back to the original pay-as-you-go idea.

Yes, Reagan messed things up by raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for his war toys, and presidents since then have done the same, and now we have to begin replenishing the Fund from other sources. But that's a separate issue.

And yes, because of rising costs, SocSec could use a little more money - which can be very easily gained, for instance by raising the ceiling on FICA taxes to, say, $250,000. We should laso means-test teh payouts, so that people with a net worth above, say, $10,000,000 don't get Social Security benefits after they retire (no one will convince me they'll need it). There is no need to cut benefits to actual retirees, nor to raise the retirement age.

Or, better, eliminate the ceiling altogether, and charge everyone the same flat percentage regardless of how many millions or billions you make (which would actually lower what that percentage needs to be). Conservative flat-taxers should like this idea.

Bart, sorry I have to go back on my promise and ma...

2009-07-14T12:05:28.754-04:00

Bart, sorry I have to go back on my promise and make one last reply. (And I note that aside from these few relatively minor issues, there was no reply to my other points.)

one can ethically justify removing the income necessary to meet basic living expenses on the reasoning that those earning only a basic living cannot afford to pay taxes. Given that everyone enjoys this basic deduction, you are not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Or one can ethically say that everyone below a certain income level gets a full deduction, those making slightly above that level get a partial deduction (after all, life is still tough for them), and all those making above a certain amount get the deductions that came before. Again, there's no argument here for not having a tiered system: everyone in the top rates still get the deductions from below, and it's certainly harder for someone making that first taxable dollar to pay the rate than someone making the 100,000th taxable dollar. So how is treating those dollars differently any more unethical than treating that first untaxed dollar differently?

No conservative supports the Death Tax so that everyone has to make their way through life unassisted. You are offering an unserious leftist snark that is not worth addressing.

Just because no conservative makes the argument doesn't means that it's not still a principled one worth addressing. I don't intend it as snark, and it should not be characterized as such. Again, this looks to me like a refusal to address it on the merits.

Folks are living longer, but the retirement age was not moved back, it was moved up

And it was moved back. The 1983 reform gradually increases the retirement age from 65 to 67, to start in 2000. In any case, your response still doesn't address the point that the system is not a Ponzi scheme, but can be kept solvent with certain adjustment.

there are not enough workers to support the boomers as they retire.

What does that mean, "support hte boomers?" Obviously, some money can still go to the boomers, just not as much as retirees are getting today. But that does not make it a Ponzi scheme, and it is just wrong to characterize it as such. Again, fairly modest policy adjustments would be sufficient to keep the system solvent as the boomers start receiving benefits.

Government has seen this train wreck coming for a generation and still tells the citizenry that everything is OK.

I don't recall government telling the citizenry that "everything is OK." And if "government" hasn't dealt with it, the problem isn't with "them"; it's with the public which refuses to make unpleasant but fiscally responsible choices, whether they be for programs or for tax cuts. If most of the public doesn't want to face fiscal reality, it's no wonder that government often fails to do so as well.

dsimon said... I asked that if one is willing to ...

2009-07-14T11:14:26.338-04:00

dsimon said...

I asked that if one is willing to concede that the fairness of a two-tier system, why not more tiers?

Because one can ethically justify removing the income necessary to meet basic living expenses on the reasoning that those earning only a basic living cannot afford to pay taxes. Given that everyone enjoys this basic deduction, you are not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

BD: The purpose of the Death Tax is pure socialist theft to prevent the wealthy from passing on their already taxed earnings to putatively undeserving children.

That's one explanation. And there was my conservative merit-based, market-based explanation that went unaddressed.

No conservative supports the Death Tax so that everyone has to make their way through life unassisted. You are offering an unserious leftist snark that is not worth addressing.

BD: ...the intergenerational ponzi scheme known as Social Security...

That's just wrong on the facts. Social Security is not a program designed to fail.

Social Security was based upon an unrealistic assumption that beneficiaries would use it for a short period of time to supplement savings and pensions and that following generations would remain demographically the same.

Things did not quite work out that way.

Folks are living longer, but the retirement age was not moved back, it was moved up.

Reproduction surged after WWII and then the pill and abortion sharply reduced reproduction in the next generation. Thus, there are not enough workers to support the boomers as they retire.

Government has seen this train wreck coming for a generation and still tells the citizenry that everything is OK. If a private company did this, the CEO would get 150 years in prison like Madoff.

