just heard Gibbs on the news state that Obama was "opposed to the government borrowing 700 billion" to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper wage earners....

It's about $700 billion over 10 years. That's for the top 2 percent; of earners I believe...(what's wrong with the percent sign?). Obama can spend that in one trip overseas...

but what about the other 98 percent ?

the total cost of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is how much the government will have to "borrow"...according to Obama's logic, if we renew all of the Bush tax rates....so we can either pay it now or pay it later(or our children) with interest....

I think the 98 percent are greedy...they can live without a muffler...PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE

don't renew the Bush tax rates...I don't want Obama borrowing any more money!!!!

sorry Jimmy

just heard Gibbs on the news state that Obama was "opposed to the government borrowing 700 billion" to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper wage earners....


See, right away he thinks the answer is borrowing more to get out of a jam rather then finding ways to cut and save the money to pay for it.

By rescinding the tax cuts we are getting a tax increase, which will show
up as an increased payroll holding deduction in Jan when we can least afford it as
Christmas gift bills are due.

With the economy teetering on the abyss, this is no time to raise
any one's taxes rather then re-introduce the class warfare card.

I don't think the politicians still got the message from the election
where the American people voted for smaller gov, reducing the deficit,
and less taxes.

I don't think the politicians still got the message from the election
where the American people voted for smaller gov, reducing the deficit,
and less taxes.

no, the voters were just angry and irrational and scared and really had no idea what they were voting for...thus the huge screw up...oh, and if Obama had just articulately explained the values of his policies better, everyone would have fallen right into line, or in some cases..on their knees.....:uhuh:

no, the voters were just angry and irrational and scared and really had no idea what they were voting for...thus the huge screw up...oh, and if Obama had just articulately explained the values of his policies better, everyone would have fallen right into line, or in some cases..on their knees.....:uhuh:

Speak for yourself. I know exactly what I was voting for.................

just heard Gibbs on the news state that Obama was "opposed to the government borrowing 700 billion" to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper wage earners....

It's about $700 billion over 10 years. That's for the top 2 percent; of earners I believe...(what's wrong with the percent sign?). Obama can spend that in one trip overseas...

but what about the other 98 percent ?

the total cost of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is how much the government will have to "borrow"...according to Obama's logic, if we renew all of the Bush tax rates....so we can either pay it now or pay it later(or our children) with interest....

I think the 98 percent are greedy...they can live without a muffler...PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE

don't renew the Bush tax rates...I don't want Obama borrowing any more money!!!!

sorry Jimmy

You (and Obama) are assuming that as tax rates change, nothing else changes.

Hogwash. The fact is, when Bush cut tax rates for everyone, tax revenues (meaning tax dollars collected) went up. Why? Because if done smartly, tax cuts can be stimulative.

If increasing tax rates always meant more tax revenue collected, why are all the European nations on the brink of bankruptcy? Whay are states like CT and Mass (with high tax rates) so broke? Because higher tax rates can cause the economy to retract.

I believe in paying my fair share.

You (incorrcetly in my opinion) think the solution to our problem is to raise taxes. In my opinion, we need to cut spending. As the brilliant Gov Christie from New Jersey says "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem".

no, the voters were just angry and irrational and scared and really had no idea what they were voting for...thus the huge screw up...oh, and if Obama had just articulately explained the values of his policies better, everyone would have fallen right into line, or in some cases..on their knees.....:uhuh:

Ah. So if voters disagree with liberals, it necessarily means they are being irrational. i know that's what Obama thinks, he said so. It's a very elitist thing to think.

As Obama was so fond of saying after he got sworn in, "elections have consequences". Funny how he isn't saying that anymore.

Why? Because if done smartly, tax cuts can be stimulative.


Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.

Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.


I look at it as more of an issue with the spending we've had over the last 6 years.

If you cut out the fat you need less tax revenue. I don’t think anyone can argue (Dem, Ind, Rep) that there is too much money wasted in Government. More tax revenue adds fuel to that fire. It doesn’t make people look at the real problems and doesn’t make them look at areas where there is too much waste. It enables status quo and usually more spending.

A very small example: The town I live in had a question a few years ago on a School budget issue and the School committee said “If we do not get more revenue from the town, teachers will lose jobs. “ Citizens said no new taxes and basically told the school committee to figure it out. Miraculously, the school system was able to figure it out. They decided to stagger the start times of schools so that not all schools opened and closed at the same time everyday. This meant a reduction in 2/3 the amount of school buses need. (one bus could handle 3 routes vs 1 route b/c kids didn’t need to all be picked up and dropped off at school at the same time). Anyway, this savings (near $1 million) was able to cover the shortfall and no teachers were laid off. If taxes were increased, this solution would not have happened and taxes would have been raised.

Raising taxes is the lazy and easy way out in my opinion, we need to look at all the waste and make everything lean again. When that happens, we will not need as much tax revenue.

I’m not an account or economist, I’m a sales guy so what do I know anyway. :)

Well, I'm not a CPA or actuary, but from what I've read, there are an equal number of arguments that go against this statement.

it is a tough call. we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper...

the compromise will be to kick this can down the road for another year or so and then deal with it, which will spawn this argument all over.

I'm no economics expert, either...

"we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper... "

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed. It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected. The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

You (and Obama) are assuming that as tax rates change, nothing else changes.

