PDA

View Full Version : Obamanomics in practice



voiceoflg
10-27-2008, 12:16 PM
I got the following e-mail from a friend of mine who swears it is true...


Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" pin, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I 've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Not a bad idea to try.

Goldwater
10-27-2008, 12:23 PM
I got the following e-mail from a friend of mine who swears it is true...

Not a bad idea to try.

Ouch, and you get to help homeless people, everyone wins! Except Obama supporters of course.

afterim
10-27-2008, 09:43 PM
What would really happen?
While you were contemplating giving the tip to the bum, some prematurely released convict entered the establishment and killied three people, wounding six, before running away with several hundred dollars and half a pie.
Normally, two people inside the restaraunt would have been carrying legal firearms, giving them a chance to survive and save their lives.

But in Obamaland, their second ammendment rights had been restricted to the point of uselessness.

The convict then used the money on two prostitutes, one of which was never seen again...along with the pie.

cowbell
10-27-2008, 11:40 PM
This is a naive view of Obama's tax scheme. The waiter makes little money and presumably relies upon his tips for essentials such as paying rent, buying gas, and eating. Taking ten dollars away from him has a very high opportunity cost; namely he may not be able to afford rent next month. However, Obama's plan is to very slightly increase taxes for Americans in the highest income bracket. I do not claim that this will come without a cost. The idea is that the opportunity cost of taxation is much lower for the wealthy than the poor. The same $10 tax that was painful for the waiter would mean nothing to most of the population of Beverly Hills.

Classical economics states that whenever any sort of tax is levied there is an opportunity cost (as described for the waiter). This means that taxation essentially makes some social welfare evaporate into thin air, lowering the overall happiness of society.

Obama's (and many others') liberal economic theory focuses on the fact that, while the market is extremely efficient at maximizing the amount of welfare (read "money") produced by society, it is virtually impossible to predict where that welfare will end up. In other words, the market is a poor distributor. Therefore, perhaps it is worth having a slightly reduced GNP in order to have less poverty (along with less crime and other social ills which are likely caused by poverty). Furthermore the loss of welfare can be reduced by collecting the money with the least opportunity cost, such as Paris Hilton's endowment.

AmPat
10-28-2008, 03:11 AM
IF and or when Uhh-BAMA is elected, his tax plan will ensure many more of those homeless. Perhaps the waiter will be sitting beside him when Mom and Pops' restaurant close the doors.

marinejcksn
10-28-2008, 05:20 AM
Obama's (and many others') liberal economic theory focuses on the fact that, while the market is extremely efficient at maximizing the amount of welfare (read "money") produced by society, it is virtually impossible to predict where that welfare will end up. In other words, the market is a poor distributor. Therefore, perhaps it is worth having a slightly reduced GNP in order to have less poverty (along with less crime and other social ills which are likely caused by poverty).

No taxation without representation. What this plan advocates is The State to be the distributor because the Market has become a "poor distributor". This I argue good Sir, should be fought by each of us to the death. Once you let the Government in, you can never get them out. Government is never as efficient as the private sector, never has been or will be. I have a very real problem with people I've never met deciding they know what to do with MY money more then I do and then stealing said money from me to just piss away on some bloated social program.

You'll never solve poverty. You'll never solve crime. One thing liberal morons like Obama just can't seem to understand is that throwing more money at an issue almost never causes improvement. You can't give the impoverished welfare their entire lives and expect poverty to stop, it just wont happen. Urban minorities, particularly Blacks had lower levels of poverty before the Great Society programs of state welfare because government didn't subsidize laziness and you had to work to survive. Somehow modern politicans just can't grasp this concept, I guess they don't read books or something because I found the data rather easily.

cowbell
10-28-2008, 12:11 PM
First of all Ma'am, I am not a Sir.

That being said. I agree that the Government is never as efficient as the private sector. I believe that I stated so in my previous post. Indeed, the efficiency guaranteed by the market is, among many other things, one of the causes for the Western victory of the Cold War. This is the foundational idea of the free market economy proposed by Adam Smith.

You slightly misquoted me, however. I did not state that the market "has become" a poor distributor. Rather, I stated that the market is a poor distributor. This idea was presented by John Stuart Mill who showed that, though the market is highly efficient at the allocation of resources, it will inevitably produce highly uneven income distributions.