Jen, If my beginning a post with "NEWSFLASH" was r...

2009-07-14T09:05:02.834-04:00

Jen, If my beginning a post with "NEWSFLASH" was rude, what does that make your reference to me as a "douchebag"? You sound like an exceptionally crass woman. Have you been introduced to Mike in Maryland? You'd make quite a mannerly pair.

Mike in M - there has been no CBO estimate on any of the revenue proposals. I'm very dubious of Rangel's word on this, but perhaps he could offset the cost of his bill by paying his own taxes properly. The point is, EVEN IF HE IS RIGHT, this bill won't be close to paid for. The whole discussion is a typical "down the rabbit hole" with 538. It's premised on the suggestion that Rangel has come up with a way to pay for health care. But he hasn't.

Bart, this will be my last post here because I thi...

2009-07-14T00:14:37.296-04:00

Bart, this will be my last post here because I think you continue not to address my points.

One can argue that a flat income tax that only begins after a basic income threshold is progressive in that all income is not equally subject to the flat tax rate. On the other hand, you can equally argue that the tax is actually proportional because everyone enjoys the deduction regardless of income. I think the latter argument makes more sense.

I didn't ask what argument makes more sense. I asked that if one is willing to concede that the fairness of a two-tier system, why not more tiers? (And there's no explanation as to why the latter argument "makes more sense," only an assertion.)

The purpose of the Death Tax is pure socialist theft to prevent the wealthy from passing on their already taxed earnings to putatively undeserving children.

That's one explanation. And there was my conservative merit-based, market-based explanation that went unaddressed. Providing an alternative explanation does not address the explanation I provided.

If the Dems were offering to extend Medicare to everyone financed by a capped flat tax on everyone than you could argue health care was a common good being provided by the government.

I don't see why the definition of a "public good" should depend on how it's paid for. We don't pay for schools in the method you propose. Nor for national security. Moreover, if one believes in an exemption for low income earners, then such a method would still result in a dreaded "redistribution of wealth."

Rather, a common good is simply a government service that everyone can enjoy.

In that case, I fail to see a substantial difference between providing access to education and access to health care.

the intergenerational ponzi scheme known as Social Security

That's just wrong on the facts. Social Security is not a program designed to fail. It has the potential to become insolvent mainly because people are living longer and so receiving more benefits. Many combinations of raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, and/or raising revenues can keep the system solvent. Indeed, such changes have been made in the past. These are policy decisions. If people fail to make them, it will be because people don't want to fund the system anymore, not because the system is somehow fraudulent.

I and I dare say most Americans oppose resdistribution of wealth on the ethical and practical reasons I have spent the past few posts detailing.

And as I've written before, I think it's about equitably distributing the costs of running government. You seem to think the poor and middle class should pay a greater share than they do now. On this we have a difference of opinion.

On the other hand, you can equally argue that the ...

2009-07-13T21:25:25.285-04:00

On the other hand, you can equally argue that the tax is actually proportional because everyone enjoys the deduction regardless of income.

And the law prohibits the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping under bridges.

When we have been able to get tax credit and/or ac...

2009-07-13T21:11:51.079-04:00

When we have been able to get tax credit and/or accelerated depreciation on equipment purchases, we bought equipment. The money spent on those extra purchases circulated through the economy, each step of the way increasing tax revenue.

Yes. I was talking about income taxes, which are assessed on income that did not go to business investment. Other portions of the tax code can also be used to stimulate investment. Higher income taxes encourage you to spend the money on creating jobs before the tax is taken out.

It all comes down to the question- Who is best at ...

2009-07-13T21:07:41.470-04:00

It all comes down to the question- Who is best at deciding how I should spend my money, me or Uncle Sam?

No, it comes down to whether you feel the people who benefit from living here should contribute to the well-being of the nation they live in.

I assume you never use public roads, or rely on the police department, or the fire department, or the American military. I assume you dispose of your own garbage, and have your own well for water, and your own health inspectors for the meat you buy. You've never used a public park, or watched television on the public airwaves, or visited a library. You weren't educated in public schools, either.

Hire your own police force and fire people and soldiers. After all, you can do things better with your money than the gummint can, right?

This is a silly argument. Uncle Sam does what We the People tell it to do. That's what a democracy is for. When "Uncle Sam" spends money, that is us deciding how to spend our money.