Hogwash. The fact is, when Bush cut tax rates for everyone, tax revenues (meaning tax dollars collected) went up. Why? Because if done smartly, tax cuts can be stimulative.

If increasing tax rates always meant more tax revenue collected, why are all the European nations on the brink of bankruptcy? Whay are states like CT and Mass (with high tax rates) so broke? Because higher tax rates can cause the economy to retract.

I believe in paying my fair share.

You (incorrcetly in my opinion) think the solution to our problem is to raise taxes. In my opinion, we need to cut spending. As the brilliant Gov Christie from New Jersey says "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem".

I get it Jim, just playing with the current Obama logic a bit :stir:...if we can't afford the money that would be collected from the top 2 percent and will have to borrow to replace it.... then we certainly can't afford and will have to borrow what we won't be collecting from the 98 percent if we extend their tax rates.....maybe "it's the spending stupid"......

I thought that part of the American Revolution was fought over taxation, amongest other things. Once the Bush taxes go away we will be taxed and taxed again. Both the state and feds want to increase the tax on gasoline, capital gaines will almost double. Starting in 2011 if you sell your home you will pay 3.8 per cent of the sale price to the feds.

Interesting to note that your president wants to curtail wage increases to federal employees for two years. I agree.

Your president wants to exclude military personal. I agree. Married military are on welfare and food stamps now.

Your president also is excluding congressmen. I do not agree they are part of the federal government. They are eating caviar

Those who are on social have been cut off from a 5.8 percent cost of living increase for two years because of your president. The average social check is eleven hundred and some change closer to 1200 so we will round it to 1200. That is 1200 x 12 months = 14,400 x 5.8 = 835.20 of which the average social retiree is out per year.

And your president feels that congress should be able to get a pay raise. There is something wrong with this.

just heard Gibbs on the news state that Obama was "opposed to the government borrowing 700 billion" to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper wage earners....

It's about $700 billion over 10 years. That's for the top 2 percent; of earners I believe...(what's wrong with the percent sign?). Obama can spend that in one trip overseas...

but what about the other 98 percent ?

the total cost of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is how much the government will have to "borrow"...according to Obama's logic, if we renew all of the Bush tax rates....so we can either pay it now or pay it later(or our children) with interest....

I think the 98 percent are greedy...they can live without a muffler...PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE

don't renew the Bush tax rates...I don't want Obama borrowing any more money!!!!

sorry Jimmy

As usual, your logic is impeccable (notice I say as usual, not always--wouldn't want PaulS to attack my syntax--though he might object to usual as well--uh, oh, getting long winded and probably boring here--but he most likely won't read this since he doesn't read most of my posts).

But . . . the Obama administration, I think, believes that allowing the middle class portion of Bush's tax cut to continue will stimulate the economy because they will spend the money, thus producing a $3.8 trillion ($380 billion/yr) influx into the economy, and that the same cannot be said for the "rich" since they won't spend it, since they don't need it. The administration says that the rich have had the tax break for 6? or 7? years and it is not producing jobs (although they're bragging that jobs are being produced, just not as fast as . . . well . . . as fast as they were under Bush before the "crash.") It would be nit-picking, I guess, to say that the middle class cuts were also in effect as well all that time and we're still not producing those jobs.

But let us leave aside the obvious and digress into theory. If the middle class will spend their tax cut, wouldn't it be even better to not only maintain their current rate, but to cut it even more--maybe get as close to zero, if not actually zero, as possible? Thus creating even more stimulative spending and creating an economic boom that could help to not only eliminate the deficit, but decrease and eventually eliminate the debt. And if that stimulation would not be quite enough, we could just tax the rich even more than just letting their current rates expire. We could go back to taxing them progressively at higher and higher levels after incremental amounts as high as 99 percent after X million in income. After all, they have too much, they don't need it, they horde it, such wealth is obscene, and, more importantly, we outnumber them and there is nothing they can do about it.

The minor problem that congress has this benevolent need to give money away rather than reducing debt--is minor.

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed. It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected. The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.
I'm not too sure on the exact numbers, but I wonder if fighting two wars had anything to do with it. As the principle driving force to go to war, those costs are on him.

I'm not too sure on the exact numbers, but I wonder if fighting two wars had anything to do with it. As the principle driving force to go to war, those costs are on him.

Are you saying that if we had not spent the money on the wars, the banking meltdown would not have been a spending problem? I suppose, then, you could say that if it had not been for the TARP the wars would not have been a spending problem. The wars did come first, and the economy was booming while the war expenditures were in place. Wars happen and they have to be payed for. Argument on whether the wars are "legitimate" is another matter, and one that you won't find agreement on. Now, under this new administration, we not only have the two wars, we have massive stimulus much greater than the TARP (which is supposedly being paid back and not as expensive as initially).

You (incorrcetly in my opinion) think the solution to our problem is to raise taxes. In my opinion, we need to cut spending. As the brilliant Gov Christie from New Jersey says "we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem".


Bingo! In NJ Christie IS cutting Spending Across The Board and no one is exempt.

Every NJ resident has to tighten their belt no matter who they are and he won't take no for an answer.

It would take a President of his charcter to straighten out our economy, imho.

But that would mean sacrafice by ALL Americans to give up their Nanny Addiction
and unfortunately I don't see that many that would be willing to do so.

