George Will's questions for John Kerry
Andy Asberry
mikee
in the upcoming election fight.
Mike Eberlein (give me Barbara, GW, then GH Bush for president, in that
order)
Andy Asberry wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41071-2004Feb13.html
Lane
"Andy Asberry" <andya...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2u6530958c4vncvkh...@4ax.com...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41071-2004Feb13.html
Any chance you can post the article here so we don't have to go through the
registration process?
Lane
mikee
By George F. Will
Sunday, February 15, 2004; Page B07
In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that
linger
despite, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:
Other than denoting your
disapproval, what does the
adjective mean in the phrase
"special interest"? Is the National
Education Association a special
interest? The AFL-CIO?
You abhor "special tax giveaways
for the privileged and special
interests." When supporting
billions in ethanol subsidies,
mostly for agribusinesses, did you
think about corn-growing,
caucus-holding Iowa?
Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym
for
"conservative"?
When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and
the
Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?
All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse
to pipe
down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them.
Often
they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the
government
for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging
that right?
You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners
paid
19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President
Bush
has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?
In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed
responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever
undone such aggression?
On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of
deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How
did
unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?
On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Persian Gulf War,
you
wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine
days
later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly
and
unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have
a
third position?
You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You
say that
as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American
patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a
patriot?
You strongly praise former Treasury secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports
NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade
(as you have changed your mind about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 2002 war
resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?
You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed
the
$87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?
In 1994, the year after the first
attack on the World Trade
Center, you voted to cut $1
billion from counterterrorism
activities. In 1995 you proposed
a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence
funding. Are you now glad that
both proposals were defeated?
You favor civil unions but not
same-sex marriage. What is the
difference? What consequences
of gay marriage worry you? Your
state's highest court says marriage
is "an evolving paradigm." Do you
agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have
a
right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then,
were
you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which
protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving
for a
referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man
and a
woman. How will you vote?
You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting
new
regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of
their
mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?
Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said:
"This bill
reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In
December
you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your
checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?
You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of
the
$6.4 million did you spend on speech -- in the form of broadcast messages?
Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary to defeat
President
Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is "too much money" in
politics,
are you appalled?
There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.
Tim Wescott
misquote of tax brackets, and are in violent disagreement with the numbers I
hear from more progressive sources.
It would be nice if the right and the left would actually try to cast the
debate in terms of how things affect me, my children and my (very
hypothetical) grandchildren instead of cherrypicking issues that are
flexible enough to be _really_ blown out of proportion and doing just that.
Oh well, enough of this, I'm off to listen to the next sound bite.
Ed Huntress
news:1035e2i...@corp.supernews.com...
> I saw that in this morning's paper. His tax numbers sounds like a serious
> misquote of tax brackets, and are in violent disagreement with the numbers
I
> hear from more progressive sources.
Yeah, I think Dr. Will pulled a little bit of a fast one here, implying that
the rich are paying more of their income in taxes. In fact, they're paying
less. And you don't need "more progressive sources." You only need IRS
statistics.
Will said: "You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1
percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3
percent. How much is enough?"
His figures are right as far as they go. But the tax rate on net taxable
income for the top 1% over those years dropped from roughly 28% to 25%,
while their total *share* of taxes increased as Will indicated. What that
means is that the top 1% got one whole hell of a lot richer during that
period. In fact, their percentage of income rose from about 5% of national
income to 9%. They're making almost twice as much money, relative to the
national average, as they were in 1979. And their tax rate declined as they
got wealthier. That's on *net taxable income*, remember. They do tend to
make a bit more than that in fact. <g>
I'm surprised at Dr. Will for playing this game. He doesn't usually go in
for that kind of stuff.
If you want to see these and some interesting, related figures, they're in
this IRS report:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03strudl.pdf
Check graphs B, C, and D. Remember to add the "top .1%" to the "top .1-1%"
wherever actual dollars are concerned. The two groups are reported
separately, and the "top 1%" doesn't include the "top .1%."
Ed Huntress
tonyp
"Tim Wescott" <t...@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote
> It would be nice if the right and the left would actually try to cast the
> debate in terms of how things affect me, my children and my (very
> hypothetical) grandchildren instead of cherrypicking issues that are
> flexible enough to be _really_ blown out of proportion and doing just that.
>
> Oh well, enough of this, I'm off to listen to the next sound bite.
Here's _my_ sound bite: Let's Privatize the National Debt !
You owe about $25K. I owe about $25K. Your wife: $25K. Each of your kids:
$25K. That's what the national debt will be, per capita, by the end of this
year. Now, maybe $25K per person is not that bad. Most of us have mortgages,
many of us have car loans, some of us have credit card balances, bigger than
that. But we have individual choice about those things.
The Republicans, who want to "privatize" Social Security, Medicare, education,
and practically everything else, on the grounds that "people make better
decisions about their _own_ money", will never suggest that maybe you should
have the same kind of choice about your share of the national debt as you have
about your mortgage, car loan, or credit card balance. Can you imagine why?
-- Tony P.
Glenn Ashmore
cut. For 95% of us (up to about $100K/year) next is the last year of
our tax cut. From there on out it is actually an increase. The top 1%
keeps getting more all the way to 2010. For a real eye opener check
out:http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
The same thing happened with the 2003 cut. Because it effected mostly
dividends and capital gains the vast majority went to the top 5% See
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0103.htm
Then there is the deadly Alternative Minimum Tax that is going to trap
more and more families in the $50-$100K range.
Ed Huntress wrote:
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
Glenn Ashmore
tonyp wrote:
> Here's _my_ sound bite: Let's Privatize the National Debt !
>
> You owe about $25K. I owe about $25K. Your wife: $25K. Each of your kids:
> $25K. That's what the national debt will be, per capita, by the end of this
> year. Now, maybe $25K per person is not that bad. Most of us have mortgages,
> many of us have car loans, some of us have credit card balances, bigger than
> that. But we have individual choice about those things.
>
> The Republicans, who want to "privatize" Social Security, Medicare, education,
> and practically everything else, on the grounds that "people make better
> decisions about their _own_ money", will never suggest that maybe you should
> have the same kind of choice about your share of the national debt as you have
> about your mortgage, car loan, or credit card balance. Can you imagine why?
>
That definitely won't work. That would be like having your dad pay off
all your credit cards without cutting them up.
Ed Huntress
<snip>
> What that
> means is that the top 1% got one whole hell of a lot richer during that
> period. In fact, their percentage of income rose from about 5% of national
> income to 9%. They're making almost twice as much money, relative to the
> national average, as they were in 1979.
Correction. The top 1%, if you include the top 0.1%, made around 10% of
national income in 1979. Now, it's around 18%. I forgot to add them
together.
Ed Huntress
Jim Stewart
I'd take you up on that. But only if I get a
perpetual, yearly tax break equal to the interest
on the amount that that I pay off.
tonyp
"Jim Stewart" <jste...@jkmicro.com> wrote
> tonyp wrote:
> > Here's _my_ sound bite: Let's Privatize the National Debt !
> I'd take you up on that. But only if I get a
> perpetual, yearly tax break equal to the interest
> on the amount that that I pay off.
But that's exactly what I'm proposing!
If we could agree (after much argument, no doubt) how much of the national debt
each of us should owe, the national debt would become 300 million individual
debts. The government budget would no longer include interest on the national
debt, because there would be no national debt. You'd have to pay less tax, but
what you save on taxes you'd have to pay as interest on your "privatized" share
of the debt.
The difference would be that you would now have a _choice_, just as you do with
your home equity loan: pay just the interest and keep carrying the debt, or pay
down the principal, or pay the whole thing off at once if you can afford it. It
would be _your_ choice. You would not have to make the same choice as me. We
would not have to vote on who should make the choice for both of us
collectivelly.
If Republicans really believe "individual choice" is better than "collectivism"
they should be jumping all over this "privatize the national debt" thing. But
they're just wusses :-)
-- Tony P.
tonyp
"Glenn Ashmore" <gash...@cox.net> wrote
> That definitely won't work. That would be like having your dad pay off
> all your credit cards without cutting them up.
You mean, the government would still be free to run deficits? Sure. Except not
so free as now, because every person in the country would be able to see for
himself, in his end-of-year "privatized debt" statement, how much his
"outstanding balance" increased as a result of the deficit.
-- TP
Jim Stewart
But it will never, ever happen.
Just like getting out of social security, the
people that can afford it and understand financial
planning would go for it, leaving no one to pick
up the debt from the poor and shortsighted.
Suppose dollar-wise, half the population opted
to pay off their portion of the debt. Those
people will be just the ones that you want to
keep in the system, people who make enough to
pay a substantial tax burden. Long-term, the
situation would probably get worse instead of
better.
Ed Huntress
news:4033002e$0$3082$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
>
> You mean, the government would still be free to run deficits? Sure.
Except not
> so free as now, because every person in the country would be able to see
for
> himself, in his end-of-year "privatized debt" statement, how much his
> "outstanding balance" increased as a result of the deficit.
Do we each get to print money, too? There's the ultimate "privatization" for
you. <g>
Ed Huntress
tonyp
"Jim Stewart" <jste...@jkmicro.com> wrote
> But it will never, ever happen.
Well, that's for sure. And the US government will never, ever default on its
debt. So, the "national" debt will always be there, demanding interest
payments -- like the flower in Little Shop of Horrors saying, over and over,
"Feed me!"