In fact, I bet that you agree that some redistribution of resources is required. If you want a standing military, police force, hospital funding, public transportation, and other services, taxation is required. Any form of taxation is by definition a redistribution of wealth. The only difference between Obama's tax scheme and McCain's is the fact that Obama wants to minimize the opportunity cost of taxation by removing capital from over-bloated pensions rather than increasing middle-class mortgages.

Goldwater
10-28-2008, 12:14 PM
Needs less cowbell. :D

AmPat
10-28-2008, 08:42 PM
First of all Ma'am, I am not a Sir.
In fact, I bet that you agree that some redistribution of resources is required. If you want a standing military, police force, hospital funding, public transportation, and other services, taxation is required. Any form of taxation is by definition a redistribution of wealth. The only difference between Obama's tax scheme and McCain's is the fact that Obama wants to minimize the opportunity cost of taxation by removing capital from over-bloated pensions rather than increasing middle-class mortgages.

I would put most of this into a well established Conservative idea of legitimate government function. Redistribution of wealth byy Liberal standards is handing somebody elses hard earned money to somebody else merely because they "need it and you have too much anyway.":cool:

afterim
10-28-2008, 09:53 PM
The government steals my money.
The government steals my rights.
The government steals my struggle and my hard won success.
The government insinuates itself into every aspect of my life. Or tries to...

The government is a giant, bloated , ineffective bureaucracy, and a poor arbiter of where my hard earned dollars should go.


The government does not know what I need
The government can not "even the playing field "
The government can not make me wealthy, it can only subsidize my poverty

The government can not make me happy

The government can not give me hope



A man who puts his faith in Government, put his faith in nothing.

A man who puts his faith in a politician only begs for disappointment.


Everything I have, that is worth a shit, came from my family, my friends and myself.

Hard work. Hard decisions. failure and ultimate success is what defines us.

It is the lesson we must teach.



Government which is restrained by the people, is Government which works best.

WE THE PEOPLE make this country work not the other way around.



People who wish to use the power of the State in order to bring "change" or "hope" to us should read out founding documents.

Therein lies the power to better your lives.

marinejcksn
10-28-2008, 10:25 PM
In fact, I bet that you agree that some redistribution of resources is required. If you want a standing military, police force, hospital funding, public transportation, and other services, taxation is required. Any form of taxation is by definition a redistribution of wealth. The only difference between Obama's tax scheme and McCain's is the fact that Obama wants to minimize the opportunity cost of taxation by removing capital from over-bloated pensions rather than increasing middle-class mortgages.

I apologize for the confustion Ma'am. That sketch is hilarious by the way. :p

The funding you speak of I don't consider a redistribution of resources as much as necessary taxation to keep this nation running. Redistributing wealth from one group of people to another is not needed or necessary to run our country. It's a tactic to make one "feel" good about themselves, i.e. "I don't have to volunteer my time to help those in need, because someone in the Government will do it for me."
:rolleyes:

cowbell
10-28-2008, 11:28 PM
I think we are agreeing. I think we agree that we need taxation.

If we're going to have a taxation, why not take the money from the place where it hurts people the least? Taxation will have an opportunity cost and will cause inefficiency, so if we all agree that we need those inefficiencies, then why not take it from a place where it minimizes the loss in social welfare? Capitol is a commodity that demonstrates decreasing marginal returns. So the idea is, you're a hobo on the street and someone gives you one dollar, and that means a whole lot to you but if you are bill gates and someone gives you one dollar, its not really even worth the time to reach down to the table and pick up that one dollar, as he probably made fifty billion dollars in that same amount of time. The more capitol you have, the less the next dollar is worth. So literally money is worth less to rich people than poor people. Therefore, if we collect more taxes from the rich we minimize the cost due to taxation.

Social welfare programs are a completely separate debate from taxation. And I feel that if I discussed them here, my post would be too long and no one would read it.

marinejcksn
10-29-2008, 12:49 AM
Yes we're in agreement. However our feelings on who should be taxed more differ. I can't stand behind Obama's plan to give tax "breaks" to lower income people when nearly 40% of people pay zero income tax as it is. Obama plays on people's hatred for Bush and desire for change to push his socialist tendencies and I don't buy it.