When capital gains expires prepare for a stock market crash as people dump stocks before 1/1

Newest unemployment report up to 9.8 percent and there
are STILL those who want the Bush tax cuts recinded. :huh:

Newest unemployment report up to 9.8 percent and there
are STILL those who want the Bush tax cuts recinded. :huh:
Most don't want them completely rescinded. The Dems want to put an income limit on who gets the cuts and the Republicans want the cuts extended across the board.

With the incoming shift of power, I'd be willing to bet that the cuts get extended for everyone and the Dems require some of their other agenda items, like extending Unemployment, get piggybacked into the extension.

Most don't want them completely rescinded. The Dems want to put an income limit on who gets the cuts and the Republicans want the cuts extended across the board.

With the incoming shift of power, I'd be willing to bet that the cuts get extended for everyone and the Dems require some of their other agenda items, like extending Unemployment, get piggybacked into the extension.

I think your right JD. Don't count on borrowed money to extend unemployment though.

"we've had these cuts now for 6? years under two administrations and the economy has continued down the crapper... "

But NOT because tax dollars collected are down. It's because spending has skyrocketed.
I'm not sure I see the connection...

It's irrefytable fact that afetr Bush lowered tax rates, he set records for tax dollars collected.

Hmmm, see attached chart.

The problem is that he spent too much...actually, the problem wasn't even that he spent too much, the problem was (1) the democrats decided that it was unfair for banks to only give mortgages to people who had some hope of paying them back, and (2) the financial markets had these crazy schemes to bundle and sell those crappy mortgages.

Wow, you were a hair away from blaming George Bush until you snapped back to your senses. I'd bring up that whole notion of the "ownership society" but I promised myself I wouldn't go there.

-spence

Most don't want them completely rescinded. The Dems want to put an income limit on who gets the cuts and the Republicans want the cuts extended across the board.

With the incoming shift of power, I'd be willing to bet that the cuts get extended for everyone and the Dems require some of their other agenda items, like extending Unemployment, get piggybacked into the extension.

looks like it JD. Anyone watch Obama today. I really cant stand that guy. He has to once again slam the Republicans while discussing the compromise. Two weeks ago he admits he messed up, now hes back on his high horse pointing fingers.
Pelosi and dems once again with the "it will cost us" "why should we GIVE the wealthy" WTF???? GIVE??????????? ITS THEIR MONEY!! NOT YOURS!!!

What is the logic behind the 200K indiviudal vs 250K family? Some deep analysis or some off the cuff remark Obama threw out that is now some benchmark? So, according to the Democrats - a single person making 180K a year pays less percentage than a couple making 275K and 3 kids? WTF!
Extend the cuts, fund them by making cuts in the government. DEEP cuts.

What is the logic behind the 200K indiviudal vs 250K family? Some deep analysis or some off the cuff remark Obama threw out that is now some benchmark? So, according to the Democrats - a single person making 180K a year pays less percentage than a couple making 275K and 3 kids? WTF!
Extend the cuts, fund them by making cuts in the government. DEEP cuts.
I agree. The figure doesn't make any sense. I could get on board with putting the limit at $1M. None of this will get paid for without the government being forced into it. Two wars, a garbage economy, sky-rocketing social services... cuts won't happen until the entire country is in the same (or worse) economic state as California and the feds hands are forced.

cuts won't happen until the entire country is in the same (or worse) economic state as California and the feds hands are forced.

I agree JD, as usual the Govt. always waits till there is a last minute
crisis before they act. There is no forward looking plan like a 5 and 10 year business plan.

With all the so called intellectual elites, their only plan is to do enough in their term to get re-elected.

I like what ScottW said, they don't get it, "it's the SPENDING stupid."

We all seem to accept as a given that the tax rate will increase incrementally as you make more money. What bothers me about this whole discussion that everyone seems to believe there is some logic in the incremental rate increases stopping at 200/250G. The Republicans have done a great job as selling this as a middle class/small business issue. Only 2.9% of the country are over the 250G mark. There should be increases in the rate as your income goes up with maybe a cap at 50% at the level of 20 million. It will not significantly change the deficit picture, which must be addressed by spending cuts and elimination of subsidized tax breaks, but it will bring a level of fairness to the process.
The biggest thing that will effect all of us and was left out of the compromise announced by the President was any extension of the Build American Bond program. Over 20% of state and local government debt issued in the last year took advantage of this program. If it goes away, as the Republican insist, state and local governments are going to be hard pressed to raise the money they need any any break we get from the Feds will not cover the state and local tax increases.

moshulu, you believe the Feds should tax up to 50 percent??? and then add on state tax!
So wealthy people work for 40 percent of the money they earn? Thats insane. 40 cents on every dollar? makes me puke in this country.

How about an alternate plan
Tomorrow:
Eliminate the National Foundation for the Arts - if art cant make $ on its own, not the govt problem
Cut foreign aid across the board by 30%. Period
Institute 401ks for ALL federal employees, give them a 10% match, close the pensions
Thats a start. Get er done!

I just threw that number out there as an example I do not care really where you set it as long as the incremental rate increases at levels above 250.
I think there is a lot of cutting that should be done as well but the main thing we need to do is simplify the tax code by going to a flat or three tier tax structure with no deductions.