> Just like getting out of social security, the
> people that can afford it and understand financial
> planning would go for it, leaving no one to pick
> up the debt from the poor and shortsighted.
>
> Suppose dollar-wise, half the population opted
> to pay off their portion of the debt. Those
> people will be just the ones that you want to
> keep in the system, people who make enough to
> pay a substantial tax burden. Long-term, the
> situation would probably get worse instead of
> better.
Well, that depends how we divvy up the debt in the "privatization" scheme. If
we do it per-capita, you and Bill Gates each owe $25K. He can pay his share off
with his lunch money, while you barely manage to keep up interest payments on
yours. Only a few rabid Republicans would suggest that _that]s_ fair.
Most people would favor divvying up the debt in some progressive way. The
current tax code already sort of does this. In 2003, 7% of the federal budget
went to interest on the national debt. So, add up all the federal taxes you
paid last year -- income tax, FICA, cap gains, the whole shmeer -- and if it
came to $10K, then $700 of it was interest _you_ paid on the national debt. So
the tax code assigned you responsibility for whatever chunk of the debt
corresponds to $700 annual interest. If the interest rate was 5%, the tax code
is currently assigning you $14K of outstanding balance. Scale that up or down
according to your actual tax bill.
The national debt was recently $7 trillion, and Bush is fixing to add another
half a trillion to that _this_ year, so as to give both you and Bill Gates a tax
cut. That's an increase of one-fourteenth, so if your share of the debt last
year was $14K, it will be $15K next year. If Bill's share was $14M last year,
it will be $15M next year. For all I know, both you _and_ Gates consider that a
good deal, in return for the tax cut you each got.
But maybe one of you (and I make no presumptions about which one) would prefer
to use his own tax cut to pay down his own share of the debt, so as to save
_himself_ interest payments "annually, in perpetuity". If we believe that
choice is good in general, I say you and Bill Gates (and I) should have _this_
choice in particular.
-- Tony P.
tonyp
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote
> Do we each get to print money, too? There's the ultimate "privatization" for
> you. <g>
As a liberal, I am perfectly willing to let you print your own money, Ed.
I'm just not willing to sell you anything for it :-)
Seriously, I'm trying to decide, independent of political rhetoric, whether the
"national" debt is too big or not. Scaling it to human dimensions seems like a
plausible way to go about it. Hence my musings about "privatizing" it.
I had a run-in with Sean Hannity of FOX News last month at the NH primary. He
is certainly a prominent spokesman for the Right, and he mumbled the straight
party line: the debt is not the worst it's ever been compared to GDP. That was
in person. On the air, I notice, he has recently been paying lip service to the
notion that Republicans are spending way too much. So even the "fair and
balanced" folks are having a hard time with the debt question.
-- TP
jim rozen
>The Republicans, who want to "privatize" Social Security, Medicare, education,
>and practically everything else, on the grounds that "people make better
>decisions about their _own_ money", will never suggest that maybe you should
>have the same kind of choice about your share of the national debt as you have
>about your mortgage, car loan, or credit card balance. Can you imagine why?
Well, they're sure pretty fast about spending other people's
money! I think it's time to cut those spendthrifts off.
Jim
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Ed Huntress
>
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote
>
> > Do we each get to print money, too? There's the ultimate "privatization"
for
> > you. <g>
>
>
> As a liberal, I am perfectly willing to let you print your own money, Ed.
> I'm just not willing to sell you anything for it :-)
Well, we can all go back to barter, then. I'll give you two bushels of
rutabagas for one of your wooden ox yokes.
> Seriously, I'm trying to decide, independent of political rhetoric,
whether the
> "national" debt is too big or not.
It's too big.
> Scaling it to human dimensions seems like a
> plausible way to go about it. Hence my musings about "privatizing" it.
It's an interesting way to get people to think about it.
> I had a run-in with Sean Hannity of FOX News last month at the NH primary.
He
> is certainly a prominent spokesman for the Right, and he mumbled the
straight
> party line: the debt is not the worst it's ever been compared to GDP.
That was
> in person. On the air, I notice, he has recently been paying lip service
to the
> notion that Republicans are spending way too much. So even the "fair and
> balanced" folks are having a hard time with the debt question.
They're running into a conflict in their own philosophy. They're
conservatives, so they're supposed to be fiscal conservatives. But they're
beginning to notice that deficit spending produces the same contribution to
national debt whether it's the result of government spending or of tax cuts.
And, given that they have the presidency as well as the control of Congress,
they've awoken to the fact that they're the ones who are enacting both the
tax cuts and the new spending. So they're sort of hoist on their own petard.
The question of whether the debt is too large hinges on this (and I'm sure
you're aware of it, but sometimes it helps to put it simply into words): can
the stimulus provided by more additions to the national debt be great enough
to pay for the accumulated debt service? Most economics say, not in this
case, bubba. The Bushies say it can and it will.
It's not impossible. It just requires that our economy grow at rates that we
haven't seen in modern times, and that something doesn't break or implode
along the way. Conservatives normally would *never* bank on 5% or so growth,
because it would scare the spit out of them. To them, at least in their
traditional incarnation as conservatives, that's a rate (assuming it could
be achieved, which is another very big roll of the dice in itself) that will
lead inevitably to serious inflation, and there is nothing in history, even
our rather benign history of inflation control over the last couple of
decades, that suggests otherwise. The fact that we're currently letting the
dollar slide in order to take the political heat off of our official trade
policies adds to the problem, even while it's likely to temporarily boost
employment.
But to say that now would be heresy, because, having committed to big tax
cuts, the growth has to come in a big way or we're all screwed. Those
foreign investors who are buying US bonds are going to get antsy about
buying any more if the dollar's fall doesn't slow down in a real hurry. The
governments who are buying our 30-day Treasury bills are going to be less
enthusiastic about rolling them over unless we intervene on our own to halt
the dollar's slide. But we can't intervene before the election, or the
hiring may stop. Man, I'd like to have the Tagamet franchise for the US
Treasury Department. That guy Snow must be eating them like M&M's about now.
So all the chickens have been spanked and sent flying, and the RNC has its
fingers crossed that none of them will come home to roost before November
2nd. They're all going to be doing a Texas Two-step from now 'till then,
trying to scare those chickens away.
If and when it turns sour, we won't have to go back to living in caves, but
we'll have a big, leaden blanket hanging over our economy for a couple of
decades, which will make future growth very difficult and which will burden
the economy in other ways, as interest rates go up on the debt that's rolled
over. If you know how to dance, now would be a good time to warm up.
Ed Huntress
Gunner
wrote:
>In article <4032e272$0$3099$61fe...@news.rcn.com>, tonyp says...
>
>>The Republicans, who want to "privatize" Social Security, Medicare, education,
>>and practically everything else, on the grounds that "people make better
>>decisions about their _own_ money", will never suggest that maybe you should
>>have the same kind of choice about your share of the national debt as you have
>>about your mortgage, car loan, or credit card balance. Can you imagine why?
>
>Well, they're sure pretty fast about spending other people's
>money! I think it's time to cut those spendthrifts off.
>
>Jim
Coming from a member of the party that never met a tax they didnt
like..I find your comment absolutly fascinating.
Will you remember this the next time there is a Dem in the Whitehouse?
Gunner
"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas
Gunner
And what was their precentage of total taxes paid?
Ed Huntress
news:bhm630devtl08vpls...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:50:49 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> What that
> >> means is that the top 1% got one whole hell of a lot richer during that
> >> period. In fact, their percentage of income rose from about 5% of
national
> >> income to 9%. They're making almost twice as much money, relative to
the
> >> national average, as they were in 1979.
> >
> >Correction. The top 1%, if you include the top 0.1%, made around 10% of
> >national income in 1979. Now, it's around 18%. I forgot to add them
> >together.
> >
> >Ed Huntress
> >
> And what was their precentage of total taxes paid?
Read the thread, Gunner. That's what I was responding to.
Note that their tax rate is the lowest in modern times. George Will's
comment reflects the fact that they're making roughly twice as much,
relative to the average, than they were in 1979.
Ed Huntress
Glenn Ashmore
Gunner wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:50:49 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>What that
>>>means is that the top 1% got one whole hell of a lot richer during that
>>>period. In fact, their percentage of income rose from about 5% of national
>>>income to 9%. They're making almost twice as much money, relative to the
>>>national average, as they were in 1979.
>>
>>Correction. The top 1%, if you include the top 0.1%, made around 10% of
>>national income in 1979. Now, it's around 18%. I forgot to add them
>>together.
>>
>>Ed Huntress
>>
>
> And what was their precentage of total taxes paid?
>
To summarize for those who can't remember facts that conflict with their
ideology:
In 1979 the top 1% earned 9.58% of the money and paid 19.75% of the tax.
In 2001 the top 1% earned 18.53% of the money and paid 36.3% of the tax.
So while there share of tax did go up 83%, their share of the earnings
went up 93%. If the top 1% were contributing at the same level they were
in 1979 their share of the tax would have been 38.2%. So Mr. Wills
statement is at best a gross misrepresentation.
Ed Huntress
news:jJJYb.2730$23.1803@lakeread04...
> >
>
> To summarize for those who can't remember facts that conflict with their
> ideology:
> In 1979 the top 1% earned 9.58% of the money and paid 19.75% of the tax.
