U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 07-17-2009, 07:13 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 18,959,221 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
When Congress singles out a specific group of people and applies laws to them and no one else, like our progressive tax structure, they are violating the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
The income tax code is not applied to individuals at all. It is applied to income from whatever source derived.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2009, 07:27 PM
 
13,495 posts, read 4,835,250 times
Reputation: 5983
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Well, just for the record, here is what a half dozen officials from the Bush administration had to say about your theory that tax cuts increase federal revenue...

Edward Lazear, CEA Chairman...
I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Greg Mankiw, former CEA Chairman...
Most economists believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.

Alan Viard, CEA Sr Economist...
Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that.

Robert Carroll, Treasury DAS for Tax Policy...
As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves.

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman...
I don't think that as a general rule tax cuts pay for themselves. What I have argued instead is that to the extent the tax cuts produce greater efficiency or greater growth, they will partially offset the losses in revenues.

Andrew Samwick, former CEA Chief Economist...
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.


Right. Here is some background regarding your belief that tax cuts provide stimulus and food stamps don't...
Economic Stimulus for Small Business
Be sure to see the table on page 5 re one-year stimulus bang for the buck.

And here's a recent article from the Wall Street Journal you might find informative...
Boost in Food-Stamp Funding Percolates Through Economy

...or maybe this one from CBS News.
Stimulus Boost For Food Stamp Recipients


LOL. Never heard of gross private domestic investment, did you. It has nothing to do with the stock market. GPDI includes all replacement purchases and net new additions to capital assets plus investments in inventories. It provides a measure of national productive capacity going forward. I guess one of us knew that.

Again- you are not an economist and simply made up that 'fact". Your basic knowledge of economics is poor.

Yes, reduction in the stock market reduces capitol investment. Why? Becuase investors feel "poorer" after a market fall and cut back on investments EVERYWHERE. Further, buisness cuts back on capitol improvements in anticipation of decreased sales and revenues. Basic high school economics. Of course, if you are teaching college economics, as you claim, you would know that. What university do you claim to be teaching at?

Your big "food stamps stimulate the economy" farce is so absurd that it had to come from someone who has an even poorer understanding of economics------Nancy Pelosi! Only a pin head like her could actually come up with that winner. Again, food consumption in the US is relatively fixed per capita, regardless of economic conditions since world war 2. Food stamps do relatively nothing to stimulate anything, as those same people will be buying food (or have it bought for them) regardless of food stamps or not. Starvation is not an issue in the US and there is not a dramatic rise or fall in consumption of food, whether the economy is good or bad. Again- basic high school economics. But since you have not taken any basic econ classes, you would not know that. Don't fudge credentials, as fibbing becomes readily apparent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 07:34 PM
 
19,220 posts, read 5,901,322 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
The income tax code is not applied to individuals at all. It is applied to income from whatever source derived.
Please elaborate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 07:54 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,141 posts, read 2,072,648 times
Reputation: 2363
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2 View Post
That would certainly be more fair than the system we have now. Everyone pays the same percentage of income. You have to include inheritance tax though.
I do not agree with inheritance though. It is money already earned and I do not think it is anything different than if I give any other personal items to my children. I earned that money and I should be able to give them my money to them. I worked to give them that.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 07:57 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 18,959,221 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
How does it "seem" fair? If I earn $10 and you earn $10 million and we both pay 10%, I pay $1 and you pay $1 million. Explain that one to me how it is not fair.
Absent any tax, we both spend our first ten dollars on the same things. Really important things. Things we can't do without. Then I get to spend another $9,999,990 and you get to spend zilch, nada, nothing. By the time I'm spending my last ten dollars, it's on something completely trivial. I've long ago bought everything I need plus everything I want. I'm struggling to find things to spend all this money on. So you wisely decide to tax me a miliion dollars, but you still need one more dollar in tax revenue. Should it be one more of my still completely trivial dollars or one of your still really important dollars? Learn to look at burden. You can't (and wouldn't want to) equalize it, but you can't ignore it without endorsing social exploitaion on a grand scale. Unless seriously amended so as to mimic the effects of progressive taxation, that's what flat taxes do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
In this case let us just be honest and say "It is not fair but I believe it is justifiable to take more money from richer people to give it the poor."
Get real. By the numbers, barely enough to count as a teeny tiny portion of your tax bill or mine goes as a gift to poor people. This is another area where we trail virtually every other developed country. Otherwise, two of the primary reasons why we form societies at all are risk-sharing and the redistribution of income. If you are so much on an antisocial misanthrope as to be unable to buy into such basic social premises, you are probably not fit to consider yourself as a member of any society at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
I will venture to say that if someone comes to your house to demand you may have to give up one of your extra cars or an extra bed in your storage areas to give it to the poor, you would not be very happy, would you? After all you have something others do not have, right?
Yes, I do, and my federal income taxes are substantially larger than the median household income in this country, and it doesn't bother me one bit. What bothered me was when unneeded extra thousands of dollars started showing up courtesy of the Bushie tax cuts, all of them taken from the hands of people who needed the money much more than I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
What is the percentage of the "poor" that have three or more cars?
They are more likely to have three or more jobs than three or more cars. Your vision isn't worthy of the term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 08:02 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 18,959,221 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Again- you are not an economist and simply made up that 'fact". Your basic knowledge of economics is poor.
Yeah, keep at it till your head explodes. It won't be long now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 08:08 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 18,959,221 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Please elaborate.
The tax code applies to everyone equally. All are obligated to pay such taxes as may be due on all income from whatever source derived.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > 61
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Nashville
840 posts, read 1,489,938 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Again- you are not an economist and simply made up that 'fact". Your basic knowledge of economics is poor.