Institute 401ks for ALL federal employees, give them a 10% match, close the pensions
Thats a start. Get er done!

Just as an FYI, they have already done that. Only those government workers Grandfathered in will get pensions. New employees for the government go into a 401k style plan.

not sure of the match....don't think its as high as 10% though.

Just as an FYI, they have already done that. Only those government workers Grandfathered in will get pensions. New employees for the government go into a 401k style plan.

not sure of the match....don't think its as high as 10% though.

does that include congress?

I knew that was going to be your next statement...When I posted it I almost included that as a disclaimer :hihi:

I just threw that number out there as an example I do not care really where you set it as long as the incremental rate increases at levels above 250.


50 percent tax on all income(earned and investment) above $ 267,492.87 while you are alive(this is REAL compromise..half for you...half for me) and 100 percent on all assets at the time of death, once you are dead you no longer need whatever you've accumulated and since the government prints the money it IS actually THEIRS and the government is better suited to decided what should happen to it...you probably gained it illegally or at someone elses's expense anyway, particularly if you are "rich"

[QUOTE=mosholu;816806]We all seem to accept as a given that the tax rate will increase incrementally as you make more money. What bothers me about this whole discussion that everyone seems to believe there is some logic in the incremental rate increases stopping at 200/250G. The Republicans have done a great job as selling this as a middle class/small business issue. Only 2.9% of the country are over the 250G mark. There should be increases in the rate as your income goes up with maybe a cap at 50% at the level of 20 million. It will not significantly change the deficit picture, which must be addressed by spending cuts and elimination of subsidized tax breaks, but it will bring a level of fairness to the process.= QUOTE]

It seems like this constant back and forth about if we should extend the current taxes or if we should raise it on the "rich" and keep it for the middle class, or if we should let it expire for everyone is all arbitrary and without a guiding principle. Not everybody accepts it as a given that tax rates must rise with higher income. That most do accept that now is contrary to what was accepted in the first 120 years of our history. It took time to drift away from the Founders intent. The exception being the need to finance the North's fight against the South when a flat type income tax was imposed and was quickly changed to a graduated one--both very modest compared to today. It had a sunset provision and was done away with in 1872. Another income tax was passed by Congress in 1894 but the Supreme Court struck it down in 1895. Not until 1913 and the 16th ammendment was Congress able to establish an income tax, with graduated rates to boot--1 percent first bracket to 7 percent top bracket. One of the SC Justices, Stephen Field, who struck down the 1894 attempt said at that time that a small progressive tax "will be but a stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich." The 1913 rates didn't take long to climb higher and higher. FDR, our "greatest president" got the top marginal rate to 90 percent. He proposed a top rate of 99.5 percent but congress rejected that, so he issued an executive order to tax all income over $25,000 at 100 percent. When asked why, he said why not. Congress repealed that order. The rates have gone up and down since then, without rhyme or reason, other than some Pol's opinion--it's all been a mish-mash of unprincipled tinkering.

What is the principle that you go by to have any graduated tax imposed?

You mention bringing a level of fairness to the process. The founders did not seem to be concerned with fairness. It seems the guiding principle of the governance they created was individual freedom--freedom being that state in which we are not dependent on the coercion of someone else. If you depend on the coercion of another, neither you nor he are free. To be free, interaction must be by consent. They seem to have based their model on nature, human nature, as they saw it, and its natural laws. There being no such thing as "fair" in nature, the only fairness that one can derive from their Constitution is that every individual has a right to his life, his liberty, and his pursuit of happiness so long as it does not deprive another the same. And there being no such thing as "equal" in nature, the only equality they seemed to be concerned with was an equality before the law. Such guiding principle constrained the Congress and Courts against imposition of unequal taxes for over 100 years. Things have changed.

If we are to have a consistent method and rate of taxation, shouldn't it have a principle that maintains that consistency and prevents indiscriminate changes?

What is that principle?

Correction: FDR replied "Why not?" when he was asked why he proposed the 99.5 percent marginal rate income tax, not when he issued the executive order.

[QUOTE=detbuch;817249]The founders did not seem to be concerned with fairness. It seems the guiding principle of the governance they created was individual freedom--freedom being that state in which we are not dependent on the coercion of someone else. If you depend on the coercion of another, neither you nor he are free. To be free, interaction must be by consent. They seem to have based their model on nature, human nature, as they saw it, and its natural laws. There being no such thing as "fair" in nature, the only fairness that one can derive from their Constitution is that every individual has a right to his life, his liberty, and his pursuit of happiness so long as it does not deprive another the same. =QUOTE]

OK Smart A$$, if there is no such thing as"fair" in nature, how do you come to talk about it?

"Fair" point. Outside of human nature it might be difficult to find an existence of what we conceive as "fair." Unless all of nature is fair, in which case the word is useless. But we humans can see what is fair only if we create and agree to rules of what is fair and what is unfair. The Constitution is that set of rules for governance, and when the Constitution is disobeyed, the referees, the Judges, are supposed to call a foul and mete out the penalty. It seems that those politicians who cry "unfair" when individuals gain "too much" wealth, and try to "bring a level of fairness to the process" by taxing the wealthier at a higher rate, are the very ones who are breaking the rule of "equality before the law." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a rule that citizens are restricted from gaining too much wealth. And when those politicians gain enough advantage to pack the court with Judges who allow them to create rules that contradict the Constitutional intent to preserve individual freedom by mandating the coercion of redistributing one's wealth to another, then "fairness" is just a whim of those who have the power to fix the game.