> In 2001 the top 1% earned 18.53% of the money and paid 36.3% of the tax.
> So while there share of tax did go up 83%, their share of the earnings
> went up 93%. If the top 1% were contributing at the same level they were
> in 1979 their share of the tax would have been 38.2%. So Mr. Wills
> statement is at best a gross misrepresentation.
>
> --
> Glenn Ashmore
Thank you. It gets tiring to be the only statistician on the job. <g>
Ed Huntress
Glenn Ashmore
Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> Thank you. It gets tiring to be the only statistician on the job. <g>
>
There are three kinds of liars. Liars, Damned Liars and
Neo-conservative statisticians. :-)
OTOH, the rabid left has their share of statisticians too and both sides
try to hide the source data. Sometimes, especially when doing research
on the web, to figure out the truth you have to plot both sides and
examine the mean. :-)
It is no wonder why those of us trying to figure out what is really
happening feel so isolated.
Peter Reilley
That is a great idea. The government would send you a note for $25,000.
It would have an interest associated with it. You could just pay the
interest
and that portion of the principle due according to the term of the note.
You
could pay it down faster if you chose. You could pay it off completely.
If you didn't pay they would come and take your car or kick you out of your
house.
It would be just like any other loan. That would surely focus the average
Americans mind on the true nature of the national debt.
Oh yea, each year you would receive another note reflecting that years
additional
debt.
Pete.
Peter Reilley
I am with you on that one. I bet my printing press is faster than yours!
;-)
Pete.
Ed Huntress
>
>
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Thank you. It gets tiring to be the only statistician on the job. <g>
> >
>
> There are three kinds of liars. Liars, Damned Liars and
> Neo-conservative statisticians. :-)
>
> OTOH, the rabid left has their share of statisticians too and both sides
> try to hide the source data. Sometimes, especially when doing research
> on the web, to figure out the truth you have to plot both sides and
> examine the mean. :-)
>
> It is no wonder why those of us trying to figure out what is really
> happening feel so isolated.
At least we have a lot of source material on the Web now. When I did
import/export machine-tool studies in the early '80s, I'd have to pack off
to the New York City library and spend a day -- sometimes two or three
days -- requesting government printouts at the reference desk, and then
pouring over them with a calculator and a notepad. It was exhausting to do
what I can do in ten or fifteen minutes now.
As always, though, a lot of people like their information pre-digested, and
they won't go to the sources. So there's a never-ending stream of bullshit
to contend with. The Web has made it a lot easier for the b.s.'ers, too. <g>
Ed Huntress
Glenn Ashmore
Peter Reilley wrote:
> That is a great idea. The government would send you a note for $25,000.
> It would have an interest associated with it. You could just pay the
> interest
> and that portion of the principle due according to the term of the note.
> You
> could pay it down faster if you chose. You could pay it off completely.
> If you didn't pay they would come and take your car or kick you out of your
> house.
> It would be just like any other loan. That would surely focus the average
> Americans mind on the true nature of the national debt.
>
> Oh yea, each year you would receive another note reflecting that years
> additional
> debt.
The really rich would pay it off immediately out of their kids'
allowance while the rest of us are sattled with interest payments for
the rest of our lives and then pass the debt on to our kids when we die
doubling or trippling the debt they have to pay interest on.
Of course, the interest, not being for a home mortgage, would not be
deductable.
Richard J Kinch
> Do we each get to print money, too?
Yes, Ed, although it's called a "check". Or any other negotiable credit
instrument you care to name.
Ed Huntress
news:Xns9493956D557...@216.196.97.131...
That's no fun, and it's nothing like what the government gets to do. It can
just print money all day long, buy things with it, and then forget all about
it. <g>
Ed Huntress
Gunner
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:bhm630devtl08vpls...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:50:49 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> What that
>> >> means is that the top 1% got one whole hell of a lot richer during that
>> >> period. In fact, their percentage of income rose from about 5% of
>national
>> >> income to 9%. They're making almost twice as much money, relative to
>the
>> >> national average, as they were in 1979.
>> >
>> >Correction. The top 1%, if you include the top 0.1%, made around 10% of
>> >national income in 1979. Now, it's around 18%. I forgot to add them
>> >together.
>> >
>> >Ed Huntress
>> >
>> And what was their precentage of total taxes paid?
>
>Read the thread, Gunner. That's what I was responding to.
>
Evidently Im only getting parts of the thread. So again, what is the
total percentage of the gross taxes paid by the nation as a whole,
does the Rich, pay?
>Note that their tax rate is the lowest in modern times. George Will's
>comment reflects the fact that they're making roughly twice as much,
>relative to the average, than they were in 1979.
>
>Ed Huntress
>
I didnt ask how much they made, which is not germain, except to a
socialist. How much of the tax burden did they pay?
Gunner
wrote:
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:50:49 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>What that
>>>>means is that the top 1% got one whole hell of a lot richer during that
>>>>period. In fact, their percentage of income rose from about 5% of national
>>>>income to 9%. They're making almost twice as much money, relative to the
>>>>national average, as they were in 1979.
>>>
>>>Correction. The top 1%, if you include the top 0.1%, made around 10% of
>>>national income in 1979. Now, it's around 18%. I forgot to add them
>>>together.
>>>
>>>Ed Huntress
>>>
>>
>> And what was their precentage of total taxes paid?
>>
>
>To summarize for those who can't remember facts that conflict with their
>ideology:
>In 1979 the top 1% earned 9.58% of the money and paid 19.75% of the tax.
>In 2001 the top 1% earned 18.53% of the money and paid 36.3% of the tax.
>So while there share of tax did go up 83%, their share of the earnings
>went up 93%. If the top 1% were contributing at the same level they were
>in 1979 their share of the tax would have been 38.2%. So Mr. Wills
>statement is at best a gross misrepresentation.
So then only 1% of the population is shouldering 36.3% of the total
tax load?
Seems a bit unfair, doesnt it?
tonyp
"Glenn Ashmore" <gash...@cox.net> wrote
> The really rich would pay it off immediately out of their kids'
> allowance while the rest of us are sattled with interest payments for
> the rest of our lives and then pass the debt on to our kids when we die
> doubling or trippling the debt they have to pay interest on.
>
> Of course, the interest, not being for a home mortgage, would not be
> deductable.
Glenn, I'm sure you recognize that my battle-cry to "Privatize the National
Debt!" is partly a sarcastic put-down of those Republicans who pretend that
privatization is the answer to everything.
But it's also, partly, a serious attempt to raise precisely the question you
implicitly ask: how do we decide who owes how much? As you say, the rich would
be _delighted_ to divvy up the debt per-capita. But their not-so-rich
ideological allies (say, our friend Gunner) might have second thoughts.
If not per-capita, then how? As I said in another post, the tax code assigns
each of us a share of the national debt now, by default. Maybe this default
assignment is "fair". The Bushies don't think so, of course. In pushing tax
cuts for the rich, they are really saying "The old tax code was assigning too
much of the debt to the rich."
Incidentally, think about this: the national debt consists of government bonds,
which are mostly owned by people rich enough to buy government bonds. It's
_those_ people who _collect_ the interest that all of us together are paying.
-- Tony P.
tonyp
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote
> So then only 1% of the population is shouldering 36.3% of the total
> tax load?
>
> Seems a bit unfair, doesnt it?
Sure. _You_ should be paying more instead :-)
-- TP
Jonathan Curley
> To summarize for those who can't remember facts that conflict with their
> ideology:
> In 1979 the top 1% earned 9.58% of the money and paid 19.75% of the tax.
> In 2001 the top 1% earned 18.53% of the money and paid 36.3% of the tax.
> So while there share of tax did go up 83%, their share of the earnings
> went up 93%. If the top 1% were contributing at the same level they were
> in 1979 their share of the tax would have been 38.2%. So Mr. Wills
> statement is at best a gross misrepresentation.
And that's bad because...?
-Jon
jim rozen
>Coming from a member of the party that never met a tax they didnt
>like..I find your comment absolutly fascinating.
You have me mistaken for a Republican sir! I am
a card carrying member of the "Balanced Budget
Political Party!"
Not those "Tax and Spend and Raise the Deficit"
scoundrels.
Gunner
wrote:
>In article <gem630prgooae6cpl...@4ax.com>, Gunner says...
>
>>Coming from a member of the party that never met a tax they didnt
>>like..I find your comment absolutly fascinating.
>
>You have me mistaken for a Republican sir! I am
>a card carrying member of the "Balanced Budget
>Political Party!"
>
So you have quit the Democrat party and have joined a splinter group?
I know there are a number of such forming was the Democrats eat their
own while their ship is sinking.
>Not those "Tax and Spend and Raise the Deficit"
>scoundrels.
>
>Jim
Good! I strongly suggest becoming a libertarian. Its a better class
of people.
Glenn Ashmore
Jonathan Curley wrote:
Where to start? In the context of this thread, Will deliberately left
out the reason for the statistic he quoted to make it look like the
richest 1% had a tax rate increase when actually it was a decrease.
That is a misrepresentation at best and closer to a bald faced lie.
Now to the question of is it right for the richest to pay a higher
percentage, that has been a fact of life of several hundred years.
Before there was income tax there was property tax and only the rich
owned property. And before that Lords had to raise and finance armies
for the King.