AlmostThere
10-29-2008, 02:43 AM
What would really happen?
While you were contemplating giving the tip to the bum, some prematurely released convict entered the establishment and killied three people, wounding six, before running away with several hundred dollars and half a pie.
Normally, two people inside the restaraunt would have been carrying legal firearms, giving them a chance to survive and save their lives.

But in Obamaland, their second ammendment rights had been restricted to the point of uselessness.

The convict then used the money on two prostitutes, one of which was never seen again...along with the pie.

:D That is hysterical. :D
It has been very difficult finding anything funny about this election season while thinking about that bastard being president in a few days. Thanks, I needed the laugh.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-29-2008, 02:52 AM
This is a naive view of Obama's tax scheme. The waiter makes little money and presumably relies upon his tips for essentials such as paying rent, buying gas, and eating. Taking ten dollars away from him has a very high opportunity cost; namely he may not be able to afford rent next month. However, Obama's plan is to very slightly increase taxes for Americans in the highest income bracket. I do not claim that this will come without a cost. The idea is that the opportunity cost of taxation is much lower for the wealthy than the poor. The same $10 tax that was painful for the waiter would mean nothing to most of the population of Beverly Hills.

Classical economics states that whenever any sort of tax is levied there is an opportunity cost (as described for the waiter). This means that taxation essentially makes some social welfare evaporate into thin air, lowering the overall happiness of society.

Obama's (and many others') liberal economic theory focuses on the fact that, while the market is extremely efficient at maximizing the amount of welfare (read "money") produced by society, it is virtually impossible to predict where that welfare will end up. In other words, the market is a poor distributor. Therefore, perhaps it is worth having a slightly reduced GNP in order to have less poverty (along with less crime and other social ills which are likely caused by poverty). Furthermore the loss of welfare can be reduced by collecting the money with the least opportunity cost, such as Paris Hilton's endowment.

Obama's tax plans WILL NOT reduce taxes.

Here is an analysis that breaks down the effect of Obama'a plan:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues082508.gif



But what's touted as tax-cutting (even assuming his plan didn't undergo a Clintonesque transformation) hides tax increases for the middle class. According to the American Enterprise Institute's Alex Brill and Alan Viard, "Senator Obama's proposed 'tax cuts for the middle class' are actually marginal rate hikes in disguise."

The reason: Obama's plan rescinds tax breaks as some taxpayers' incomes rise, reducing their incentives to earn more.

Using data from the Brookings Institution's and Urban Institute's joint Tax Policy Center, Brill and Viard considered the Obama plan's effect on a two-earner couple with one child in college and another age 12 or younger. Their marginal tax rates are between 34% and 39% in the $31,000 to $45,000 income range a 13 percentage point or more increase from current rates.

The increase happens because Obama phases out the child and dependent-care credit for one-child families in the $30,000-to-$58,000 income range. According to Brill and Viard, the effective tax rate increases by 3 percentage points, while making certain credits refundable triggers a tax penalty of up to 15%.

The same family earning $110,000 to $120,000 would suffer "a staggering 45% effective marginal rate . . . 11 percentage points higher than under current law," the AEI scholars say, because of changes planned for Bill Clinton's Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304297643560219



This study also ignores the fact that everyone will pay for the higher corporate taxes via higher prices on the goods they purchase.

marinejcksn
10-29-2008, 03:38 AM
Obama's tax plans WILL NOT reduce taxes.

Here is an analysis that breaks down the effect of Obama'a plan:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues082508.gif

This study also ignores the fact that everyone will pay for the higher corporate taxes via higher prices on the goods they purchase.

Don't forget though Constitutionally, Obama will lower taxes for 95% of American Families. :rolleyes:

The reason that egghead can say he wont raise taxes and not be lying is because when he lets the Bush tax cuts expire he's not technically raising taxes, he's letting existing cuts expire. Leftists love semantics. :mad:

cowbell
10-30-2008, 11:33 AM
Actually Obama is not lying when he says his plan will lower the tax rate for 95% of families. How can that be when the pretty graph posted above clearly shows the "Obama's proposal" line above the "current proposal" line at almost every point? The answer is that this graph does not show effective tax liabilities, but instead shows effective marginal rates of taxation (EMRT).