[QUOTE=detbuch]And there being no such thing as "equal" in nature, the only equality they seemed to be concerned with was an equality before the law. Such guiding principle constrained the Congress and Courts against imposition of unequal taxes for over 100 years. Things have changed.=QUOTE]

So then, we have established that "fair" DOES exist in nature and you can eat your own pontification. Now, about there being no such thing as "equal" in nature, how could the Founders claim that we are created equal?

Good one. All living things have life. It's circular, redundant, and unecessary to say so. It is, as claimed in the Declaration of Independance, self evident. And, insofar as you have life, you are inherently free to pursue your desire--again, self evident. It is only those self evident qualities that the Founders referred to as being created equal. In no way, did they see the qualities as guarantying equal outcomes of wealth, or property, or happiness. And since they considered these qualities to be unalienable, they created the set of rules, principles, that would protect them from the power of an oppressive government.

[QUOTE=detbuch]If we are to have a consistent method and rate of taxation, shouldn't it have a principle that maintains that consistency and prevents indiscriminate changes?

What is that principle?=QUOTE]

Blah, blah, blah. It's an outdated document written by old white slave owners who were only interested in keeping their money and power at the expense of the working man. And you're a fool if you believe any of it.

I was joking obviously when I wrote my proposal for 50 percent on income and all assets after death but if nothing else this tax debate has shown that there are plently of Americans for which there is no defined level(ceiling) of fair taxation progressive or otherwise and while Americans must be accountable to the government, government at no time need be accountable to Americans. The argument has been turned on it's head for so long and used as a political club of class envy by those that would like to grow government that there is a complete disconnect.

"Fairness" seems to be the willingness by some to empower the government to take from those that have more than you at random, as necessary and according to their needs at any given time...

we have a marxist philosophy battling a traditional American value system in this country, no coincidence that it was Bernie Sanders leading the fillibuster

some argue that extending the current tax rates for upper income earners is going to add to the deficit next year and for some this is the proper cause to raise their taxes...

if I am spending far more money than I earn and running up my credit cards and go to my "rich" boss and tell him that he needs to give me a raise next year or he is going to "blow a hole in my deficit", after he stops laughing I'd assume he'd tell me to get my spending under control and that giving me a raise is not going to help with my obvious inability to manage my finances..."but boss, don't you care about my wife and kids???...I have all of these essential services to provide!"....and a few non-essential admittedly...

the argument that this is going to increase the deficit indicates that government had this money already spent does it not???
kinda like spending your raise before it ever shows up in your check

the progressive tax rates guarantee that not only will you pay more by earning more but that you will also pay a greater percentage by earning more(some would say working harder) than the next guy and ultimately increases the weight of the club of class envy politics exponentially in terms of the damage it can do when swung....

I've heard everyone form Obama to Axelrod to Goolsby say that not extending the tax rates for the "middle-class" would cost them two to three thousand dollars per year....someone needs to call for an investigation of BIG MUFFLER...because apparently a muffler has sky rocketed in price since Bush was in office...

real tax reform would include a separate form for marxists of any income level to dedicate large portions of their income to the government to assuage their guilt or satisfy their wants/needs mentality on their own

or they could just burn down big houses to feel better

‘F*** the Rich’: Cape Cod Arsonist Targets Homes of the Wealthy

December 13, 2010

Upscale towns in Massachusetts are on alert as police and fire officials are investigating another fire in which an arsonist scawled a “f*** the rich” graffiti message at the scene. The latest incident in Sandwich follows another suspicious incident in Barnstable

The American revolution happened because the colonists were sick of being taxed so heavily@ 3 %
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It took time to drift away from the Founders intent.

Here's an interesting read. This does paint a picture of our Founding Fathers behaving like thoughtful people and not strictly adhering to an absolute. While natural law still rules, we are a bit unique in that humans have the ability to temporarily distort it's fabric to suit our interests...for good or bad.

In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”

During the early days of the republic, the government relied mostly on tariffs to collect revenue, under the theory that since the rich bought most of the imports, they would pay most of the taxes.

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.”

Source: SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Business > Dean Calbreath -- 'Spreading the wealth' is nothing new to U.S. (http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/business/calbreath/20081026-9999-1b26dean.html)

Where people seem to get all up in a froth is when someone uses the word "fair" around the word "taxation". I do think you can justify some progressive taxation under the guise of fairness for a simple reason.

Those with more wealth stand to benefit disproportionately from many factors of which there's a large government investment, historic influence or public interest such as economic strategy.

Was that sufficiently nebulous? :hihi:

This could be items like infrastructure or public defense (i.e. without the US taxpayer subsidizing safe shipping lanes through defense appropriations we couldn't have maintained our economic might behind most of our wealth) or the argument of equal opportunity (i.e. those born with less means may never be able to gain an equal footing with those who do) that might leverage taxpayer money for education. Certainly this one is a slippery slope. (and then some).

So the logical counter argument would be that the same could be funded (if deemed desirable and/or Constitutional) via flat taxation vs a progressive system.