But the fact that they contribute a higher percentage of the total tax
collected is not really the point. The fact is, after the various tax
advantages available to them, the top 1% don't pay that much larger a
percentage of their individual total income than the rest of us.
There is also the problem of concentration of wealth. When wealth and
power get to concentrated in the hands of a very few at the expense of
the majority a society is on the skids. Democracy dies and at best an
oligarchy rises and at worst anarchy or dictatorship will follow. Look
at any South American economy. Look at ancient rome.
You guys complain about shipping jobs overseas but the concentration of
wealth increases the power of those who are doing it while the small
business owner who has created the most jobs over the past 50 years and
is not going to go offshore gets short end of the stick. If the current
trend to reward the rich at the expense of the middle class (that's us)
continues we will soon be on the way to making some combination of
Soylent Green and Roller Ball a reality.
Besides, I am not sure you guys really want an "equitable" tax
structure. If everyone paid at the same rate, your taxes would be at
least double what they are now. If the top 10% paid only 10% of the
taxes the tax bill for all the rest of us would just about triple.
jim rozen
>... I strongly suggest becoming a libertarian. Its a better class
>of people.
You call that "class?" I would vote that way if they
could get through the primary....
Larry Jaques
>In article <gem630prgooae6cpl...@4ax.com>, Gunner says...
>
>>Coming from a member of the party that never met a tax they didnt
>>like..I find your comment absolutly fascinating.
>
>You have me mistaken for a Republican sir! I am
>a card carrying member of the "Balanced Budget
>Political Party!"
Yeah, buddy!
>Not those "Tax and Spend and Raise the Deficit"
>scoundrels.
...on both sides of the congressional aisles.
---=====---
After all else fails, read the instructions.
---=====---
Website Design and Update http://www.diversify.com
Andy Asberry
Ed Huntress
> Evidently Im only getting parts of the thread. So again, what is the
> total percentage of the gross taxes paid by the nation as a whole,
> does the Rich, pay?
The top 1% makes around 18% of the (taxable) income and pays around 36% of
federal income taxes. Given their access to some sophisticated deductions,
they probably make closer to 25% or 30% of the income, if you measured it on
the same basis that the rest of us use. That part is debatable but there are
a lot of offshore banks and post-office boxes that seem to have something to
do with it. <g>
> >Note that their tax rate is the lowest in modern times. George Will's
> >comment reflects the fact that they're making roughly twice as much,
> >relative to the average, than they were in 1979.
> >
> >Ed Huntress
> >
> I didnt ask how much they made, which is not germain, except to a
> socialist.
Oh, boy, do they have *you* trained. What a good little boy you are. Onward,
Christian soldiers...<g>
--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)
Andy Asberry
wrote:
>
>
I can't pass up this opportunity to agree with you, Glen. As an
example, WalMart has done untold damage to the small businesses that
built towns where a WalMart could not survive. WalMart, Target and
K-Mart are the last discount stores around here. And K-Mart is
floundering. How benevolent will WalMart be when they are the only
game in town? I haven't been in one in over five years. Their
patriotic slogan "Buy American", or whatever it was, just really
pissed me when everything in the store came from South America or
Asia.
>
>You guys complain about shipping jobs overseas but the concentration of
>wealth increases the power of those who are doing it while the small
>business owner who has created the most jobs over the past 50 years and
>is not going to go offshore gets short end of the stick. If the current
>trend to reward the rich at the expense of the middle class (that's us)
>continues we will soon be on the way to making some combination of
>Soylent Green and Roller Ball a reality.
>
>Besides, I am not sure you guys really want an "equitable" tax
>structure. If everyone paid at the same rate, your taxes would be at
>least double what they are now. If the top 10% paid only 10% of the
>taxes the tax bill for all the rest of us would just about triple.
Exactly what we need! When the people get a bill for their share of
wastefulness in government, there would be revolt the first year.
I'm a fan of a national sales tax on everything except medical care.
Tax every dollar that is spent or leaves the country.
Ed Huntress
> >
> >To summarize for those who can't remember facts that conflict with their
> >ideology:
> >In 1979 the top 1% earned 9.58% of the money and paid 19.75% of the tax.
> >In 2001 the top 1% earned 18.53% of the money and paid 36.3% of the tax.
> >So while there share of tax did go up 83%, their share of the earnings
> >went up 93%. If the top 1% were contributing at the same level they were
> >in 1979 their share of the tax would have been 38.2%. So Mr. Wills
> >statement is at best a gross misrepresentation.
>
> So then only 1% of the population is shouldering 36.3% of the total
> tax load?
>
> Seems a bit unfair, doesnt it?
Well, answer this. Why is it "fair" that these people will now have their
long-term capital gains (gains from investments held one year or more), as
well as all of their dividend income, taxed at a rate of only 5%, or 15%,
depending on their bracket? And why, oh why, does that 5% drop to 0% in
2008? Hmm?
Meantime, any income we earn is taxed at much higher rates. Is fairness the
central issue to you? If so, how do you justify these changes to the tax
code?
Ed Huntress
tonyp
"Andy Asberry" <andya...@earthlink.net> wrote
> I find it strange there are no comments on the other 27 questions.
Oh, all right. Here's another of Will's questions:
In 1994, the year after the first
attack on the World Trade
Center, you voted to cut $1
billion from counterterrorism
activities. In 1995 you proposed
a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence
funding. Are you now glad that
both proposals were defeated?
Great. The cuts were defeated. The funding passed. Fat lot of good it did us.
Just because you _call_ something "intelligence" or "counterterrorism" doesn't
make it intelligence or counterterrorism. Shoveling money at the CIA is no
different than shoveling money at the public schools: what _results_ the money
buys you depends entirely on how the CIA or the public schools plan to _spend_
it. According to Will, the money was spent on "counterterrorism". Didn't work,
did it? Maybe Kerry was right to vote against wasting money on those particular
programs.
Incidentally, I have a question for George Will: back in 1984, did you or did
you not publish the column below?
America the Undertaxed, by George F. Will
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Ah, July: the fields are white with daisies. In January, I promised that not
"until the fields are white with daisies" would I again mention that we are, as
a nation, undertaxed. I now return to that topic because the inescapable need
to raise taxes raises this question: can Ronald Reagan really want to be
re-elected? If he faces facts --if he reads the numbers in the Wall Street
Journal -- he knows that in 1985 the President must hurry to restore the
government's revenue base. Reagan cannot be a Reaganite after 1984 ..."
-- Tony P.
Gunner
Hell Ed..Im a libertarian. I think the Government should be self
supporting.
However..how much of those folks investments provides jobs and goods
and services for other people?
Gunner
wrote:
>In article <vj38305hg88he7vuk...@4ax.com>, Gunner says...
>
>>... I strongly suggest becoming a libertarian. Its a better class
>>of people.
>
>You call that "class?" I would vote that way if they
>could get through the primary....
>
>Jim
You talking about the 9 stooges? They are Dems.
Libertarians: cranks, kooks, nutbars and all manner of other
interesting and freedom loving peoples. Beats the shit out of those
cookie cutter Republicans and Demonrats.
tonyp
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote
> Hell Ed..Im a libertarian. I think the Government should be self
> supporting.
What does "self-supporting" mean, Gunner? I know how a company like, say,
General Motors can be self-supporting, but General Motors doesn't have to
maintain a Navy, or answer to the voters.
-- TP
Gunner
wrote:
Read the Constitution. Its pretty specific as to how.
Glenn Ashmore
Gunner wrote:
> Hell Ed..Im a libertarian. I think the Government should be self
> supporting.
OK, here is your intrim bill for services rendered in 2003:
Highway use- personal vehicles 12,000 miles @ $.30/mile $3,600
Highway use- merchandise transport $1,500
Defence and security $2,900
Regulation of industries directly effecting your safety,
health and financial security $500
Police and fire protection $1,500
Education @ $6,500/child
Social services required to prevent riots and anarchy $100
Debt service on deficit incurred by Reagan and
GW Bush administration $$3,500
Total currently due $20,000
More invoices will be submitted when the OMB completes percapata cost
calculations.
Bray Haven
>
>Ed Huntress
Yep, no one wants to go dig through dusty archives anymore. They think all
they need to know is on the net. Only a tiny percentage is, and much of that is
selectively added to suit someones opinion. When I wrote for a living, I truly
enjoyed delving into an old library archive and finding something that shed new
light on a subject.
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>income for the top 1% over those years dropped from roughly 28% to 25%,
>while their total *share* of taxes increased as Will indicated.
Who cares if they made more money (net) if they doubled their share of the
total taxes paid? The nit pickers on this one are showing their true colors
:o).
Greg Sefton
Ed Huntress
> >> So then only 1% of the population is shouldering 36.3% of the total
> >> tax load?
> >>
> >> Seems a bit unfair, doesnt it?
> >
> >Well, answer this. Why is it "fair" that these people will now have their
> >long-term capital gains (gains from investments held one year or more),
as
> >well as all of their dividend income, taxed at a rate of only 5%, or 15%,
> >depending on their bracket? And why, oh why, does that 5% drop to 0% in
> >2008? Hmm?
> >
> >Meantime, any income we earn is taxed at much higher rates. Is fairness
the
> >central issue to you? If so, how do you justify these changes to the tax
> >code?