I'm tired of hearing this absurd right-wing nonsense - "Who is best at deciding how I should spend my money, me or Uncle Sam?" If you don't like how we spend our money, vote for someone else. You won't always get your way - heck, I object every time we build a nuclear bomb, or fund secret wiretaps. In a democracy, the majority decides on public priorities. If you don't like it, move to a different country - one that is not a democracy.

Let me repeat - the government IS us. The government spending money IS us spending our money.

80% of the funds in estates subject to estate tax ...

2009-07-13T20:56:47.791-04:00

80% of the funds in estates subject to estate tax is investment income on which NO tax has ever been paid and if inherited, the ONLY tax paid on these funds will be the estate tax. Get rid of the estate tax, and these Billions will be tax free.

The founders of our country were very suspicious about inherited wealth. They didn't like the idea of the creation of a moneyed class of elites who would rule over peasants. They'd had enough of that in Europe, and didn't want it here. They felt that everyone should have the same chance to make it on their own, from scratch. The idea that people should be allowed to inherit wealth is a distinctly un-American view.

I'm a great believer in the original intent of our Founding Fathers. We need a strong estate tax.

shrinkers' comment of "Higher income taxes on the ...

2009-07-13T20:49:24.005-04:00

shrinkers' comment of "Higher income taxes on the wealthy and on businesses actually encourages job creation" and his attempted proof is simply absurd.

As a business owner with 45 employees, tax cuts/credits have encouraged us to hire. For example, we are in an area directly affected by Hurricane Katrina. After the storm, we were given tax credits to hire those living in the affected areas. Guess what, we hired.

When we have been able to get tax credit and/or accelerated depreciation on equipment purchases, we bought equipment. The money spent on those extra purchases circulated through the economy, each step of the way increasing tax revenue.

When tax rates go up, we quit hiring and spending.

Another way to avoid paying taxes is to not make as much. It's about the headache factor. If you make it too difficult to make more money, why try?

It all comes down to the question- Who is best at deciding how I should spend my money, me or Uncle Sam?

I am not going to try to talk any sense into Brian...

2009-07-13T20:37:55.752-04:00

I am not going to try to talk any sense into Brian, but one of his statement is so outrageous, I had to butt in.

Brian, 80% of the funds in estates subject to estate tax is investment income on which NO tax has ever been paid and if inherited, the ONLY tax paid on these funds will be the estate tax. Get rid of the estate tax, and these Billions will be tax free.

If some "leftists" don't vote by tax bracket, that...

2009-07-13T19:46:15.642-04:00

If some "leftists" don't vote by tax bracket, that means that people don't vote by bloc in tax brackets. (And again, a majority of those making above $200,000 voted for Obama, so they're certainly not voting their self-interest by tax bracket.)

I disagree with you here. I'd say that the "leftists" who make over $200,000 and who voted for Obama certainly did vote in their own self-interest. Even on the single issue of higher taxes.

They decided, quite rationally, that it was in their best interest to contribute more to society and thus to create a better society.

It is the people who view higher taxes as necessarily a "punishment" - those are the ones who vote irrationally, and, thus, in contradiction to their actual self-interest.

Once and for all, let's get rid of this idea that ...

2009-07-13T19:38:44.589-04:00

Once and for all, let's get rid of this idea that income taxes on the moneyed elites - or on businesses, large or small - slows job creation. In point of fact, it does the opposite. Higher income taxes on the wealthy and on businesses actually encourages job creation.

Here's how it works:

1) Income taxes on businesses, or on people who own businesses, are taxes that are assessed after business expenses. If you hire someone, and pay them a salary, that salary is tax deductible, and is paid before any taxes are assessed. In fact, if you are morally opposed to being charged income taxes, one way to avoid paying them is to hire somebody and pay that person instead.

Income taxes are assessed only on after-expense profits not on money that you spend on job creation. One way to avoid paying taxes is to hire someone to work for you.

2) This also means that "income taxes on businesses are only passed on to the customers through higher prices" is also a lie. Income taxes for businesses are not paid at all on the expenses the business incurred to make its products. Those are fully deductible business expenses. Income taxes are paid only on profits that are not re-invested in the business. One way for a business to avoid paying income taxes is to make more of whatever it makes - which increases supply, and thus lowers prices to the customer.

