http://www.economist.com/node/21530104 Nothing really new, but a good read. Not anything I can really disagree with in there.
Got no problem with an AMT on the rich so they pay the average percentage that the middle class pays. Ones that are already paying more obviously won't get hit by it - those that had a fleet of accountants and tax lawyers lying their asses off and manipulating the system will suddenly have to pay a fair share. I can understand that being a problem for them. I just don't understand why I should give a fuck.
Not to mention that loopholes are just bad in general. When you make innovation in accounting more important than innovation in industry you have a completely distorted market. You'd think all Free Marketers would be behind this.
Maybe the fuck you should give is when some liberal jackass starts spouting of about the rich paying taxes, you don't have a cow about "OMFG!!! TAX THE RICH!?!? ARE YOU INSANE??? THEY'RE A PROTECTED SPECIES!!!" I know you don't do it as much, Demiurge, but there are plenty of posters here that do.
Gotta love that premise, that rich people are stuffing their extra cash into Mason jars and mattresses, so obviously nobody else is going to notice the difference when top earners are taking less pay home. That ranks right up there with the idea that $200K makes one "rich." Republicans should insist that any plan to tax the rich include total repeal of the existing AMT. That should shut the fucking Dems up. The "rich" don't have enough to make up for what the AMT fleeces from the middle class. Let the Dems explain why the middle class has to pay a tax intended for the filthy rich.
You're the only one talking about Mason jars and mattresses, Booboo. The grownups use terms like "tax shelters."
Tax shelters are investments protected from taxation because they're thought by lawmakers to benefit society more than the taxes they would generate. So yes, that is an example of something a rich person could be doing with his money that might just be missed by the rest of us if you stupid fucking liberals taxed it away.
Which lawmakers would those be? Your father's generation got suckered by the Reagan Golden Showers effect. Don't tell me you're still waiting.
All of them, depending on the shelter. You're a fucking moron. Ever heard the saying, "You can't get a job from a poor person"? That's supply side economics. Any mischaracterization of it beyond that is a failing on your part, you stupid lib.
Supply side economics. Right. The rich have the most money they've had in 100 years, largely due to tax breaks. The middle class and poor have near historic rates of high unemployment - as much as 15% or more if you used the same criteria as the first 90 years of the 20th century before the Clinton administration changed it. In the global economy, supply side economics is bullshit. Rich people don't create jobs in their own economy, but we are supposed to tax them less. So the non-rich don't get jobs, and also face a higher tax burden.
Oh, look. Once again, self-proclaimed "moderate" Demi comes off as a liberal. As usual, what a shock. What a boring, predictable shock. You can go fuck yourself with that ignorant, "the-rich-have-the-most-money-they've-ever-had" egalitarian bullshit, libtard. For decades, nobody in America has been saving. Instead of real invested wealth, most individuals have been accumulating debt. This has had the effect of leaving securities relatively cheap for the tiny, thrifty minority willing to buy them. Only a fucking moron (like you, Demi) should be surprised/alarmed/disturbed that "the rich" have accumulated so much wealth. Instead, you should be licking their fucking boots for buying the capital infrastructure that has allowed you to live perpetually beyond your means without a care for your own future. Every other quintile of society would have long ago dismantled that infrastructure and hocked the parts for flat screen TVs and beer money. You complain that the rich have too many tax breaks. Based on what? I look around me, and I don't see any shortage of government. And there's surprisingly little evidence that the burden of government is related to tax incidence. The truth is that you resent the growing wealth of the only class in society who's seen fit to invest -- to buy the symbolic paper assets the rest of us couldn't be troubled to purchase in our quest for XBoxes and iPods -- and so you seek to punish them. The only reason you see inequality of wealth as a sign of under-taxation is because you view taxation as a mechanism for equalizing wealth, you stupid Marxist fuck. The primary objection to globalization is that it reveals how the contribution of the typical western factory employee is no more valuable than that of a Malaysian twelve-year-old. Well, no shit. In case you haven't noticed, thanks to our education system American high school "graduates" (like the ones who might work in factories) are certainly no more educated than Malaysian children. What the fuck did you expect??? Leave the rich alone. Live within your means -- and that includes government. Pay your own fucking bills. No bailout for you.
Uh huh. http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really 19 separate polls that indicate Americans want to tax the rich at a higher rate by overhwhelming margins. It IS the moderate view. America is a center right country too - only the far right is opposing this. The question is whether to do so via means such as an AMT to void the loopholes, or to do so punitively to recover the lost revenues from the last decade. The later is the liberal view. The rest of your spiel is irrelevant to the concept - that lower tax rates here will encourage job growth. That's a complete fallacy, and has been ever since NAFTA and the globalization market. It is the same supply side bullshit that has been one major cause of 90% of the wealth gained in the last 20 years going to 1% of the population. Perhaps not the only one, but having an additional $1 trillion in personal revenue over the last decade because of such nonsense probably helped their ability to invest a tad, don't you think. The problem is most of that investment didn't mean work here. So the basic premise is correct, and I supported it back during the Reagan/Bush 41 years. But it doesn't work now - though China and India appreciate the American people's largesse. Your shit don't work. And it is patently, blatantly obvious that it doesn't work. Wealthiest plutocrats in 100 years, high unemployment. Bullshit is bullshit.