> >
> >Ed Huntress
> >
> Hell Ed..Im a libertarian. I think the Government should be self
> supporting.
>
> However..how much of those folks investments provides jobs and goods
> and services for other people?
Here's the irony: Now that they've doubled their share of the nation's
wealth in just 25 years, the top 1% turn around and say, "but we're the only
ones with enough capital to make the investments. Of COURSE you now depend
on our money. And, because you don't have enough in your pension funds, your
mutual funds, your accumulated puny, individual investments, your credit
associations, or your whole-life insurance funds anymore to make massive
capital investments, you should give us even more of it, so we can take care
of those investments for you and keep the economy rolling along."
That's what I mean when I say you've been well-trained. <g> They got their
deregulation and their tax cuts; they rigged the compensation committees of
corporate boards so everyone is scratching each others' backs and piling up
mountains of money through obscure mechanisms; they've cut the inheritance
tax (which only ever applied to the rich, anyway) so they can form dynasties
of wealth. So now the top, tiny fraction has more of the whole country's
wealth than ever in modern history. And they convince people like you that,
not only is this the natural course of events, but that it's the *virtuous*
course of events.
Welcome to the land of Doublespeak. Welcome to the puppet show.
How are your hedge funds doing, BTW? And how do you like your new
Gulfstream?
Ed Huntress
news:20040219092516...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Yes, that's a satisfying part of the work. As for the selectivity, that's
the very motivation of most of the people who "analyze" and publish
statistics. You don't see a lot of good analysis that I would call straight
journalism. Mostly it's coming from advocacy groups.
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
brought forth from the murky depths:
>Gunner wrote:
>> Hell Ed..Im a libertarian. I think the Government should be self
>> supporting.
>
>OK, here is your intrim bill for services rendered in 2003:
And they were (at least somewhat) paid via:
(top-of-my-head retorts)
>Highway use- personal vehicles 12,000 miles @ $.30/mile $3,600
Gas tax, state/fed income tax.
>Highway use- merchandise transport $1,500
Gas tax, weight fees.
>Defence and security $2,900
Income tax.
>Regulation of industries directly effecting your safety,
>health and financial security $500
Both wholesale and retail prices.
>Police and fire protection $1,500
My fire protection here in Josephine County is $124.17 annually.
I wrote the check yesterday.
>Education @ $6,500/child
Housing/construction permits.
>Social services required to prevent riots and anarchy $100
One might argue that overzealous police have more often
caused than prevented riots.
>Debt service on deficit incurred by Reagan and
>GW Bush administration $$3,500
Isn't that more like $35k?
>More invoices will be submitted when the OMB completes percapata cost
>calculations.
No doubt.
Ed Huntress
Who cares? Most people who haven't yet somnambulated into Heritage
Foundation drones. <g>
It used to be that the consensus in this country agreed that the very rich
benefited far more than average income earners from the institutions that
government enabled and regulated, including a banking and securities system
that was kept fairly honest; an educated populace of workers; protections
for their property and wealth; and so on. Then came Ronnie Reagan, and we
did a kind of flip backwards into old-world thinking, in which wealth was
equated with virtue, and the special treatment and special access that
accrued to wealth was dismissed and forgotten.
They've done one hell of a snow job on the population. The idea that taxes
for the rich should be reduced in the interest of "fairness" is the most
incredible example of self-delusion and suspended disbelief in modern
history. It didn't come cheap, of course. They built a very expensive
propaganda machine to make it all stick. And it's working.
Speaking of which, the word is that the guys down at Heritage could use a
few million extra for expenses. Why don't you write them a check? They're
doing good work, ya' know, getting the word out and all...
Ed Huntress
Glenn Ashmore
business and support itself. So the way they do that is to send out an
itemized bill for your share of the services rendered. (Plus a suitable
mark up for profit of course. This would be a business after all.)
The $3,500 for debt service is not to pay off the debt. It is just to
make this years payment.
Larry Jaques wrote:
--
Ed Huntress
> But Gunner doesn't want taxes. He wants the government to run like a
> business and support itself. So the way they do that is to send out an
> itemized bill for your share of the services rendered.
I think they should just run a big bake sale.
Ed Huntress
Gunner
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
>
>> Hell Ed..Im a libertarian. I think the Government should be self
>> supporting.
>
>OK, here is your intrim bill for services rendered in 2003:
>
>Highway use- personal vehicles 12,000 miles @ $.30/mile $3,600
.36 cents per gallon gas tax paid at the pump.
I drive in 3 states, so reimbuse me for the amounts spent on the other
47 states.
>Highway use- merchandise transport $1,500
Huh? Auto registration of $280 per year. Used in 3 states. Do I get a
rebate for the other 47 states?
>Defence and security $2,900
>Regulation of industries directly effecting your safety,
Unneeded.
>health and financial security $500
Which are?
>Police and fire protection $1,500
Paid via property taxes.
>Education @ $6,500/child
No children in school.
>Social services required to prevent riots and anarchy $100
See two up. And I supply my own arms and ammo.
>Debt service on deficit incurred by Reagan and
>GW Bush administration $$3,500
>
>Total currently due $20,000
>
>More invoices will be submitted when the OMB completes percapata cost
>calculations.
Article 1 of the Constitution
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all
duties, impos ts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the
subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and
fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and
current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas,
and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use
shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of
the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the
appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of
particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of
the government of the United States, and to exe rcise like authority
over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the
state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
department or officer thereof.
*********************************
See anything about OSHA? How about Interstate Hiways?
Need me to go on?
Ed Huntress
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:36:40 -0500, Glenn Ashmore <gash...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >More invoices will be submitted when the OMB completes percapata cost
> >calculations.
>
> Article 1 of the Constitution
<snip history lesson>
Gunner, I've told you many times before, but you won't listen. The answer is
simple. You aren't IN the United States of America. You're in California.
And we're considering selling the whole state to China. They're eternal
optimists.
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<hunt...@optonline.net> brought forth from the murky depths:
WHAT? And have the EPA after them for clean air infractions,
the Sierra Club for global warming, etc.?
Gunner
ROFLMAO!!!
Welll done.
Jonathan Curley
> Where to start? In the context of this thread, Will deliberately left
> out the reason for the statistic he quoted to make it look like the
> richest 1% had a tax rate increase when actually it was a decrease.
> That is a misrepresentation at best and closer to a bald faced lie.
statistic. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a lie...well no more that
a whole lot of other "statistics" one sees in the media. I would prefer
that, when a statistic like the above is presented by a newscaster,
commentator, etc. that it be followed by the assumptions and background that
went into producing the final result. Sadly, unlike the contributors to
this thread, most people don't what to see what goes into a number,
preferring to simply trust it as a fact an not realizing how mailiable some
information can be.
> Now to the question of is it right for the richest to pay a higher
> percentage, that has been a fact of life of several hundred years.
> Before there was income tax there was property tax and only the rich
> owned property. And before that Lords had to raise and finance armies
> for the King.
Just because something has been a fact of life for years does not make it
right. However, I don't believe the funding for those armies really came
directly out of the Lords' pockets. Didn't the Lords tax the people they
were lording over, presumably in exchange for protection, use of the land,
etc.? It seems the people who ultimately paid the bill were the peasant and
merchant/trade classes.
> But the fact that they contribute a higher percentage of the total tax
> collected is not really the point. The fact is, after the various tax
> advantages available to them, the top 1% don't pay that much larger a
> percentage of their individual total income than the rest of us.
Agreed, but I must ask again: That's bad because...? What I fail to see is
the nescessity to tax wealthier citizens at a higher percentage rate. Is it
punitive? Is it an effort to redistibute the wealth? Is it simply that the
wealthy have more money, so one can expect that more money may be taken from
them before they start complaining too much? Also, who is to set the cut
off for what constitutes "weathy" and who decides how much wealth is enough
for one person/family to have?
> There is also the problem of concentration of wealth. When wealth and
> power get to concentrated in the hands of a very few at the expense of
> the majority a society is on the skids. Democracy dies and at best an
> oligarchy rises and at worst anarchy or dictatorship will follow. Look
> at any South American economy. Look at ancient rome.
Agreed, as long as wealth and power are directly linked together, and that
wealth and power are gained at the *expense* of the masses. Neither of
these assumptions are nescessarily true, at least in the US.
> You guys complain about shipping jobs overseas but the concentration of
> wealth increases the power of those who are doing it while the small
> business owner who has created the most jobs over the past 50 years and
> is not going to go offshore gets short end of the stick. If the current
> trend to reward the rich at the expense of the middle class (that's us)
> continues we will soon be on the way to making some combination of
> Soylent Green and Roller Ball a reality.
Nowhere in the above writing have you shown/proven that the rich, in the US,
are being *rewarded* at the *expense* of the middle class. I doubt that
taxing the wealthiest 1% at a higher rate will do anything to stop the flow
of jobs overseas.
> Besides, I am not sure you guys really want an "equitable" tax
> structure. If everyone paid at the same rate, your taxes would be at
> least double what they are now. If the top 10% paid only 10% of the
> taxes the tax bill for all the rest of us would just about triple.
I don't think the conclusion that our (the middle class) tax rate would be
double what it is now is correct. I assume by tax "rate" you mean tax as a
percentage of total income. If, as you stated earlier, the wealthy are
paying taxes at pretty much the same rate as the middle class (which I think
is probably correct), then it sounds like we are already there. However, I
may be misunderstanding what you mean by rate.
