Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]derp, how is it unconsitutional? it's allowed by the 16th amendment.

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

If you really think that's what I believe, then you haven't been paying any attention to my posts here...

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] my entire point was that the limit to government revenue tops out around 18%, there are outliers as there always are in the real world, if you and sun want to target outliers as realistic goal... go for it, at this point i could care less, but i should, and will apologise for lashing out at you, you rarely do bring stupid arguments at me and my comment was unneeded.well that part of it any way.

surrealnumber5

So how has all of Europe magically circumvented this unpenetrable ceiling? Tax revenue in Denmark is almost 50% of GDP. Not one European country is constrained by this hypothetical 18% upperbound. Neither is Canada. And the US isn't either. Not only has federal revenue been above 18% a number of times, but when you look at total tax revenue/GDP in the US, it has not been below 20% since WWII, and it has not been below 25% since the 60's (up until 2009 when it dropped to 24%).

Hauser's Law is nothing more than an observation. It has no implications on tax policy.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] ...but the 16th amendment was not properly ratified! Or so I heard lol...Renevent42

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]Where did you hear that? It went through the same process that every amendment went through, how do you think it became an amendment?

CaveJohnson1

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] my entire point was that the limit to government revenue tops out around 18%, there are outliers as there always are in the real world, if you and sun want to target outliers as realistic goal... go for it, at this point i could care less, but i should, and will apologise for lashing out at you, you rarely do bring stupid arguments at me and my comment was unneeded.well that part of it any way.

-Sun_Tzu-

Depends on context, and in this instance, it isn't particularly significant. Falls within the realm of tolerance. That said, other countries clearly have managed to tax well in excess of 18% of GDP.

[QUOTE="CaveJohnson1"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"] Check your sarcasm meter. However, it is very common for anti-income tax folks to say it wasn't properly ratified. There's entire sites full of information and research on the subject.Renevent42

Yes, right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Fair enough, my point about it reaching above 20% was kind of trivial since it's only marginally larger than 18%.coolbeans90

Depends on context, and in this instance, it isn't particularly significant. Falls within the realm of tolerance. That said, other countries clearly have managed to tax well in excess of 18% of GDP.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I wouldn't call it trivial. 2% of GDP is pretty substantial. -Sun_Tzu-

Depends on context, and in this instance, it isn't particularly significant. Falls within the realm of tolerance. That said, other countries clearly have managed to tax well in excess of 18% of GDP.

Once again, context. With respect to controlling the deficit when it was a mere 1% of GDP, yes, a 1% tax increase would be sufficient to close the gap. However, with respect to random variances and a tolerance with the number of 18% itself, it doesn't really disprove the observation in a substantial respect.

the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

Nope... don't think so. You'll probably call this far-fetched, but the whole "power corrupts" thing always applys.

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.OrkHammer007

Nope... don't think so. You'll probably call this far-fetched, but the whole "power corrupts" thing always applys.

the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

Nope... don't think so. You'll probably call this far-fetched, but the whole "power corrupts" thing always applys.

I think if he wants to pay more money he can write a check to the tteasury.

He doesn't represent the "rich" people I want to protect.

I think if he wants to pay more money he can write a check to the tteasury.

He doesn't represent the "rich" people I want to protect.

airshocker

Thats like saying if you don't like the current tax code your more then welcome to leave the country.. It adds nothing to the debate nor does it even acknowledge the underlining problem or even that there is a problem.. So what I am trying to say is why bother even posting such a post to begin with?

Thats like saying if you don't like the current tax code your more then welcome to leave the country.. It adds nothing to the debate nor does it even acknowledge the underlining problem or even that there is a problem.. So what I am trying to say is why bother even posting such a post to begin with?

sSubZerOo

What's wrong with him writing a check to the treasury department? He can give all his money away, if he wishes. That's the only solution to his problem. The rest of you liberals want to increase taxes even more on small businesses just to make sure good ol' Warren pays his fair share. I'm not. If he feels so strongly about not paying anything, he can write a check to the treasury.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats like saying if you don't like the current tax code your more then welcome to leave the country.. It adds nothing to the debate nor does it even acknowledge the underlining problem or even that there is a problem.. So what I am trying to say is why bother even posting such a post to begin with?

airshocker

What's wrong with him writing a check to the treasury department? He can give all his money away, if he wishes. That's the only solution to his problem. The rest of you liberals want to increase taxes even more on small businesses just to make sure good ol' Warren pays his fair share. I'm not. If he feels so strongly about not paying anything, he can write a check to the treasury.