Yes, reduction in the stock market reduces capitol investment. Why? Becuase investors feel "poorer" after a market fall and cut back on investments EVERYWHERE. Further, buisness cuts back on capitol improvements in anticipation of decreased sales and revenues. Basic high school economics. Of course, if you are teaching college economics, as you claim, you would know that. What university do you claim to be teaching at?

Your big "food stamps stimulate the economy" farce is so absurd that it had to come from someone who has an even poorer understanding of economics------Nancy Pelosi! Only a pin head like her could actually come up with that winner. Again, food consumption in the US is relatively fixed per capita, regardless of economic conditions since world war 2. Food stamps do relatively nothing to stimulate anything, as those same people will be buying food (or have it bought for them) regardless of food stamps or not. Starvation is not an issue in the US and there is not a dramatic rise or fall in consumption of food, whether the economy is good or bad. Again- basic high school economics. But since you have not taken any basic econ classes, you would not know that. Don't fudge credentials, as fibbing becomes readily apparent.
surely a hawkeye doesn't seek to discuss economics
comic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 08:13 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 18,959,221 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
I do not agree with inheritance though. It is money already earned and I do not think it is anything different than if I give any other personal items to my children. I earned that money and I should be able to give them my money to them. I worked to give them that.
Among the large estates upon which the bulk of all actual inheritance taxes are levied, more than half of the wealth accumulated consists of unrealized capital gains that have never been taxed. As these assets will pass to heirs at the stepped-up basis, unless inheritance taxes are collected on them, these capital gains will never be taxed. They will simply become part of an inter-generational paradigm for creating a permanent super-advantaged class that can perpetuate itself without much if any work or merit at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2009, 08:37 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,141 posts, read 2,072,648 times
Reputation: 2363
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Absent any tax, we both spend our first ten dollars on the same things. Really important things. Things we can't do without. Then I get to spend another $9,999,990 and you get to spend zilch, nada, nothing. By the time I'm spending my last ten dollars, it's on something completely trivial. I've long ago bought everything I need plus everything I want. I'm struggling to find things to spend all this money on. So you wisely decide to tax me a miliion dollars, but you still need one more dollar in tax revenue. Should it be one more of my still completely trivial dollars or one of your still really important dollars? Learn to look at burden. You can't (and wouldn't want to) equalize it, but you can't ignore it without endorsing social exploitaion on a grand scale. Unless seriously amended so as to mimic the effects of progressive taxation, that's what flat taxes do.

Get real. By the numbers, barely enough to count as a teeny tiny portion of your tax bill or mine goes as a gift to poor people. This is another area where we trail virtually every other developed country. Otherwise, two of the primary reasons why we form societies at all are risk-sharing and the redistribution of income. If you are so much on an antisocial misanthrope as to be unable to buy into such basic social premises, you are probably not fit to consider yourself as a member of any society at all.


Yes, I do, and my federal income taxes are substantially larger than the median household income in this country, and it doesn't bother me one bit. What bothered me was when unneeded extra thousands of dollars started showing up courtesy of the Bushie tax cuts, all of them taken from the hands of people who needed the money much more than I do.


They are more likely to have three or more jobs than three or more cars. Your vision isn't worthy of the term.
First of all, you are making statements that label my views. You do so by making assumptions. Because I have stated the tax views I did not say the poor cannot be helped. There are other means to help them without the inequality measures you espouse.
It is a typical attack often used by people that does not hear what they say, make comments on the person. Why not simply stay with issue instead of commenting whether I am fit to consider myself of any society?

Example:
President Obama said those earning higher than $250K will start paying higher taxes, redistribute the wealth, remember?

Where does that amount go further? In New York City or El Paso, TX?

You ask someone from NYC to give up that amount and he will most likely get hurt much more than someone in some less expensive Hometown USA. Now, in both cases let us say those two individuals decided to work hard by maybe setting up a business and spend long hours to make sure they want to save for the college of their children. In some cases people may work two jobs. Are they rich? In many cases they are not at all. Many of those people simply work harder than some other guy that is simply content with one job, go home and watch TV and earns less than $250K. He is happy because there are enough people like you that agree that the guy that earns $250K has to give up more of his hard earned money to the guy that is happy with one job and is waiting for you to make sure the other guy pays for his kids college at his expense.

However, on a flat tax system if you earn a $20 million and I earn $20K at a 10%, your $2 million already goes a lot further to help people in need and I also have the satisfaction that my $2K is also used to help those in lower economic status.

However, when a socialist mentality as yours is used is not as efficient as it seems. I may consider it at least more smart if the tax system is designed for the states to decide who is rich and who is poor based on their local economic standing. But when $250K is applies across the board across the nation is stupid when the guy in NYC hurts a lot more in paying the same taxes than the guy in some other town where the standard of living is lower.

Besides that, when people get things free (gift as you called it), they do not appreciate those things as compared when they earn it. That is why many of those social programs are so wasteful for different reasons, one of them the huge bureaucracy to run a system. Allowing the government to spend the money they did not earn is not very efficient. Three types of people you do not trust with your money: Children, thieves, and politicians.

I do not know what you do out there in the community. I do a lot of community service out there. You should see how many "poor" families on food stamps (your and my "gift" to them) is used to buy cell phones to every children in the family, buy flat screen TVs (another gift), go on vacations at least once a year (another gift), etc.

I simply am saying that we as a society can help those in need more wisely. The moral fiber of a society is reflected by how we help our children, our elders, and our poor.
I am not one to simply give money, I do help them directly. I teach them to learn to fish rather than giving the fish.

Well, since you want to give your money to them and do not mind, I repeat what read on a car bumper sticker:
Work harder, those on welfare depend on you.

And they are going to need you more now that they expect more and more so keep working harder.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top