-Jon
Richard Coke
> You're in California.
>And we're considering selling the whole state to China.
If you do that we'll cut off your pistachio supply and you'll have to beg Iran
for 'em.
Richard Coke
past resident of NJ (and a bunch of other places), present resident of CA
Ed Huntress
news:20040219212901...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >From: "Ed Huntress" hunt...@optonline.net
>
> > You're in California.
> >And we're considering selling the whole state to China.
>
> If you do that we'll cut off your pistachio supply and you'll have to beg
Iran
> for 'em.
That ought to crush our economy right there. <g>
Ed Huntress
Bray Haven
>> total taxes paid? The nit pickers on this one are showing their true
>colors
>> :o).
>> Greg Sefton
>
>Who cares? Most people who haven't yet somnambulated into Heritage
>Foundation drones. <g>
>
I don't give a hoot and feel that the opportunity to accrue wealth is part of
what stimulated this country & still does. Looks to me like they are paying
their way, along with operating business which produces jobs & taxes etc..
There will always be those "take from the rich & give to the poor" types.
Marx, et all would be proud of them :o).
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>the very motivation of most of the people who "analyze" and publish
>statistics. You don't see a lot of good analysis that I would call straight
>journalism. Mostly it's coming from advocacy groups.
>
>Ed Huntress
Exactly, which is why the net isn't (usually) the best place to research a
topic unless you factor in the source constantly.
Greg Sefton
Bray Haven
>
A skeptical mind is a constant comfort :o).
Greg Sefton
patlandy
>>
>>> To summarize for those who can't remember facts that conflict with their
>>> ideology:
>>> In 1979 the top 1% earned 9.58% of the money and paid 19.75% of the tax.
>>> In 2001 the top 1% earned 18.53% of the money and paid 36.3% of the tax.
>>> So while there share of tax did go up 83%, their share of the earnings
>>> went up 93%. If the top 1% were contributing at the same level they were
>>> in 1979 their share of the tax would have been 38.2%. So Mr. Wills
>>> statement is at best a gross misrepresentation.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Where to start? In the context of this thread, Will deliberately left
> out the reason for the statistic he quoted to make it look like the
> richest 1% had a tax rate increase when actually it was a decrease. That
> is a misrepresentation at best and closer to a bald faced lie.
>
> percentage, that has been a fact of life of several hundred years.
> Before there was income tax there was property tax and only the rich
> owned property. And before that Lords had to raise and finance armies
> for the King.
>
> collected is not really the point. The fact is, after the various tax
> advantages available to them, the top 1% don't pay that much larger a
> percentage of their individual total income than the rest of us.
>
> power get to concentrated in the hands of a very few at the expense of
> the majority a society is on the skids. Democracy dies and at best an
> oligarchy rises and at worst anarchy or dictatorship will follow. Look
> at any South American economy. Look at ancient rome.
>
> wealth increases the power of those who are doing it while the small
> business owner who has created the most jobs over the past 50 years and
> is not going to go offshore gets short end of the stick. If the current
> trend to reward the rich at the expense of the middle class (that's us)
> continues we will soon be on the way to making some combination of
> Soylent Green and Roller Ball a reality.
>
> structure. If everyone paid at the same rate, your taxes would be at
> least double what they are now. If the top 10% paid only 10% of the
> taxes the tax bill for all the rest of us would just about triple.
>
approx $10,000 per student per year, one person on "assistance"
(housing, earned income tax credit, food stamps, medicaid etc...) costs
a minimum of $12,000 per year, in addition there are Police, Fire, local
gov , roads, bridges etc.... The people whining about the "Rick"
getting the "Tax Cuts" are ususally the people who don't pay enough
taxes to even pay the amount spent to educate one of their children.
Where the heck do these people think that other money comes from? The
government can't spend money unless they first "take it" from it's
citizens, or obligates it's citizens to pay back loans it takes out to
get the money to spend . The national sales tax would be the "fair" tax
system that would produce jobs, and tax people on what they "spend", not
what they earn..... people would not be "punished" for creating jobs and
wealth...... The politicians would be the only "losers"....
Pat Landy
Ed Huntress
> >share of the
> >> total taxes paid? The nit pickers on this one are showing their true
> >colors
> >> :o).
> >> Greg Sefton
> >
> >Who cares? Most people who haven't yet somnambulated into Heritage
> >Foundation drones. <g>
> >
>
> I don't give a hoot and feel that the opportunity to accrue wealth is part
of
> what stimulated this country & still does.
Indeed it is. Opportunities to get rich are an important part of our
economic success and stature.
> Looks to me like they are paying
> their way, along with operating business which produces jobs & taxes etc..
Well, when the tax on dividends drops to 0% in 2008, you may want to
reconsider what that really means...especially when *you're* still paying
taxes on the income you get for actually working.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Which is why I always go to the source, and why I keep harping on Gunner to
do the same. <g>
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
news:8GnZb.53851$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> The national sales tax would be the "fair" tax
> system that would produce jobs, and tax people on what they "spend", not
> what they earn..... people would not be "punished" for creating jobs and
> wealth...... The politicians would be the only "losers"....
Right. What we need is a national sales tax, or a value-added tax, so we can
create jobs like they do in thriving economies like Germany's, with its
VAT...and where unemployment is down to...11%....
oops...
Larry Jaques
forth from the murky depths:
>>Welcome to the land of Doublespeak. Welcome to the puppet show.
>
>A skeptical mind is a constant comfort :o).
The curmudgeon in me thanks the skeptic in you
for that lovely quote. Source?
Gary Coffman
>I saw that in this morning's paper. His tax numbers sounds like a serious
>misquote of tax brackets, and are in violent disagreement with the numbers I
>hear from more progressive sources.
Don't confuse tax rates with the amounts paid. Those whose incomes are in
the top 1% earn more than 1% of the money. Way more. So even if the
income tax were not "progressive", they'd still pay way more to the Treasury
than those in the bottom 1% or even those in the middle 1%.
In other words, 30% of $100,000,000 is more money than 30% of $10,000,
or even of $1,000,000. But the rates *are* progressive, so the true numbers
are even more disproportionately weighted to penalize success and reward
failure.
Gary
Ed Huntress
news:iklc30d17tgebs68n...@4ax.com...
>
> In other words, 30% of $100,000,000 is more money than 30% of $10,000,
> or even of $1,000,000. But the rates *are* progressive, so the true
numbers
> are even more disproportionately weighted to penalize success and reward
> failure.
>
> Gary
Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
anyone. That's social engineering.
What taxes are for is to collect revenues. If they're going to be applied
according to some goals-based formula, it should be one that maximizes
public benefit, not individual virtue.
Ed Huntress
Gunner
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>"patlandy" <patl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:8GnZb.53851$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>> The national sales tax would be the "fair" tax
>> system that would produce jobs, and tax people on what they "spend", not
>> what they earn..... people would not be "punished" for creating jobs and
>> wealth...... The politicians would be the only "losers"....
>
>Right. What we need is a national sales tax, or a value-added tax, so we can
>create jobs like they do in thriving economies like Germany's, with its
>VAT...and where unemployment is down to...11%....
>
>oops...
Germany has bigger problems than the VAT. They suddenly inherited an
additional 18 million or so impoverished cousins when the Wall came
down.
THATS Germanys biggest problem, not the VAT
Gunner
Spoken like a true socialist.
Ed Huntress
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:57:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >"patlandy" <patl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:8GnZb.53851$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >
> >> The national sales tax would be the "fair" tax
> >> system that would produce jobs, and tax people on what they "spend",
not
> >> what they earn..... people would not be "punished" for creating jobs
and
> >> wealth...... The politicians would be the only "losers"....
> >
> >Right. What we need is a national sales tax, or a value-added tax, so we
can
> >create jobs like they do in thriving economies like Germany's, with its
> >VAT...and where unemployment is down to...11%....
> >
> >oops...
>
> Germany has bigger problems than the VAT. They suddenly inherited an
> additional 18 million or so impoverished cousins when the Wall came
> down.
> THATS Germanys biggest problem, not the VAT
<shrug> Then France (9.5%). Italy (8.4%). Spain (11.2%).
A VAT lays a big, wet blanket over consumption. You need a healthy level of
exports, in an advanced economy, to overcome consumption burdens. And that
hurts your per-capita income. The US has the highest per-capita income among
the developed countries in no small part because it doesn't have big
consumption taxes, like national sales taxes or a VAT.
If you burden consumption with a VAT in the US, you're going to have to
accept a significantly lower average level of income to keep unemployment at
bay.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:06:25 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >"Gary Coffman" <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:iklc30d17tgebs68n...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>
> >> In other words, 30% of $100,000,000 is more money than 30% of $10,000,
> >> or even of $1,000,000. But the rates *are* progressive, so the true
> >numbers
> >> are even more disproportionately weighted to penalize success and
reward
> >> failure.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> >Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
> >anyone. That's social engineering.
> >
> >What taxes are for is to collect revenues. If they're going to be applied
> >according to some goals-based formula, it should be one that maximizes
> >public benefit, not individual virtue.
> >
> >Ed Huntress
> >
> Spoken like a true socialist.
>
> Gunner
<sigh> Oh, Gunner, you were being so good, and now you've gone and said the
"S" word again.
That isn't being a socialist, Gunner. That's being an economist.