:| Yes because those are the options.. Raising taxes on all businesses or not at all..What aboutraising taxes on super rich or huge corporations specifically?

:| Yes because those are the options.. Raising taxes on all businesses or not at all..What aboutraising taxes on super rich or huge corporations specifically?

sSubZerOo

No to the corporations, yes to the super rich. But that's not the options as put forth by Democrats.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| Yes because those are the options.. Raising taxes on all businesses or not at all..What aboutraising taxes on super rich or huge corporations specifically?

airshocker

No to the corporations, yes to the super rich. But that's not the options as put forth by Democrats.

Thats great because I don't affiliate my self with the democrat party so why are you even bringing it up?

Thats great because I don't affiliate my self with the democrat party so why are you even bringing it up?

sSubZerOo

Was there another plan? One brought forth by the more liberal members of the party?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats great because I don't affiliate my self with the democrat party so why are you even bringing it up?

airshocker

Was there another plan? One brought forth by the more liberal members of the party?

I wasn't aware we were talking about plans? We were talking about problems on how to solve them.. Warren Buffet is not direclty apart of any party.. Nor were we talking about any plan currently on the table..

I wasn't aware we were talking about plans? We were talking about problems on how to solve them.. Warren Buffet is not direclty apart of any party.. Nor were we talking about any plan currently on the table..

sSubZerOo

We were talking about options. What other option is there that's currently being looked at?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats great because I don't affiliate my self with the democrat party so why are you even bringing it up?

airshocker

Was there another plan? One brought forth by the more liberal members of the party?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Thats great because I don't affiliate my self with the democrat party so why are you even bringing it up?

Engrish_Major

Was there another plan? One brought forth by the more liberal members of the party?

Hell one of the plans was a tax reform to close down loop holes, in which the corporations and super rich abuse to begin with..

Ideas by posters on OT don't necessarily have to be backed by official partys' plans, do they?Engrish_Major

No, and that's not what I'm saying, I'm just curious if there are more options to choose from. It doesn't look like it to me.

Hell one of the plans was a tax reform to close down loop holes, in which the corporations and super rich abuse to begin with..

sSubZerOo

And which would have kept taxes at the same level for small businesses. A useless plan, IMO.

I don't coddle but until the government can spend wisely and reform programs such as social security so that it won't be regressive, then we can think of increasing taxes, if necessary to lower our debt.

There are a lot of ways to lower the debt but just taxing the rich isn't going to solve the problem. It requires a lot more than that.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Ideas by posters on OT don't necessarily have to be backed by official partys' plans, do they?airshocker

No, and that's not what I'm saying, I'm just curious if there are more options to choose from. It doesn't look like it to me.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Hell one of the plans was a tax reform to close down loop holes, in which the corporations and super rich abuse to begin with..

airshocker

And which would have kept taxes at the same level for small businesses. A useless plan, IMO.

:| .. What is this I don't even know.. So what your saying is it was a useless plan because it didn't include that even though it would have reformed it.. You do know how the government works and that there could be future plans to lower the tax rate.. This leads me to believe that you don't care what so ever of the problems, inless small businesses has something to do with it.

I don't coddle but until the government can spend wisely and reform programs such as social security so that it won't be regressive, then we can think of increasing taxes, if necessary to lower our debt.

There are a lot of ways to lower the debt but just taxing the rich isn't going to solve the problem. It requires a lot more than that.

leviathan91

Actually based on studies it would have done exactly that if we didn't have the bush tax cuts in place..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Hell one of the plans was a tax reform to close down loop holes, in which the corporations and super rich abuse to begin with..

airshocker

And which would have kept taxes at the same level for small businesses. A useless plan, IMO.