I might be inclined to think that we already have a flat tax on average. There are so many incentives available primarily to those who have wealth which acts as an offset to the progressive rates. I've read that under a flat tax most individuals would still pay about the same, and also that most flat tax proposals aren't really perfectly flat.

Ultimately, I do believe that a balance between trickle down and trickle up economics creates a natural convection and is sound economic policy.

So the answer might actually be fairness after all. Is this to open to be considered a guiding principal? Perhaps, but take anything to it's extreme and it breaks...even individual liberty.

-spence

Editors note: I didn't bother to catch up on this entire thread, but just picked a post at random to respond to. If any of these items have been discussed at length, you have my apologies in advance.

Quote:
In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce (why isn't this in quotes?) “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of (why isn't this in quotes?) “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” huge lib talking point...google it

Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to (why isn't this in quotes?) “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”

During the early days of the republic, the government relied mostly on tariffs to collect revenue, under the theory that since the rich bought most of the imports, they would pay most of the taxes.

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.

[/I]


As Jefferson also said, "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

And then everyone got gubbermint handouts.
yay!

As Jefferson also said, "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
I'm not asserting that Jefferson was a socialist, simply, that this isn't as clear cut an issue as it may seem.

Also, you forgot to close your end quote.

-spence

I'm not asserting that Jefferson was a socialist, simply, that this isn't as clear cut an issue as it may seem.

Also, you forgot to close your end quote.

-spence

who said you were asserting that Jefferson was a socialist?

here's how your author might have used the quote:

As Jefferson also frequently said, it would be sensible to use the power of government and creation of laws "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill".

it's never clear cut is it?

“The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied,” Jefferson wrote in 1811. “The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, will pay nothing. (With) our revenues applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings."


It is apparent that our forefathers expected a certain amount of industry, with reference to a man living off what he makes himself and later on without being called on to a spend a cent from his earnings which implies a certain amount of personal responsibility to provide for yourself and your family.

"raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort"

I wonder if the founders envisioned gimme girls in flannel pajama bottoms talking on the latest I Phones at TJ Maxx pushing government provided baby strollers full of kids with expensive sneakers born out of wedlock with government provided healthcare soon to be housed in government funded daycare...then pre- school...and eventually public school with government provided breakfast and lunch at a cost of somewhere between 15 and 25 grand a year and in many cases flunking out before reaching graduation to start the whole cycle again while mom, or by this time, grandma stays home in her government subsidized apartment with goverment subsidized utilities figuring out new ways to work the system with the help of "advocates" for the poor...

"raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort"

I wonder if the founders envisioned gimme girls in flannel pajama bottoms talking on the latest I Phones at TJ Maxx pushing government provided baby strollers full of kids with expensive sneakers born out of wedlock with government provided healthcare soon to be housed in government funded daycare...then pre- school...and eventually public school with government provided breakfast and lunch at a cost of somewhere between 15 and 25 grand a year and in many cases flunking out before reaching graduation to start he whole cycle again while mom, or by this time, grandma stays home in her government subsidized apartment with goverment subsidized utilities figuring out new ways to work the system with the help of "advocates" for the poor...

That's the way the voters grow!

[QUOTE=spence;819694]Here's an interesting read. This does paint a picture of our Founding Fathers behaving like thoughtful people and not strictly adhering to an absolute. While natural law still rules, we are a bit unique in that humans have the ability to temporarily distort it's fabric to suit our interests...for good or bad.

One can be thoughtful and strictly adhere to an absolute--as did the founders in their declaration that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights--even as you do by saying that natural law still rules--even also by saying that we humans are (absolutely?) "a bit unique."

Whatever "distortion" of natural law may be seen as "good" will probably prove, over time and nature's evolution, to be a dead end strategy because to be outside of nature is not to exist. All things, even ideas, are a part of nature/human nature. Good ideas, if followed can bear good fruit, and bad ones die of rot. When "our interests" create conflict and oppression among individuals and suppress unalienable rights, revolution will eventually occur.

And, yes, the founders did not all agree on all particulars. Certainly they reflected on many things including wealth "inequity." And there are quotes by some that differ with those you cite. But in the final agreed upon document there was no provision for nor any power granted to the Federal Gvt. for a direct tax on the people except it be proportional among the states by census. What they also agreed upon, was that excessive taxation was wrong--an oppression of unalienable rights and cause for revolution. When I ask for a guiding principle for graduated taxation, I am not arguing for NO gradation, but for a principle that not only justifies it, but eliminates arbitrary power--especially that ability to tax more than is not only necessary, but that goes beyond what is the domain of the Central Government.

The founders would not look in favor on how the Federal Gvt. expanded the commerce and welfare clauses, the unjust expansion of the principal of eminent domain, the lawmaking by admisnistrative agencies such as the EPA, the FDA, etc., racial preferances, on and on, and the near absolute power the Fed Gvt. now has rather than the limited power that was enumerated in the Constitution, and the power to directly tax the people to fund "programs" that were not intended as federal responsibilities. These have helped the Fed. Gvt to create an economic albatross around our neck with its profligate deficit spending on programs undreamed of by the founders.

Jefferson believed the National Debt should not be passed on to future generations and shouldn't last for more than 19 years and any debt that was unpaid after that should be extinguished.

Where people seem to get all up in a froth is when someone uses the word "fair" around the word "taxation". I do think you can justify some progressive taxation under the guise of fairness for a simple reason.