3) To the extent that shifting taxes from the poor and middle class to the moneyed elites will increase the pocket money available to consumers, this also increases the opportunities for new businesses to be created, because it creates demand for their products.

Hear and remember this, guys. Don't let anyone ever again tell you the lie that "Higher taxes on the wealthy and on businesses will stunt job growth." This is absurd propaganda. In point of fact, higher income taxes on the wealthy and on businesses encourages job growth.

Let's finally, once and for all, shut down this propagandistic lie, okay?

dsimon said... One can argue that a flat income t...

2009-07-13T19:27:15.075-04:00

dsimon said...

One can argue that a flat income tax that only begins after a basic income threshold is progressive in that all income is not equally subject to the flat tax rate. On the other hand, you can equally argue that the tax is actually proportional because everyone enjoys the deduction regardless of income. I think the latter argument makes more sense.

BD: Some folks actually vote against dumb taxes on principle.

Since when is the estate tax a "dumb" tax?

The goal of taxation should be to share as broadly as possible the costs of necessary common goods provided by government, not to provide a vehicle to steal from your neighbor because you think him or her undeserving.

The purpose of the Death Tax is pure socialist theft to prevent the wealthy from passing on their already taxed earnings to putatively undeserving children.

It is extremely telling that you folks on the left nearly always cite to education, security and transportation when you want to raise taxes or protect spending for unrelated redistributionist welfare state programs like the "public option" government health insurance that is the subject of this thread.

Why is health care "unrelated?" We don't consider education something that should be given only to those who can afford it.

If the Dems were offering to extend Medicare to everyone financed by a capped flat tax on everyone than you could argue health care was a common good being provided by the government. However, what the Dems are actually proposing is taxing the wealthy to finance a "public option" health insurance program that is supposed to primarily supply health insurance the young who decline to get their own insurance, to those between jobs who decline COBRA and illegal immigrants who should be deported and not receiving government services. In short, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And security and transportation aren't related to each other or to education.

They are related in that you properly observed that they enhance economic growth.

Who decides what is a "common good"? I thought that was what democracies were for[?]

A common good is not any act of a democratic government nor is it even limited to democracies. Rather, a common good is simply a government service that everyone can enjoy.

dsimon, my point of view is that of a practical libertarian. Unlike some of the near anarchists in that movement, I readily acknowledge that there are some limited number of services that the government can provide better than a free market. I also am practical enough to realize that some services that do not make sense like the intergenerational ponzi scheme known as Social Security are popular and will not be fundamentally changed in our democracy. However, I and I dare say most Americans oppose resdistribution of wealth on the ethical and practical reasons I have spent the past few posts detailing.

When you exclude a certain level of income from ta...

2009-07-13T18:24:22.223-04:00

When you exclude a certain level of income from taxation, every additional dollar above that amount is subject to taxation. If a taxpayer earns $1 more than the exclusion level, then he or she will pay taxes on that additional dollar, not the entire income.

Yes, that was never unclear. The question is why, if it's unfair to ask those under a certain income level to pay anything at all, it's therefore fair to have everyone else pay the same rate for all income above that level. Again, any exemption is automatically a two-tier, progressive system. Once one has admitted that two tiers are not unfair, it's hard not to see why more tiers would also not be unfair.

"I gather you concede that people don't vote their self-interest by income tax bracket."

Some leftists do not. The rest of us do.

But doesn't that concedes the point? If some "leftists" don't vote by tax bracket, that means that people don't vote by bloc in tax brackets. (And again, a majority of those making above $200,000 voted for Obama, so they're certainly not voting their self-interest by tax bracket.)

I agree that my contention that folks vote their self interest at the ballot box is not universal or uniform when it comes to taxation.

It seems not only that it's not universal, it fails to garner a simple majority among some income groups.

Some folks actually vote against dumb taxes on principle.

Since when is the estate tax a "dumb" tax? I thought conservatives were all about merit which would be proved in the marketplace. If so, shouldn't merit be proved by having everyone start in the same place without initial monetary advantages that skew the competition? I'm not saying that there should be no inheritances, but that one can come up with a good conservative argument for the tax.

However, to the extent that voters realize that they are not subject to a certain tax and can vote themselves money by electing representatives who will impose that tax on others, they are more likely to do so. This is the entire reasoning behind Obama's promise to lower taxes for 95

How do you know that? Maybe part of the reasoning is that the Bush levels were too easy on the wealthy and raising the top rates would restore a measure of fairness. Again, it depends on what your baselines are, which you never define.