Now, "penalizing" and "rewarding" individual behavior...that's being a
nanny.
patlandy
Medicaid tax, and you take home 100% of your salary, ..... Prices for
all products drop immedialely by more than 20%..... you charge a 23%
sales tax on "New" items only, and you send a check to every working
american monthly for an amount equal to the sales tax that wage earner
would pay in sales tax on the "necessities" of life...... The bill is
in congress now..... America would have the lowest priced products on
the planet and every business in the world would be trying to come to a
"Tax Free" America to produce their products....
Pat Landy
Tom Quackenbush
>Gary Coffman wrote:
>>
>> In other words, 30% of $100,000,000 is more money than 30% of $10,000,
>> or even of $1,000,000. But the rates *are* progressive, so the true
>numbers
>> are even more disproportionately weighted to penalize success and reward
>> failure.
>Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
>anyone. That's social engineering.
I agree what that sentiment. "Luxury" taxes are a pet peeve of mine -
if I want to skimp on groceries in order to pay for my (hypothetical)
Ferrari, that's no one's business but mine.
>
>What taxes are for is to collect revenues. If they're going to be applied
>according to some goals-based formula, it should be one that maximizes
>public benefit, not individual virtue.
Ok, I don't understand. Your previous posts seem to indicate that
you're in favor of a progressive income tax - isn't taxing people at
different rates a form of social engineering?
I'm way out of my depth when it comes to restructuring our tax system,
but if life has taught me anything, it's that knowledge of the subject
matter is not a prerequisite for participation in a discussion of
taxation. <g>
R,
Tom Q.
jim rozen
>Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
>anyone. That's social engineering.
Ed, that's what taxes are all *about*. Social engineering.
Or why else would the single biggest benefit to individuals
(the deduction for home mortgage interest) exist at all?
The social engineering is, they think folks should own
houses.
Jim
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Ed Huntress
That's real interesting, Pat.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
news:dcad301clcjq6thrr...@4ax.com...
> >Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
> >anyone. That's social engineering.
>
> I agree what that sentiment. "Luxury" taxes are a pet peeve of mine -
> if I want to skimp on groceries in order to pay for my (hypothetical)
> Ferrari, that's no one's business but mine.
> >
> >What taxes are for is to collect revenues. If they're going to be applied
> >according to some goals-based formula, it should be one that maximizes
> >public benefit, not individual virtue.
>
> Ok, I don't understand. Your previous posts seem to indicate that
> you're in favor of a progressive income tax - isn't taxing people at
> different rates a form of social engineering?
Sorry, I should have clarified what I mean. I am in favor of a progressive
income tax, but the fundamental reason I'm in favor of it is that it's good
economic policy. People immediately bring up the issue of "fairness" when
you talk about it, so the discussion tends to get shifted to different ideas
of what "fairness" is. But, again, that isn't why I'm in favor of it --
although substantial *unfairness* would make me uncomfortable with any
policy.
To me, social engineering (through taxation, in this case) means the
government encouraging or discouraging individual behavior by "rewarding" or
"punishing." I despise the idea, partly because it makes the whims of
government a basis for deciding what is right and wrong: an official
"morality."
A progressive tax policy has a legitimate economic basis, disregarding the
other moral questions. It leads to a stronger economy. By taxing more
heavily large accumulations of disposable income, you keep consumption in
balance with investment. If your economy is short on capital investment
(which ours sure as hell is not; we have enough to send it around the world,
and people around the world are sending even more of it here), then you want
to flatten the tax structure. If your economy is short on consumption (we
aren't short on that, either), you make the tax structure more progressive.
That's just good economics, not social engineering, in the sense that the
term means, to me, trying to influence peoples' behavior. It's neutral
regarding behavior although it does assume that people want more money, and
it assumes that progressive taxation isn't going to keep the rich from
expending their efforts to get more. <g>
>
> I'm way out of my depth when it comes to restructuring our tax system,
> but if life has taught me anything, it's that knowledge of the subject
> matter is not a prerequisite for participation in a discussion of
> taxation. <g>
I'll buy that.
Ed Huntress
"jim rozen" <jim_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c16b8...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <RUsZb.18254$ac.16...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Ed Huntress
says...
>
> >Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
> >anyone. That's social engineering.
>
> Ed, that's what taxes are all *about*. Social engineering.
>
> Or why else would the single biggest benefit to individuals
> (the deduction for home mortgage interest) exist at all?
>
> The social engineering is, they think folks should own
> houses.
You may want to look at the distinction I just wrote about in a message to
Tom Q. Of course it isn't as clear-cut as my simplified explanation. But the
encouragement(s) to buy houses have a big economic justification in addition
to any issues of personal virtue or general behavior modification that may
be involved.
"Social engineering" to me implies engineering the way people behave:
encouragements to behave "virtuously," like incentives to save, even at
times when more saving is the last thing an economy needs. That's a big part
of Japan's problem right now, for example. They've moralized their economy
into utter stagnation. Their slow escape from the liquidity trap is
occurring because people are shedding their traditional idea of economic
"virtue."
Tax policies that strengthen the economy are something else. They don't even
have to consider "engineering" peoples' behavior, in many cases. Making it
possible for people to buy houses adds enormously to the country's wealth,
to our economic stability, and to the pool of private assets from which we
can draw as individuals, satisfying many needs that otherwise would require
cumbersome structures such as Social Security. A key assumption is that they
already want to buy houses, if they can.
Of course, if you want to stretch a point, you can turn these things around
and say they're all incentives to encourage particular behavior. But that
would miss the important distinction. Social engineering engineers society,
usually for some philosophical objective. That's what Tom DeLay wants to do.
He wants to make our society conform to the Bible, and he's said that
expressly.
Good economic policy, on the other hand, begins with the idea that improving
peoples' lives by improving the economic environment is the first objective.
I believe it's an important distinction, and it explains a lot about the
economic policies under Clinton, for example, versus those under George II.
Ed Huntress
jim rozen
>You may want to look at the distinction I just wrote about in a message to
>Tom Q. Of course it isn't as clear-cut as my simplified explanation. But the
>encouragement(s) to buy houses have a big economic justification in addition
>to any issues of personal virtue or general behavior modification that may
>be involved.
>
>"Social engineering" to me implies engineering the way people behave:
>encouragements to behave "virtuously," like incentives to save, even at
>times when more saving is the last thing an economy needs. That's a big part
>of Japan's problem right now, for example. They've moralized their economy
>into utter stagnation. Their slow escape from the liquidity trap is
>occurring because people are shedding their traditional idea of economic
>"virtue."
Ok, buying houses is good for the economy, and it's good for
individuals as a way of saving. But for the government to
give a big tax break means they want folks to behave that
certain way. I would tend to call that a kind of social
engineering.
>
>Tax policies that strengthen the economy are something else. They don't even
>have to consider "engineering" peoples' behavior, in many cases. Making it
>possible for people to buy houses adds enormously to the country's wealth,
>to our economic stability, and to the pool of private assets from which we
>can draw as individuals, satisfying many needs that otherwise would require
>cumbersome structures such as Social Security. A key assumption is that they
>already want to buy houses, if they can.
The idea that old folks should be taken care of is at the root
of social security. That program is indeed social enginnering
because there is that philosophical viewpoint behind it. "Look
after old folks."
>Of course, if you want to stretch a point, you can turn these things around
>and say they're all incentives to encourage particular behavior. But that
>would miss the important distinction. Social engineering engineers society,
>usually for some philosophical objective. That's what Tom DeLay wants to do.
>He wants to make our society conform to the Bible, and he's said that
>expressly.
He must like school vouchers then!
>Good economic policy, on the other hand, begins with the idea that improving
>peoples' lives by improving the economic environment is the first objective.
>I believe it's an important distinction, and it explains a lot about the
>economic policies under Clinton, for example, versus those under George II.
I think I see the distinction there.
Ed Huntress
> Ok, buying houses is good for the economy, and it's good for
> individuals as a way of saving. But for the government to
> give a big tax break means they want folks to behave that
> certain way. I would tend to call that a kind of social
> engineering.
Folks wanted to "behave that way" before there were any tax breaks for it.
The tax breaks made possible what they already wanted to do. You can argue
this one if you want, but, to me, that's simply an economic policy that
enables an already desired behavior, and it's one that also happens to be
good for the economy. There wasn't any system of rewards or punishments
necessary to accomplish it.
I'd distinguish that from something that encourages, for example, long-term
investments in preference to short-term ones, such as the tax break on
long-term capital gains. I believe most investors would like to see short-
and long-term investments taxed equally, so they weren't coerced into
holding stocks longer than they otherwise might want to. The lower tax on
long-term capital gains is social (or economic) engineering, to me. It
coerces a particular behavior.
> The idea that old folks should be taken care of is at the root
> of social security. That program is indeed social enginnering
> because there is that philosophical viewpoint behind it. "Look
> after old folks."
Yeah, Social Security definitely is a case of social engineering.
> >Of course, if you want to stretch a point, you can turn these things
around
> >and say they're all incentives to encourage particular behavior. But that
> >would miss the important distinction. Social engineering engineers
society,
> >usually for some philosophical objective. That's what Tom DeLay wants to
do.
> >He wants to make our society conform to the Bible, and he's said that
> >expressly.
>
> He must like school vouchers then!