Those with more wealth stand to benefit disproportionately from many factors of which there's a large government investment, historic influence or public interest such as economic strategy.

Was that sufficiently nebulous? :hihi:

To say that the rich profit or gain more from the system is to overlook that it is their effort that makes the system work and that creates the wealth. To create a system that depends on the initiative and labor of its citizens in order to function and then punishes achievers by leveling their rewards to approach those whose talent and diligence contributes and fulfills less of what the system needs is a contradiction. Fairness can be defined from infinite perspectives (which makes it "fairly" useless as a principle). One perspective being that it is eminently "fair" that those who are more greatly responsible for the creation of wealth are more deserving of its fruit.

This could be items like infrastructure or public defense (i.e. without the US taxpayer subsidizing safe shipping lanes through defense appropriations we couldn't have maintained our economic might behind most of our wealth) or the argument of equal opportunity (i.e. those born with less means may never be able to gain an equal footing with those who do) that might leverage taxpayer money for education. Certainly this one is a slippery slope. (and then some).

National defense is clearly a federal responsibility and is not a cause of the massive debt accrued by social programs that were not intended to be federal responsibilities. If the central gvt. would stick to funding what the founders intended, its taxation would not be the burden that exists and undisciplined, arbitrary tax schemes would not be necessary.

So the logical counter argument would be that the same could be funded (if deemed desirable and/or Constitutional) via flat taxation vs a progressive system.

I might be inclined to think that we already have a flat tax on average. There are so many incentives available primarily to those who have wealth which acts as an offset to the progressive rates. I've read that under a flat tax most individuals would still pay about the same, and also that most flat tax proposals aren't really perfectly flat.

No, none of the flat tax schemes is perfectly flat. They all seem to have a cutoff below which no Fed. income tax is paid. Some have a one or two tier level of rates. The main argument against flat tax is that the rich come out ahead. Of course, that is a circular argument since being rich IS being "ahead." If the purpose of taxation is not to fund necessary and appropriate expenditure, but to level differences in wealth, the incentive for wealth is reduced. The more you tax an activity, the less of it you will have. This runs counter to the progressive argument that the rich paying higher rates ensures the maintenance of the system that enables their success.

A flat tax already has the rich paying more on a proportional basis (which is what the Constitution originally required of direct taxation). Making higher earners pay higher rates with the fiction that it ensures the system that favors them is not only denying the greater need for the existence of wealth CREATORS, but it credits TAXATION as being more important for the well-being of the State than the actual dilligence and effort of its people. That rather than the PEOPLE, it is the STATE that is pre-eminent.

As far as what the founders preferred, they preferred a tariff to fund the Fed. Gvt. Tariffs are consumption taxes. Hamilton bellieved that consumption taxes were the preferred method of Federal taxation and that they have a built-in safeguard from becoming too high--if the duty is too high consumption will decrease thus decreasing gvt. revenue. So Gvt. will keep taxation to "proper and moderate bounds."

Ultimately, I do believe that a balance between trickle down and trickle up economics creates a natural convection and is sound economic policy.

So the answer might actually be fairness after all. Is this to open to be considered a guiding principal? Perhaps, but take anything to it's extreme and it breaks...even individual liberty.

-spence

That is sufficiently nebulous. But, whatever that "convection" is, it was originally intended to occur within the enumerated limitations of the Constitution. The Answer cannot be an arbitrary, undefined "fairness." Principles by nature are not nebulous. Individual liberty to the founders was not the extreme of anarchy. Obviously, by crafting a Constitution, they understood the necessity of government. What they intended was neither a society of misfits that trampled on each others unalienable rights, nor a central government that did the same.

I hate those "individual liberty extremists" :fury:

I hate those "individual liberty extremists" :fury:

:fishin:

Too much of anything can kill ya. I shouldn't have written so much, it's going to take me an hour to read all of this...

-spence

I'll make it easy for you...as usual, he kicked the crap out of all of your nebulous assertions :uhuh:

I'll make it easy for you...as usual, he kicked the crap out of all of your nebulous assertions :uhuh:
Ultimately it just comes down to the same thing...original intent vs some room for interpretation. Unfortunately I deleted my real response, but a few comments before I head to the airport...

Sure, people who take risks deserve reward, but we can't ignore that all fortunes are built on the backs of others. Without a system of shared sacrifice and effort there's no platform for wealth to be generated.

My remark about the US Navy patrolling the worlds oceans was in context of securing private economic interests proactively, not more traditional national defense.

I'm not sure the statistics really demonstrate that higher taxes will always inhibit investment. Yes, there are some mega-cycles where this has certainly been the case (i.e. the 1970's) but debating a few points here or there isn't going to make or break the economy. What's more important today is that we have sufficient taxation to reduce debt and a real plan to eliminate deficit spending as we're not likely to see strong enough economic growth this decade to do it on revenues alone. I don't think cutting taxes is going to be a magical fix, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. It does make for nice politics though...

In regards to tariffs, the situation is much different today vs then as the majority of commodity items people need to survive are imported. So we enter into trade agreements to artificially keep the prices low on a lot of our imports. You couldn't generate enough revenue to fund even a much smaller Federal Government under such conditions, and the global economy is here to stay.