I agree that Congress wanted to distinguish Social Security from general revenues. But nothing prevents us from making different policy choices today. We are not bound by decisions of those made last year, much less decades ago. A decision to change the funding mechanism would not be "misleading," it would just be different.

It is extremely telling that you folks on the left nearly always cite to education, security and transportation when you want to raise taxes or protect spending for unrelated redistributionist welfare state programs like the "public option" government health insurance that is the subject of this thread.

Why is health care "unrelated?" We don't consider education something that should be given only to those who can afford it. And security and transportation aren't related to each other or to education. Who decides what is a "common good"? I thought that was what democracies were for: so that we can decide what we want to do collectively and what should be left to the individual.

As for the public option, I'd say that when other countries get as good health results as we do while we spend almost twice as much, that's pretty powerful evidence that our system is not doing a very good job. I'm essentially a free market person, but I'm not going to ignore facts that show that the market doesn't necessarily provide the best results. Markets are means, not ends. I'll take whatever gets us to the most cost-effective ends. If it's the market, great. But if it's something else that seems to work better, why not choose it regardless of what it's called?

dsimon said... BD: I think it is eminently fair t...

2009-07-13T17:49:16.113-04:00

dsimon said...

BD: I think it is eminently fair that the impoverished pay nothing and everyone else pays the same percentage.

If it's "eminently fair" that the impoverished pay nothing, then why is it fair for the near-impoverished to pay the same on every dollar earned as everyone else?

When you exclude a certain level of income from taxation, every additional dollar above that amount is subject to taxation. If a taxpayer earns $1 more than the exclusion level, then he or she will pay taxes on that additional dollar, not the entire income.

BD: However, the 20% of top earners could not make up for being outnumbered 4-1 by the rest of the citizenry even if every single one showed up and cast a ballot.

I gather you concede that people don't vote their self-interest by income tax bracket.

Some leftists do not. The rest of us do.

Not only did the wealthy vote predominantly for Obama, many lower-income voters consistently oppose the estate tax even though they won't be affected by it.

Some folks actually vote against dumb taxes on principle. However, most lower income folks who oppose the Death Tax believe that they are or will be subject to the tax when it is really just another vehicle to soak the wealthy.

So saying that the rich are just a minority being soaked against their will by the rest of the population doesn't hold true because people aren't voting in those kinds of blocs.

I agree that my contention that folks vote their self interest at the ballot box is not universal or uniform when it comes to taxation. Some wealthy want to pay for a welfare state. More importantly, there are a large number of folks in the second half of earners who think they will be subject to any tax enacted in Washington. However, to the extent that voters realize that they are not subject to a certain tax and can vote themselves money by electing representatives who will impose that tax on others, they are more likely to do so. This is the entire reasoning behind Obama's promise to lower taxes for 95% while soaking the other 5%.

BD: Combining the two systems is misleading because the payroll taxes then appear to be more progressive than they are and vis versa for income taxes.

Misleading? No, just another way of paying for the programs people say they want. We could choose to pay everything out of general revenues and scrap the wage tax. These are just policy choices, one no more or less honest than another.

I will leave this subtopic by simply noting that Congress intended Social Security and Medicare to be a flat tax with a fixed cap in order to generate political support for the program. They were justifiably afraid that voters would reject the programs if they were viewed as redistribution programs. Congress wanted to distinguish Social Security from general revenues.

BD: I would prefer if they invested it in something useful and created more wealth and jobs.

We do, like education, police (security), transit...all are important in creating wealth and jobs. The Swedes are doing just fine, you know; they're not unhappy with their lives.

It is extremely telling that you folks on the left nearly always cite to education, security and transportation when you want to raise taxes or protect spending for unrelated redistributionist welfare state programs like the "public option" government health insurance that is the subject of this thread. If you were honest about limiting your wish list to common goods like education, security and transportation, then we would all be in libertarian agreement.

Once again, Bart, I don't think your responses add...

2009-07-13T17:17:23.029-04:00

Once again, Bart, I don't think your responses address my points.

Your hypo of a mythical country with 90% poverty bears no resemblance to the United States.