The EMRT is defined as

EMRT = (change in tax liability) / (change in income).

So the EMRT shows how much your tax rate goes up as you gain more money. This has very little to do with your effective tax liability which everyone in the world agrees will go down for 95% of Americans under Obama's plan.

The problem with a high EMRT is that it may decrease people's incentive to make more money (which some erroneously correlate with "working harder"). The idea here is that a raise of $60 will push you into a higher tax bracket meaning you only get $55. You turn down the raise because you were willing to take on the added responsibilities for $60 but not for $55.

I argue, however, that a person's incentive to make more money is based mostly on just that: making more money. I've never heard someone turn down a pay raise just because it was $55 instead of $60. Of course you take the raise because you still get more money!

marinejcksn
10-30-2008, 12:59 PM
I have very real problems with a tax plan when he claims he'll cut taxes for 95% of American families when almost 40% of the population pays....no....taxes. Enabling "tax credits" for people who pay nothing is not cutting their taxes, it's distributing welfare payments. He uses marxist tactics of class warfare to pull the drones along into hating the rich and thinking he cares about the "middle class". It's textbook Saul Alinsky, read Rules for Radicals and you'll see his every move telegraphed before it comes.

voiceoflg
10-30-2008, 01:39 PM
http://i.spotted.augusta.com/user/1/zoom/624121.jpg

Rebel Yell
10-30-2008, 02:58 PM
In fact, I bet that you agree that some redistribution of resources is required. If you want a standing military, police force, hospital funding, public transportation, and other services, taxation is required. Any form of taxation is by definition a redistribution of wealth.


One tiny difference, a standing military, police force, hospital funding, public transportation, and other services are for the common good. Actual welfare is for a few, I don't mind pating my share of taxes, I just have a problem paying mine and the crackhead down the street's share, then giving him a check from my part.

Rebel Yell
10-30-2008, 03:02 PM
which everyone in the world agrees will go down for 95% of Americans under Obama's plan.



Will it go down more than Bush tax cuts? If the answer is no, won't we see a real world increase in 2010 when the Dems repeal the cuts?

In my world if I pay xxx in taxes now, then pay xxxxxxxx in taxes in 2010, that is raising taxes. Even if it is repeal of a tax credit.

aerojarod
10-30-2008, 03:22 PM
One tiny difference, a standing military, police force, hospital funding, public transportation, and other services are for the common good. Actual welfare is for a few, I don't mind pating my share of taxes, I just have a problem paying mine and the crackhead down the street's share, then giving him a check from my part.


Exactly.

No one's complaining about paying taxes to run the essential parts of government that benefit the common good. Those on the other side of the fence are redefining words to insinuate that we are hippocrites for supporting "redistributing wealth" when it comes to the military or the FDA, but not for those indiividuals that "gosh darn just had a stroke of bad luck".

And let's clear one more thing up:

The 95% of small businesses that Obams promises to not raise taxes on only employ a small percentage of Americans that work for small businesses. It's the remaining 5% of "small businessess" that DO make over $250,000 a year and employ the majority of Americans that will get the tax increses, and will then have to make expense (job) cuts.

BadCat
10-30-2008, 03:32 PM
Exactly.

No one's complaining about paying taxes to run the essential parts of government that benefit the common good. Those on the other side of the fence are redefining words to insinuate that we are hippocrites for supporting "redistributing wealth" when it comes to the military or the FDA, but not for those indiividuals that "gosh darn just had a stroke of bad luck".

And let's clear one more thing up:

The 95% of small businesses that Obams promises to not raise taxes on only employ a small percentage of Americans that work for small businesses. It's the remaining 5% of "small businessess" that DO make over $250,000 a year and employ the majority of Americans that will get the tax increses, and will then have to make expense (job) cuts.

Don't forget all the "S" corps.
I have one and since its profits are added to our salaries and treated as gross income, Hussien will put me into his "rich" bracket.

I am responding by raising the rent on all of my properties next year if he is elected.