I'd agree that the Founding Fathers didn't believe in excessive taxation, but remember, an antonym of "excessive" is "fair :)

-spence

Ultimately it just comes down to the same thing...original intent vs some room for interpretation. Unfortunately I deleted my real response, but a few comments before I head to the airport...

I haven't heard that there was supposed to be any "versus" in the Constitution. There were enumerated powers granted to the Central government and its branches, all other rights, expressed or implied belonged to the States and the People. There was not supposed to be a war, turf or otherwise between parts of government. The only original intent that matters is what was finally agreed to and written as law--not the various and differing intents that were argued by the different state delegates who sometimes wanted opposite things. The compromises that were necessary to keep, and make more perfect the bonds of union were the final draft--written plainly and briefly in order to AVOID the legal complexity that arises when laws and codes are so detailed and precise to minutely specific situations rather than in general to a whole field of like situations, that the codex becomes ponderous, unwieldy, and itself becomes an implication that new laws must then be drafted for every occasion not described. The powers granted in the Constitution were thus intended to be broad and sweeping, but, for the Federal Government, only WITHIN THE ENUMERATION and defined STRICTLY BY THE TEXT. There was no intent to "leave room for interpretation." What was written was direct, and meant exactly what it said. The error in the "interpretation" made by "activist" judges is that by "interpreting" the intent to make Constitutional powers broad and sweeping by drafting them briefly rather than in minute detail, is to see those powers as so broad and sweeping that they overflow out of the bounds of what was enumerated and given in a strictly expressed text to the Federal Government. For example, the Federal Government was given the power to "regulate commerce . . .among the several States." The text granting this power is very brief--a narrow description which must be precisely followed or else, if added to, will have lost its meaning, and will become whatever monster the "interpreter" wishes. The text grants the power to "regulate" commerce, not create or destroy it, and only commerce "among" (between) the States, not commerce within States (and that only to strengthen the bond between the States rather than having the commercial war that existed between the them), and, finally, to regulate ACTUAL COMMERCE, not ANYTHING else that MIGHT in even a remote way have ANY KIND OF AFFECT on any economic or commercial activity. But it was with this kind of broad NON-ENUMERATED or NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED OR DEFINED "interpretation" that the FDR packed Court "interpreted" the commerce clause, and the welfare clause, and other parts of the Constitution. And the Constitution became a tool that no longer limited the Federal Government, but gave it almost dictatorial power over our economic and social well-being--WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS INTENDED AS PROSCRIBED IN THE NINTH AND TENTH AMMENDMENTS.

Sure people who take risks deserve reward, but we can't ignore that all fortunes are built on the backs of others. Without a system of shared sacrifice and effort there's no platform for wealth to be generated.

"built on the backs of others" is one of those talking point, buzz word, phrases that invokes a slave/master relation rather than voluntary employment--and usually well payed employment. For the most part, the effort here is shared, and so is the "sacrifice." I'm not sure what the beef is. Right now, everybody seems to be screaming for jobs to be created, not for some slave master to get off our backs. The dispute about "sacrifice" seems to be that the wealthier you are the greater the rate of "sacrifice" you should endure--even though that would'nt have much effect on "the economy"--just for "fairness."

My remark about the US Navy patrolling the worlds oceans was in context of securing private economic interests proactively, not more traditional national defense.

Well, "traditional" national defense is about securing the "private" lives of this country. But any use of national troops to favor a particular interest over another would be improper. Unfortunately, political power has been wielded corruptly since the beginning. The answer is not to raise the tax rates on all in graduated steps just to make up for corrupt use of the Navy. The answer should be to root out and prosecute the corruption.

I'm not sure the statistics really demonstrate that higher taxes will always inhibit investment. Yes, there are some mega-cycles where this has certainly been the case (i.e. the 1970's) but debating a few points here or there isn't going to make or break the economy. What's more important today is that we have sufficient taxation to reduce debt and a real plan to eliminate deficit spending as we're not likely to see strong enough economic growth this decade to do it on revenues alone. I don't think cutting taxes is going to be a magical fix, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. It does make for nice politics though...

As you say "it does makes for nice politics though . . ." That's the only definitive thing you've stated in the above paragraph. All else is not being sure . . .not really demonstrating . . . not always inhibiting . . . sometimes does . . debating points here or there . . . not making or breaking the economy . . . having sufficient taxation . . . having a real plan . . . not likely to see . . . I don't think . . . a lot more complicated . . . None of this creates or states a principle that requires graduated rates of taxation, nor, especially, creates a fixed standard for those rates so "business" can plan with certaintly.

In regards to tariffs, the situation is much different today vs then as the majority of commodity items people need to survive are imported. So we enter into trade agreements to artificially keep the prices low on a lot of our imports. You couldn't generate enough revenue to fund even a much smaller Federal Government under such conditions, and the global economy is here to stay.

The point was that tariffs are consumption taxes. There are proposed schemes for consumption taxes other than tariffs--e.g. the National sales tax.

I'd agree that the Founding Fathers didn't believe in excessive taxation, but remember, an antonym of "excessive" is "fair :)

-spence

Fair is a nebulous antonym of excessive, in this case. An opposite of excessive would be deficient or not enough. The opposite of "fair" would be "unfair." The problem with fair or unfair, as I've stated before, is that without defined parameters, "fair" is useless.