Barney Frank again

[diverborg 0]

Quote

What's 1,500 more unemployed people anyway, when you have houses to maintain in Aspen, Nassau and Nice, and your yacht needs another barman.

Let them eat cake. It's the Republican way.

When I mentioned the 1500 I was making the point that its probably not going to happen where wal-mart only kills 1500 job. If there in trouble where lay-offs are necessary its going to be a lot more than one person per store and the cutting the CEO's salary to nothing isn't going to make a rip of a difference.

I've given you an example of one corporation. I've given you the numbers to make my point. If you want to ignore them and continue on with the "its not fair" rant go ahead. I'm exhausted with this discussion. Life isn't fair, the sooner people can grasp that the better off they will be. Bitching about it will get them nowhere to advancing themselves to be on of those CEO's.

Oh yeah, what's wrong with having a yacht, a private jet, two homes in Aspen. A lot of people are employed from the yacht and jet manufacturing industry as well as home construction. You take away from that kind of spending and you'll sink those industries. Are the people that work for Gulfstream not as important as the people that work for Wal-mart? In fact the more money that CEO spends on lavish stuff only helps the economy and employs more people.

I think I've made my point and I see its not going to change anything.

[billvon 2,405]

>A lot of people are employed from the yacht and jet manufacturing
>industry as well as home construction. You take away from that kind of
>spending and you'll sink those industries.

Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

>A lot of people are employed from the yacht and jet manufacturing
>industry as well as home construction. You take away from that kind of
>spending and you'll sink those industries.

Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

Fair enough, but they already pay more. How much more do you think they should pay? Personal income tax aside, do you really think its a good idea to tax businesses more. Do you really think that's going to create more jobs and help anyone working for that company to get a raise?

I love to see rich people spending their money on lavish stuff like yachts, jets, and mansions. That's going to create much more technical and higher paying jobs in those industries than if those rich did nothing but save their money. We don't all want to work at Wal-mart do we? I make a healthy salary working on private jets that these people blow their money on. The more money the wealthy spend the more they are giving back.

[billvon 2,405]

Sorry, I should have put quotes around the above; it's not my line. I don't think "comfort" should really factor into it.

My ideal tax scheme:

Taxes are assessed quarterly. You start with a basic formula that, assuming our expenses match our tax income, is similar to what we have now.

Then you multiply that by the ratio of deficit/total budget. In other words, you increase everyone's taxes by the amount needed to balance the budget.

Want to lower your taxes? End the war or vote down the 9/11 cleanup and within 3 months you will see lower taxes. Want to increase your taxes? Support that next pre-emptive war, or an S+L bailout, or a new moon program.

>That's going to create much more technical and higher paying jobs in
>those industries than if those rich did nothing but save their money.

Exactly. Which is why giving a tax cut to someone who makes $30K a year is going to do far more for the economy than giving a tax cut to someone who makes $3 million a year. The guy who makes $30K is probably going to spend it on brakes; the guy who makes $3 million probably isn't going to buy a second jet.

[Rainbo 0]

This is just to make sure everybody understands how it works:


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going
to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first
four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved
a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get
$10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man
didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had
beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy,
and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics University of Georgia .

(For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not
understand, no explanation is possible.)

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

If you feel taxes must go up and Obama wins and raises taxes will that be inconsistant what he has been telling voters ? Would that be close to a "read my lips" comment ?

It will be even more of a "read my lips" comment if McCain wins, based on what he has been telling voters.

Do you disagree that we must start paying our way in the world? Or do you REALLY think we can go on borrowing from China indefinitely?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,405]

>The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
>The fifth would pay $1.
>The sixth would pay $3.
>The seventh would pay $7.
>The eighth would pay $12.
>The ninth would pay $18.
>The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

Fortunately, there was a republican activist there who took one look at that breakdown and said "What the heck is all this socialism? You're all getting about the same amount of beer- but some are paying more than others!"

"Well, it's one of those analogy things so popular in Speaker's Corner," one of the men said. "To maintain the comparison to taxation, the police require us to come here - if we don't pay to drink beer we get arrested and thrown in jail. And we can't drink less to save money; someone else decides how much we should drink.
The first four of us make no money.
The fifth makes $15 a day.
The sixth makes $19 a day.
The seventh makes $30 a day.
The eighth makes $50 a day.
The ninth makes $80 a day.
The tenth of us (the richest) makes $200 a day."