:| .. What is this I don't even know.. So what your saying is it was a useless plan because it didn't include that even though it would have reformed it.. You do know how the government works and that there could be future plans to lower the tax rate.. This leads me to believe that you don't care what so ever of the problems, inless small businesses has something to do with it.

sSubZerOo

What wasn't clear? It reformed nothing of significance to me. Increasing taxes on the rich, not even the super rich, just whatever arbitrary number the Obama admin. and Congress came up to represent a group that makes a certain amount of money, isn't as important to me as ensuring small businesses aren't paying growth-killing taxes.

Really? That doesn't seem to be how government works. It seems like they pass something big and then stop working for a few weeks. What changes have they made to Obamacare since it's been passed?

not if you're looking to gain additional revenue. comp_atkins

I'm not, so it's useless to me.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| .. What is this I don't even know.. So what your saying is it was a useless plan because it didn't include that even though it would have reformed it.. You do know how the government works and that there could be future plans to lower the tax rate.. This leads me to believe that you don't care what so ever of the problems, inless small businesses has something to do with it.

airshocker

What wasn't clear? It reformed nothing of significance to me. Increasing taxes on the rich, not even the super rich, just whatever arbitrary number the Obama admin. and Congress came up to represent a group that makes a certain amount of money, isn't as important to me as ensuring small businesses aren't paying growth-killing taxes.

Really? That doesn't seem to be how government works. It seems like they pass something big and then stop working for a few weeks. What changes have they made to Obamacare since it's been passed?

The majority of the Health care bill hasn't even gone into effect yet, and it was heavily comprimised from what it originally was.. And I find your entire point hypocritical, because your one of the people that go on and on about the national debt.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]not if you're looking to gain additional revenue. airshocker

I'm not, so it's useless to me.

So you don't care about the national debt what so ever?

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]the present political system protects the wealthy we need fewer people involved in decision making, probably reduce the legislative branch to 12 people, and extend their terms to 24 year periods.UniverseIX

Nope... don't think so. You'll probably call this far-fetched, but the whole "power corrupts" thing always applys.

Keep the status quo. It may be slow, contentious, and seemingly chaotic, but with power spread out the way it is, with the threat of voters ready to drop the axe on your career come the next election, there's more motivation to do the right thing than under a system of lifetime terms and no accoutability.

The majority of the Health care bill hasn't even gone into effect yet, and it was heavily comprimised from what it originally was.. And I find your entire point hypocritical, because your one of the people that go on and on about the national debt.

sSubZerOo

Answer my question. You said things can be changed and reformed once they are passed. WHAT has been changed and reformed in Obamacare and when was it accomplished? You said that's how government works, yet I don't see it happening.

Excuse me, when have I gone on and on about the national debt? I don't like it, sure, but I see that some deficit spending is definitely necessary right now.

from the other thread.....

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

because they also sell their stuff in china... the us isn't the only market in town any more.Netherscourge

Where they manufacture at is more important economically than who they sell to is. (so far as local economies are concerned)

China has a 4% Unemployment rate, along with decades of growth... The USA is currently around 9.1% unemployment and growth is... well, slow and shaky.

It's time to reel some of these fish back in.

from the coorporation's standpoint who they sell it is more important. for these companies to do business in another country a presence there is needed. that means having jobs there. the coorporation is looking to expand it's business beyond america's shores. factor in the fact that the labor is dirt cheap in these places and it's win/win for them. new markets plus cheap labor.

So you don't care about the national debt what so ever?

sSubZerOo

Not at this very moment, no. It's concerning, but there are bigger fish to fry. Of course you're going to spin this a certain way, though.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

So you don't care about the national debt what so ever?

airshocker

Not at this very moment, no. It's concerning, but there are bigger fish to fry. Of course you're going to spin this a certain way, though.

No not at all. I would agree with you.. There are bigger things, such as getting the economy back on track to easily pay of the debt over time.

45 to 50% tax on those that make >$1,000,000 per year. 35% tax on those making >$500,000 per year. 25% tax on those making >$250k per year, and 10% on everyone else. Sounds good to me.