But that was never the point of the hypo. The purpose was to demonstrate that the "X% of the top wage earners pay Y% of income taxes" argument is a canard because it doesn't tell us anything about income distribution, the actual taxation rates, or whether those rates fairly apportion the costs of running the country. The hypo showed that even with a top rate of 1%, one could still make the claim that a small fraction of the population pays 100% of income taxes. But that fact wouldn't tell us anything about whether that was a good system. So it's time to consign those numbers to the recycle bin.

I think it is eminently fair that the impoverished pay nothing and everyone else pays the same percentage.

If it's "eminently fair" that the impoverished pay nothing, then why is it fair for the near-impoverished to pay the same on every dollar earned as everyone else? Once one has conceded that the poor should not be taxed at all, then it seems quite reasonable to also say that the near poor perhaps should be taxed but not at the full rate, etc. Any exemption for the poor seems to me the basis for a progressive system. In fact, any exemption IS a two-tier progressive system with a rate of 0% for low earners and another rate for everyone else.

However, the 20% of top earners could not make up for being outnumbered 4-1 by the rest of the citizenry even if every single one showed up and cast a ballot.

I gather you concede that people don't vote their self-interest by income tax bracket. Not only did the wealthy vote predominantly for Obama, many lower-income voters consistently oppose the estate tax even though they won't be affected by it. So saying that the rich are just a minority being soaked against their will by the rest of the population doesn't hold true because people aren't voting in those kinds of blocs.

Combining the two systems is misleading because the payroll taxes then appear to be more progressive than they are and vis versa for income taxes.

Misleading? No, just another way of paying for the programs people say they want. We could choose to pay everything out of general revenues and scrap the wage tax. These are just policy choices, one no more or less honest than another.

leftist Dems who support a progressively more punitive tax code are also the ones most likely to be hurt by the code.

Again, many of us don't consider it "punitive" but equitable. And many of us think that funding basic government functions while maintaining a responsible fiscal policy helps everyone, including ourselves (see the 1990s under the Clinton tax code). And some of us are willing to think of people other than ourselves.

I would prefer if they invested it in something useful and created more wealth and jobs.

We do, like education, police (security), transit...all are important in creating wealth and jobs. The Swedes are doing just fine, you know; they're not unhappy with their lives.

dsimon said... It seems odd to me to claim that t...

2009-07-13T16:41:22.298-04:00

dsimon said...

It seems odd to me to claim that the wealthy are a politically powerless minority and at the mercy of the rest of the voters. First, it's my understanding that voting rates correlate pretty well with income, so the wealthy are not as much of a minority at the ballot box as the raw numbers would indicate. Second, the wealthy are the ones who have access to politicians through campaign donations.

I basically agree that the wealthy (and middle class) whose income is at risk from taxes tend to vote at higher rates. However, the 20% of top earners could not make up for being outnumbered 4-1 by the rest of the citizenry even if every single one showed up and cast a ballot.

And third, a majority of those in the top income bracket (making $200,000 or more) voted for Obama, even though Obama promised said that their tax rates would go up.

What is even more interesting and ironic, as I noted above, is that leftist Dems who support a progressively more punitive tax code are also the ones most likely to be hurt by the code. Dems predominantly live in high cost of living urban areas and their correspondingly high nominal earnings are harmed the most under our code.

I do not care a whit if Dems want to tax themselves more to support their welfare state. There is a certain justice there. However, I would prefer if they invested it in something useful and created more wealth and jobs.

dsimon said... I really don't see much difference...

2009-07-13T16:29:06.249-04:00

dsimon said...

I really don't see much difference between having a dedicated tax for specific programs or having them all come out of general revenues.

Because we are dealing with apples and oranges.

Social Security and Medicare are intended to be flat taxes with a cap from which you will draw a standard menu of benefits when you become elderly or disabled.

Our current tax system for raising general revenues and the general revenues themselves (outside of common goods like defense) are designed to redistribute wealth.

Combining the two systems is misleading because the payroll taxes then appear to be more progressive than they are and vis versa for income taxes.

Even if payroll taxes are rightly deemed dedicated funding sources, you still don't address all the other taxes that make the total revenue system far flatter than just pointing to income taxes would indicate.

The CBO figures I cited above include all other taxes raised for general revenues. Income taxes just happen to be the largest share. However, I do not deny that the Feds also raise general revenues from regressive excise taxes.