The renters can suck on it and I'll tell them who to blame.

cowbell
10-30-2008, 08:59 PM
Ok. Then someone give me a better tax plan. I would like to know what a better tax plan would look like to you guys. I mean, do you want a flat tax? You complain about the people who don't pay taxes, so you must want to see a flat tax implemented. And explain to me, please, how that makes economic sense.

marinejcksn
10-30-2008, 10:58 PM
Fair tax, bunded with slashing discretionary spending to the bone and permanently banning all earmarks. Followed by the abolition of Social Security and medicare over a period of years. :D

OwlMBA
10-31-2008, 02:25 AM
I got the following e-mail from a friend of mine who swears it is true...



Not a bad idea to try.

Dont know if anyone told you yet, but that is from a chain email about welfare that is probably 8 years old.

Lager
10-31-2008, 07:39 AM
It's an easy argument to appeal to broad emotion. Case in point: You take two symbolic individuals, one is a caricature of a super wealthy person like Buffet or Gates, the other is an example of a poor, struggling homeless person. It's then very easy to persuade a majority of people that a few dollars more taken from the first individual, would cause such a minor inconvienence and provide such a benefit to the second, that it's almost not worth thinking about any further.

Even a minor examination of any decent economics course would show that the argument is more detailed and complex than that. The least of the flaws in that way of thinking is the fact that there are very, very, very few people who are in the same league as Gates, or Buffet or Hollywood stars, pro athletes and music icons.

Tax cuts and tax credits are two distinctly different and seperately defined terms in economics. Ask yourself why the terms are being deliberately conflated in this election.

Cowbell, you are one of the few left leaning posters who actually debates and defends your liberal position instead of simply half-heartedly attacking a conservative one. Although I tend to disagree, I enjoy reading your well thought out and argued perspective.

marinejcksn
10-31-2008, 08:51 AM
Although I tend to disagree, I enjoy reading your well thought out and argued perspective.

I'll second that.

linda22003
10-31-2008, 10:04 AM
I got the following e-mail from a friend of mine who swears it is true...


It was in my email this morning too. It's just a piece making the rounds.

BadCat
10-31-2008, 10:40 AM
Ok. Then someone give me a better tax plan. I would like to know what a better tax plan would look like to you guys. I mean, do you want a flat tax? You complain about the people who don't pay taxes, so you must want to see a flat tax implemented. And explain to me, please, how that makes economic sense.

Yes, a flat tax. Everybody pays the same percentage, no matter how much you make.
It's only fair.

cowbell
10-31-2008, 11:30 AM
Hey thanks guys! I think it creates a much more productive space to debate and discuss rather than attack and call each other names like five year olds on the playground. I'm under the impression that this was the idea behind creating the CU in the first place, a site where people could come together and DEBATE. not reduce each other to four letter words and insults. So I really do appreciate your nice words.

Badcat, do you think you could elaborate a little more on WHY you think a flat tax is such a great idea? I mean, how does it make economic sense to you that a person making $35,000 should pay the same tax as someone who makes upwards of $150,000? And Marinejcksn, perhaps you could expound a little on why you would have medicare abolished?

BadCat
10-31-2008, 11:38 AM
Hey thanks guys! I think it creates a much more productive space to debate and discuss rather than attack and call each other names like five year olds on the playground. I'm under the impression that this was the idea behind creating the CU in the first place, a site where people could come together and DEBATE. not reduce each other to four letter words and insults. So I really do appreciate your nice words.

Badcat, do you think you could elaborate a little more on WHY you think a flat tax is such a great idea? I mean, how does it make economic sense to you that a person making $35,000 should pay the same tax as someone who makes upwards of $150,000? And Marinejcksn, perhaps you could expound a little on why you would have medicare abolished?

The same percentage. That is not the same amount. One of the numbers floated for the flat tax is 17%.
For someone making 35K, that is $5950. For a person making 150K, that is $25500. It effects both the same way, it is 17% of their income.

And BTW, I hate liberals, I'm just being uncharacteristically nice lately.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-31-2008, 12:04 PM
Badcat, do you think you could elaborate a little more on WHY you think a flat tax is such a great idea? I mean, how does it make economic sense to you that a person making $35,000 should pay the same tax as someone who makes upwards of $150,000?


That is simply not a correct statement. If both paid the same rate - say 20% the person making $35K would pay $7,000 in taxes while the person making $150K would pay $30,000 in taxes.