"Well, that's perfect!" said the activist. "I can fix this unfair system. Clearly you all get the same amount of beer. So you should all pay the same amount. But to prove how fair I am, I'll let the people who make nothing pay nothing. So that's $100 divided by 6, or $16 each. So pay up, and enjoy your beer under this new and fairer system."

After a few weeks, the fifth man started realizing he was losing money. He appealed for help, but the activist was adamant. "Why should we redistribute wealth to help you? Why penalize the guy who makes $100 a day just because you can't get a better job? Nope, that would be completely unfair."

After a few more weeks, the lower earner finally realized he could simply no longer pay for beer. The police arrested him and threw him in jail.

The next day the men met again. The activist was sad to see the poorer guy go, of course, but fair's fair.

"Wait a minute, Mr. Activist. Now who's going to pay his share?"

"Well, uh . . I guess the bill is the same, so you'll have to divide it by 5. So that's $20 a piece."

The man who made $19 a day started to get very nervous - and the guy who made $30 a day started to realize what would happen if this continued. Even the guy who made $200 a day started seeing the value in paying a bit more to keep his friends contributing to the bill.

"Okay," said the richest man. "Here's what we'll do. I'll pay $30 a day, and that way the guy in jail will only have to pay $5. He can afford that on his salary. Sure, I am paying a little more, but it helps us out in the long run."

"You can't do that!" the activist spluttered. "Didn't you hear what I said? That's SOCIALISM! That will destroy the very fabric of our universe! It will . . it will . . wait . . . where are you taking me?"

The nine men tossed the activist out of the bar, bailed their friend out of jail, and went back to drinking, paying and talking about how to get out of this analogy and back into the real world.

[Rainbo 0]

And thus the disclaimer at the bottom

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

To support our government 100% it would have to be 42% across the board. Do you really want that?

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

It's more like %23 "tax-inclusive." And the with the Fair Tax, the poor pay nothing. The guy who spends more pays more, so the rich get socked. That should make the socialists happy.

So the government says "we need more", the people will tend to revolt because that means a tax hike, a tax hike that is transparent, and virtually impossible to pass off as punishing achievement.

I know, it's not exactly "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." So, you won't be happy.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

It's more like %23 "tax-inclusive." And the with the Fair Tax, the poor pay nothing.

Those numbers only make sense for people who don't know how to use a calculator. Federal budget expenditures next year are $2.73 TRILLION.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Those numbers only make sense for people who don't know how to use a calculator.

So it works for our elected officials! Good point, what's the hold up?!

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[billvon 2,405]

>It's more like %23 "tax-inclusive."

If "tax inclusive" means "continue to run up the deficit" then I would agree. The basic math doesn't change, though.

Total tax returns in 2003: 131 million
Household income in 2007 average $50,233
US budget 2007 $2.8 trillion

2.8T / 131m = $21,374 per household
21374/50233 = 42.5%

Now, there's a lot of other ways to make money. Tax businesses. Tax capital gains. Tax inheritances. But to support the government via income taxes using a flat tax, the rate will be 42.5%.

>So the government says "we need more", the people will tend to revolt
>because that means a tax hike,

EXACTLY! And thus for as long as we continue to spend far more than we take in by running up the deficit, the people will not revolt - and that's bad.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Those numbers only make sense for people who don't know how to use a calculator.

So it works for our elected officials! Good point, what's the hold up?!

IF it works for our elected officials, it's because people like YOU believe outfits like "FAIRTAX" without bothering to check if the numbers add up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Total tax returns in 2003: 131 million
Household income in 2007 average $50,233
US budget 2007 $2.8 trillion

2.8T / 131m = $21,374 per household
21374/50233 = 42.5%

Now, there's a lot of other ways to make money. Tax businesses. Tax capital gains. Tax inheritances. But to support the government via income taxes using a flat tax, the rate will be 42.5%.

>So the government says "we need more", the people will tend to revolt
>because that means a tax hike,

EXACTLY! And thus for as long as we continue to spend far more than we take in by running up the deficit, the people will not revolt - and that's bad.

Did I say "flat tax", or point to a reference for a flat tax? I think I said Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is not a flat tax. It is not a tax on income, it's a national sales tax. It is not designed as a tax increase or decrease, but budget neutral. So, no it's not designed to bring tax to the point to match spending, but then as far as I know not tax proposal proports to do that.