I suspect he would, since he can't force our public schools to require fours
years of evangelical Christianity for graduation. He'll just "enable" it
another way. <g> And he would have a good point in doing so, as long as he's
honest about what it is he's doing.
Ed Huntress
patlandy
Ed Go to this site and read the brief explaination of the Tax Bill
"HR25" that is being proposed in Congress, this bill would create full
employment and would do away with all current Federal Taxes, Income,
Social Secutrity, Mecicaid and follow the link "read more" at the end
to see the Bills effect on all current businesses...... Let me know what
your opinion is, I find the logic of this Tax Plan to be very sound!
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html
Pat Landy
Ed Huntress
> Ed Go to this site and read the brief explaination of the Tax Bill
> "HR25" that is being proposed in Congress, this bill would create full
> employment and would do away with all current Federal Taxes, Income,
> Social Secutrity, Mecicaid and follow the link "read more" at the end
> to see the Bills effect on all current businesses...... Let me know what
> your opinion is, I find the logic of this Tax Plan to be very sound!
> http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html
> Pat Landy
Pat, excuse me for being short about this, but I don't want to argue about
consumption taxes.
Here's why: These are very old ideas that have been discredited over and
over again. I first encountered these proposals in policy science classes
around 1967. They are old hat.
You'll notice that the "Fair Tax" folks base their idea on some research by
Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard. It is a gross misrepresentation of
Jorgenson's work. In fact, here's what Jorgenson said about consumption
taxes just two years ago:
"The Achilles heel of proposals to shift the tax base from income to
consumption,
at least so far, is the redistribution of tax burdens. Recipients of
business
income, including holders of corporate bonds and shares, are generally much
more affluent than recipients of income from work. Excluding this business
income, or property-type income, from the tax base would shift the burden of
taxation from the rich to the poor." -- Dale Jorgenson, "A smarter type of
tax"
Jorgenson's ideas about "efficient tax" are much more complex in theory than
they appear in their simplistic, reductionist incarnations, such as the one
you're discussing here. And they are highly controversial. I've read some of
it, and it seems to me to be all abstract, based on some bizarre ideas about
how people actually behave. He's old-school, the kind of economist who
assumes perfectly rational behavior in his models, and his "rationality"
requires that one have a PhD. in economics to understand what is "rational."
If you read what's going on in the field today, you'll see that economists
are trying to clean up this part of their act, figuring out how people
*really* behave. The old models of rational behavior may all wind up in the
dumpster when they get good at it. I suspect they will.
The whole "hidden tax" thing is conceptual, not actual. The actual taxes on
GDP are easy to measure. They are nothing like the so-called "hidden" taxes.
One last thing: If you looked closely at the figures you posted in your last
message, you'll see that you somehow "discovered" a potential addition of
20%, or roughly $2.2 trillion dollars, to our GDP that would come through
implementing these ideas. That's $2.2T more income with no reductions in
total taxes, no new production, and no new consumption. That isn't
economics. That's voodoo. And that's why I won't get into this argument.
Good luck. It's fun to think about, at least. <g>
Ed Huntress
Gary Coffman
>"Gary Coffman" <ke...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:iklc30d17tgebs68n...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> In other words, 30% of $100,000,000 is more money than 30% of $10,000,
>> or even of $1,000,000. But the rates *are* progressive, so the true
>numbers
>> are even more disproportionately weighted to penalize success and reward
>> failure.
>>
>> Gary
>
>Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
>anyone. That's social engineering.
Right, so "progressive" taxes are inherently evil.
Gary
Gary Coffman
>In article <RUsZb.18254$ac.16...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Ed Huntress says...
>
>>Tax policies should not be in the business of penalizing or rewarding
>>anyone. That's social engineering.
>
>Ed, that's what taxes are all *about*. Social engineering.
>
>Or why else would the single biggest benefit to individuals
>(the deduction for home mortgage interest) exist at all?
>
>The social engineering is, they think folks should own
>houses.
Actually, the politicians like the campaign contributions
of the home building, home loan, and real estate lobbys.
The net effect of the home mortgage deduction is to
encourage people to pay more for homes than they
otherwise would. This increases the bottom lines of
developers, the home loan industry, and realtors by
artificially inflating the market price of homes.
Gary.
Ed Huntress
Nope. Nobody gets penalized. Progressive taxes don't keep people from making
more money, do they?
Ed Huntress
Gary Coffman
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> So then only 1% of the population is shouldering 36.3% of the total
>> tax load?
>>
>> Seems a bit unfair, doesnt it?
>
>Well, answer this. Why is it "fair" that these people will now have their
>long-term capital gains (gains from investments held one year or more), as
>well as all of their dividend income, taxed at a rate of only 5%, or 15%,
>depending on their bracket? And why, oh why, does that 5% drop to 0% in
>2008? Hmm?
It is fair because *my* capital gains will be taxed at the same rate
as those of the likes of Bill Gates. Actually, since my capital gains are
mostly in the form of 401k investments and home value appreciation,
which are already treated specially under the tax code, right now I'm
defacto being treated better than the likes of Bill Gates. Now I don't cry
for Bill, but basic fairness says he shouldn't be penalized for being
more successful than I have been.
Gary
Ed Huntress
Yes, it does. It also increases the number of homes sold, and it vastly
increases the value of privately held assets, particularly by the middle
class.
All of which is a net benefit to the economy, which avoids the need for
government subsidies and "welfare" programs that otherwise would be needed
to stimulate a comparable amount of both consumption and savings.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
>
> It is fair because *my* capital gains will be taxed at the same rate
> as those of the likes of Bill Gates. Actually, since my capital gains are
> mostly in the form of 401k investments and home value appreciation,
> which are already treated specially under the tax code, right now I'm
> defacto being treated better than the likes of Bill Gates. Now I don't cry
> for Bill, but basic fairness says he shouldn't be penalized for being
> more successful than I have been.
He's not. He has $45 billion, and you don't.
Ed Huntress
Gary Coffman
>"patlandy" <patl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:8GnZb.53851$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>> The national sales tax would be the "fair" tax
>> system that would produce jobs, and tax people on what they "spend", not
>> what they earn..... people would not be "punished" for creating jobs and
>> wealth...... The politicians would be the only "losers"....
>
>Right. What we need is a national sales tax, or a value-added tax, so we can
>create jobs like they do in thriving economies like Germany's, with its
>VAT...and where unemployment is down to...11%....
>
>oops...
Now who is misrepresenting things? Germany, and most of the rest of
Europe, levies a sales tax *ON TOP OF* all the other taxes, like income
taxes, they levy. The proposal Pat is talking about *replaces* all those
other taxes with a sales tax. That's a very different situation.
At least one state, Florida, uses a sales tax instead of a state income
tax. I don't see the Florida economy being hurt as a result.
Gary
Gunner
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> The net effect of the home mortgage deduction is to
>> encourage people to pay more for homes than they
>> otherwise would. This increases the bottom lines of
>> developers, the home loan industry, and realtors by
>> artificially inflating the market price of homes.
>
>Yes, it does. It also increases the number of homes sold, and it vastly
>increases the value of privately held assets, particularly by the middle
>class.
>
Taken to an extreme, this is called a balloon. One Im expecting to see
pop in the not too distant future, which will spell doom for many
other industries besides overpriced housing.
Ed Huntress
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:57:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> >"patlandy" <patl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:8GnZb.53851$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >
> >> The national sales tax would be the "fair" tax
> >> system that would produce jobs, and tax people on what they "spend",
not
> >> what they earn..... people would not be "punished" for creating jobs
and
> >> wealth...... The politicians would be the only "losers"....
> >
> >Right. What we need is a national sales tax, or a value-added tax, so we
can
> >create jobs like they do in thriving economies like Germany's, with its
> >VAT...and where unemployment is down to...11%....
> >
> >oops...
>
> Now who is misrepresenting things? Germany, and most of the rest of
> Europe, levies a sales tax *ON TOP OF* all the other taxes, like income
> taxes, they levy. The proposal Pat is talking about *replaces* all those
> other taxes with a sales tax. That's a very different situation.
Not really. Whether it's "on top of," or stand-alone, it's a tax that
depresses consumption.
This isn't my idea, BTW. It's the well-documented understanding of maybe 90%
of the world's top business economists, policy makers, and other people who
study such things for a living.
>
> At least one state, Florida, uses a sales tax instead of a state income
> tax. I don't see the Florida economy being hurt as a result.
There are several other states, and one (MI), that actually has a VAT. The
results are mixed. And they all are dominated by federal taxes, so the
results are extremely difficult to pick out from the noise.
Michigan is shit-canning its VAT, by the way. It's a loser.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:40:32 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> The net effect of the home mortgage deduction is to
> >> encourage people to pay more for homes than they
> >> otherwise would. This increases the bottom lines of
> >> developers, the home loan industry, and realtors by
> >> artificially inflating the market price of homes.
> >
> >Yes, it does. It also increases the number of homes sold, and it vastly
> >increases the value of privately held assets, particularly by the middle
> >class.
> >
> Taken to an extreme, this is called a balloon. One Im expecting to see
> pop in the not too distant future, which will spell doom for many
> other industries besides overpriced housing.
Just keep in mind that a fixed-rate subsidy or a discount, like mortgage
interest deductions, don't have any significant influence on such bubbles.
They're sheer speculation, like the stock bubble of the '90s.
Ed Huntress