That is how it SHOULD be.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-31-2008, 12:09 PM
Ok. Then someone give me a better tax plan. I would like to know what a better tax plan would look like to you guys. I mean, do you want a flat tax? You complain about the people who don't pay taxes, so you must want to see a flat tax implemented. And explain to me, please, how that makes economic sense.


It makes MORAL sense first. It is what is truly fair. It makes ECONOMIC sense, because, instead of penalizing success with an increasing tax rate, the fruits of your labor and ingenuity are yours to keep. You have a greater incentive to increase your efforts and investments in the new products/facilities needed to increase your reward - this leads to more jobs for others.

BadCat
10-31-2008, 12:13 PM
It makes MORAL sense first. It is what is truly fair. It makes ECONOMIC sense, because, instead of penalizing success with an increasing tax rate, the fruits of your labor and ingenuity are yours to keep. You have a greater incentive to increase your efforts and investments in the new products/facilities needed to increase your reward - this leads to more jobs for others.

Let's not forget that it would also eliminate a large, expensive and incompetent government agency...the IRS.

patriot45
10-31-2008, 12:33 PM
Here is an even better idea! The Fairtax (http://www.fairtax.org/)

Go check it out. No way it will make it with the dims in power though.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-31-2008, 12:37 PM
The EMRT is defined as



I argue, however, that a person's incentive to make more money is based mostly on just that: making more money. I've never heard someone turn down a pay raise just because it was $55 instead of $60. Of course you take the raise because you still get more money!


The benefit is not really applicable to a wage earner because that wage earner will not have to expend any extra effort to get the raise. It would apply if the raise would require additional responsibilities or time away from home etc. The person would have to judge whether or not the additional 15 hours a week is worth the money of the raise. It is quite possible that raise will even LOWER his actual pay - if it puts him into a new tax bracket.

It applies to small businesses who will get hit with additional taxes. In order for THEM to make more money, they need to increase production or work more efficiently. It is HERE that the tax rates have their effects on jobs and the economy.

It also applies for someone considering leaving a job and risking his life savings to open a new business.

If the tax rates reduce the rewards of starting a business to only slightly more than a person could SAFELY make in his old job, the chances of that person leaving his job and starting the business are slim.

Same goes with investments in new facilities, if a business sees the rewards for capital investments eroded because of tax rate implications, that business will then have to judge whether or not the risk is worth the marginal and uncertain reward. The lower the potential reward, the less likely the new facility will be built.

Same goes for the venture capitalist - if capital gains taxes are raised, an investor is more likely to keep his money in safe investments instead of new technologies that are risky but potentially lucrative. If the degree of "lucrativeness" is lessened by tax rates, that money will stay in the safe industries and we will not see the advancement of new technologies. This has other implications - new cures for diseases may not be found, - cheap, clean and renewable sources of energy may never be developed - etc.

Constitutionally Speaking
10-31-2008, 01:31 PM
I think we are agreeing. I think we agree that we need taxation.

If we're going to have a taxation, why not take the money from the place where it hurts people the least? Taxation will have an opportunity cost and will cause inefficiency, so if we all agree that we need those inefficiencies, then why not take it from a place where it minimizes the loss in social welfare? Capitol is a commodity that demonstrates decreasing marginal returns. So the idea is, you're a hobo on the street and someone gives you one dollar, and that means a whole lot to you but if you are bill gates and someone gives you one dollar, its not really even worth the time to reach down to the table and pick up that one dollar, as he probably made fifty billion dollars in that same amount of time. The more capitol you have, the less the next dollar is worth. So literally money is worth less to rich people than poor people. Therefore, if we collect more taxes from the rich we minimize the cost due to taxation.

Social welfare programs are a completely separate debate from taxation. And I feel that if I discussed them here, my post would be too long and no one would read it.

I don't think anyone really disagrees that we need at least SOME level of taxation, and you are correct, the rich have enough money that they simply are not affected by taxes. It is not the rich persons welfare that is hurt by higher taxes on the rich - it is the poor.

As you said, the rich have enough money that is won't affect their lifestyle to any significant degree. What WILL be affected is WHAT will be done with that money if it is taxed vs what will be done with that money if it is not taxed.

First off, lets agree that there is a base level of taxes needed to meet the Constitutional requirements of govt and that these are met with or without this tax increase. What we are talking about is the comparative value of a tax cut vs a transfer payment - or have I misunderstood you?