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[billvon 2,405]

OK, got it. So the question would be - how high would the tax have to be? To figure that out, you'd have to determine how many taxable transactions there are in our economy each year, and make a good estimate of how many of those transactions would cease (or change form) due to the new disincentive (the tax.) Do you have any of that info?

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

OK, got it. So the question would be - how high would the tax have to be? To figure that out, you'd have to determine how many taxable transactions there are in our economy each year, and make a good estimate of how many of those transactions would cease (or change form) due to the new disincentive (the tax.) Do you have any of that info?

Do you realize that everything you currently purchase has an imbeded tax? A loaf of bread has an imbed tax in the neighborhood of 23% currently. Remove that existing cost of production, and the free market will reduce the cost of a loaf of bread, add the tax back, and the loaf of bread costs about the same.

I have read the book, maybe you should. I'm not going to retype the book, or web site here.

The truth: The FairTax rate of 23% (when calculated inclusively like income tax rates) has been thoroughly researched to provide all the revenues now collected under both the income tax system and through FICA payroll taxes. Reports otherwise are largely based on the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform which declared the rate would have to be much higher. What the Panel failed to make clear in an amazingly shameless sleight-of-hand is that they never studied the FairTax legislation as it exists in pending legislation. They ignored $22 million of FairTax research and, instead, quietly devised their own national consumption tax which they loaded with the exemptions and deductions they felt were "politically realistic". They also failed to calculate the effects of elimination of the FICA tax on annual taxpayer burdens or on the distributional effects of the FairTax across the income spectrum. Upon completion--and after declaring a national consumption tax flawed--they then refused to publish their underlying assumptions.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[blueskybug 0]

So you agree with me about Obama and read my lips, fair enough. I do think that the US needs to cut back spending and I amount that to paying our way to use your terms. Seems to me that there are limited choices out ouf this. spend less or raise taxes and of course a combo.
Don't you think raising taxes on large companies will cause them to pass that along ? I don't think it would be horrible to raise their taxes but I do think by companies passing this along the middle class or whomever uses their products will pay. I thought these were the people to be helped. Top that off with a tax increase to the middle class and now they've been hit twice.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

The truth:

snip

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Oh, OK, it MUST be the truth if it came from fairtax.org.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

So you agree with me about Obama and read my lips, fair enough. I do think that the US needs to cut back spending and I amount that to paying our way to use your terms. Seems to me that there are limited choices out ouf this. spend less or raise taxes and of course a combo.
Don't you think raising taxes on large companies will cause them to pass that along ? I don't it would be horrible to raise their taxes but I do think by companies passing this along the middle class or whomever uses their products will pay. I thought these were the people to be helped. Top that off with a tax increase to the middle class and now they've been hit twice.

1. What flexibility is there for cutting spending? make some realistic suggestions with numbers attached**.

2. You can't raise revenues by taxing people who don't have any money.

**, for example, if you want to stop "welfare for those who WON'T work", a familiar refrain from the right, tell us just how much that will save.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,405]

>Do you realize that everything you currently purchase has an imbeded tax?

Of course. This would result in a dramatic increase in those taxes.

>The truth: The FairTax rate of 23% (when calculated inclusively like
> income tax rates) has been thoroughly researched to provide all the
>revenues now collected under both the income tax system and through
>FICA payroll taxes.

Whenever someone says "THE TRUTH!" it's pretty much a given that it's not. (Not saying that with respect to you, but rather with respect to the whole fair tax proposal.)

So some numbers:

William Gale of the Brookings Institution did a study based on current taxation rates and average US commerce and determined that the "fair tax" rate would have to be around 40 percent (tax-exclusive*, which is how we calculate sales tax for states) assuming zero taxpayer evasion. With a best estimate of taxpayer evasion** it would be around 53 percent. And that's just to be revenue-neutral; in other words, to replace the income, payroll, estate, and gift taxes taxes we have today.

To pay our debts (i.e. to close the deficit hole) you'd have to increase that by about 16%. So now we're at 57%.

I like the idea in theory, but I don't think a 57% sales tax would be all that good an idea in practice.

(* - tax-exclusive is how everyone thinks of sales tax i.e. a $1 purchase that has an additional 10 cents added on to it is a 10% sales tax, not a 9% sales tax. Often Fair Tax proponents use tax-inclusive numbers which are a little misleading.)

(** - if you have ever sold anything to a friend of yours without collecting sales tax from him and mailing it to your state government, then you know about sales tax evasion.)