If it is taxed it will be transferred to the government. The bureaucracy will absorb a portion of it and it will then go to the person in need. That person will have his basic needs met. Which is good.


If it is NOT taxed, it will be invested in industry which will create jobs for multiple people - including our person in need AND the govt. will have a greater pool of people to collect taxes from - enabling a lower tax rate which, in turn will spur more investments that create jobs.

This is what happened during the Reagan era and a significant percentage of the jobs we now have are traceable to the investments made more attractive, and thus possible, by the Reagan tax cuts. We are still benefitting from the technologies and industries that had their nexus in the money venture capitalists invested during the Reagan era.

marinejcksn
10-31-2008, 10:18 PM
Here is an even better idea! The Fairtax (http://www.fairtax.org/)

Go check it out. No way it will make it with the dims in power though.

Well said Patriot, it's what I'm in favor of. :D

With the abolition of programs like SS and Medicare I realise it's going to be a tough transition and take years. What I'm favor of is allowing young people like myself and the coming generations the option to "opt out" of these programs, with a reduced rate of their taxes being taken each check in agreement with a level of decreased benefits when it's time to cash out. I'm not naive, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that SS and Medicare will be long bankrupt before I'm of age to get benefits. We can either make the tough decision and deal with the huge mess FDR gave us now, or we can continue to lie and tell ourselves that it could work and in turn leave the problem for our kids and grandkids to deal with. I have no children yet, but I damn sure don't want to leave my little niece and nephew with all these commitments they'll have no way of paying for.

Troll
10-31-2008, 10:41 PM
Here is an even better idea! The Fairtax (http://www.fairtax.org/)

Go check it out. No way it will make it with the dims in power though.

Pretty much where I am. The FairTax is a great idea, but I don't think we'll get it under any Congress because it's giving away power which is something no politician will ever agree to, Republican or Democrat. You know the idea has legs though because Huckabee was campaigning on the FairTax, and he started winning states against McCain in the primaries.

For me, the biggest catch with the FairTax is the prebate idea. I understand the premise, but it's almost guaranteeing that the IRS will still exist in some form even if the FairTax passes. They base it on how many people are in your household, and 'someone' has to maintain a head count to make sure everyone's getting the correct amount.

However, I operate under the assumption that just about anything would be better than the current tax code, so I'm not opposed to a Flat Tax either. My biggest gripe with this is that I don't think the government should have the power to tax income at all. I say just repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and make things less complicated.

Goldwater
11-01-2008, 11:50 AM
Pretty much where I am. The FairTax is a great idea, but I don't think we'll get it under any Congress because it's giving away power which is something no politician will ever agree to, Republican or Democrat. You know the idea has legs though because Huckabee was campaigning on the FairTax, and he started winning states against McCain in the primaries.

I'd like to think Huckabee was winning southern states because of the FairTax, but I really doubt that was the reason.

Troll
11-01-2008, 12:08 PM
I'd like to think Huckabee was winning southern states because of the FairTax, but I really doubt that was the reason.

You might be right, but I'm sure the FairTax was a big part of it. When the Republican candidates started putting their names in the hat, the only ones I had ever heard of were Giuliani, McCain and Romney and I had Giuliani picked for the easy win.

After that debate, it was all over the news and talk radio the following morning. "Whoa, that guy we've never heard of mentioned the FairTax!" Granted, the FairTax has some pretty strong support in NC, presumably because Boortz is syndicated here, but I can't speak for the other states.

I can't help but wonder how Huck would have fared here had he stayed in the race long enough.

AmPat
11-02-2008, 03:02 AM
I'd like to think Huckabee was winning southern states because of the FairTax, but I really doubt that was the reason.
Why would you prefer that? If Huckabee was a good candidate for any reason, why would it matter what others liked about him? Unless of course there is a not so cleverly disguised bias against the dreaded "Christiansin your response.":eek::cool:

Goldwater
11-02-2008, 09:14 AM
Why would you prefer that? If Huckabee was a good candidate for any reason, why would it matter what others liked about him? Unless of course there is a not so cleverly disguised bias against the dreaded "Christiansin your response.":eek::cool:

No I'm just saying that support and enthusiasm for the FairTax may be much smaller than is being said here.