You cannot force job growth with taxation. You can't force it at all. No matter how you punish, shame, and bluster at people about it, more jobs will come when it is more profitable to offer them.
Well first off, you can. Check out the CCC or Asian Tigers Export Led Growth strategy. However, that wouldn't really work for our economy. What could work is money for job training. If, as some people argue, one of our problems is that the people who want work don't have the training for the jobs people want to hire them for, in the place the jobs are. In this case more money for job training would decrease the cost to business (they don't have to train them) and could increase their potential to hire. There are also arguments for increased funding of child care, one off relocation assistance, etc.
The article’s conclusions are most sensible. Lower the nominal rates but close all the loopholes for a net revenue increase. Such a scheme would be infinitely simpler, equitable, and economically sound than the labyrinth of special interests the current tax code represents. Obama’s proposed tax on the rich seemingly just adds another layer to the latter.
A majority of Americans couldn't pass an economics test by the same "overwhelming margins." That doesn't mean they know shit about what the best policy should be. Furthermore, your recognition of the majority a valid source of authority -- i.e. "might makes right" -- is not "moderate" -- it's liberal. "Take from someone else" is not "moderate." The whole point of our government is to protect those who are profiting from making the best economic decisions from the whims of those who'd rather just vote themselves out of poverty or into wealth. You're arguing that the irrational are right because they outnumber the rational. Is that really what you believe?
LOL. What "wealth"? It's not all caviar champagne and bizjets, you know. It's mostly boring shit like the deed to the building you work in, or the furniture and machines you use for your job. That "wealth" consists of a lot more 18-wheelers than Rolls-Royces.
Job training!? Do you know how many teachers are working as bartenders? Do you know how many people with advanced degrees are waiting tables or stocking shelves? And those are the lucky ones. To be fair, you did address the "right training" issue. We've got a lot more people with English degrees than the economy needs--and that is one of the more reasonable degrees. What the fuck do you do with a fucking "Women's Studies" degree?! Still, you can lead a horse to water... There are already ample options for people, if they want to get "training". That they choose not to means no amount of money thrown at the problem will change things.
They're not defying the law. What you're really asking is that either existing cuts be allowed to expire, new tax policy be imposed, or both. I don't buy the rationalization that it's to create jobs. It's about envy. It's about punishing someone who dares to have more and keep it in a time when others are in need. It won't matter to the type of people who make up Demiurges "19 separate polls" bullshit if it makes jobs or not. Punishing people who dare to be wealthier is an end unto itself.
If you are arguing that we need an education overhaul I agree. See my post a few weeks back that about 2/3rds of our HS students should be going to Tech School. However that doesn't change the fact that we've got adults who either have no skills or don't have the right skills for our economy. We've got to do something with them and that is one area where more money would actually help. If you need an example, go see Nova's BR thread about trying to get retrained.
Where does this idea even come from? This is the most asinine reason I've ever heard for "not taxing the rich". Taxes have nothing to do with envy and everything to do with everyone in society paying their fair share. - because, everyone lives within society, even you, and everyone benefits from society as we know it - including the rich.
^This. But it'll never happen in this country, and that's why: I haven't studied it in-depth, but if that's what it's doing, it's because of the realistic expectation that the only way you'll get the truly wealthy to pay equitably is to first take Shakespeare's advice about lawyers. You took your Stupid Pills again this morning, didn't you? Or you're just applying Volpone's Law of What a Youngish, Single Guy with No Dependents and Access to GI Benefits Would Do to the job-seeking public at large. That law doesn't necessarily apply to couples, where relocating might - might - help one find employment, but the other has to give up a job, uproot the kids, etc. And if that job in that market dries up, how many times do you - can you - relocate to find another one? And who pays for the cross-country van when you've been unemployed for a year or more? If there were a centralized national data base where, say, someone like Nova could plug in the necessary information and be told "There are teaching jobs in the following cities. There are opportunities for anyone with a BA/BS to retrain in the following high-tech industries in your local area, and short-term loans for the training, and if you drive the moving van yourself, you'll get a year's grace before you have to start repaying the loan," there would be fewer teachers tending bar. That's what you do when you cut Richie Rich off from his offshore account until he pays the same percentage on real income that you do. I'll never understand why so many nominally middle-class folks are so willing to pick up the slack for the wealthy.
It comes from people shifting the blame to others for their own problems. "I would have more if that bastard wasn't hording it all. " "Fair share" is a base line obligation not tied to your means. A millionaire doesn't have his own police station and fleet of fire trucks reserved for his use. If your intended meaning is "as much as you are able to pay," then you need to pick a different word, because "fair" doesn't apply. A person's wealth isn't a benefit of living in the country, and it wasn't provided for them by the kind of person who wants to seize and redistribute a disproportionate chunk of that wealth. It's a benefit of luck, nepotism, sensible planning and hard work. Most of us have nothing to do with that, so what entitles us to any part of the proceeds? You need a better excuse than "they can afford to lose it, and someone else needs it more."
I couldn't give a shit about having their stupid gilded junk, I do care about the fucking system collapsing into a blackhole just because a few pirates in suits are so fucking mentally ill, even trillions aren't enough to slake their hunger.
I don't want to live like Hanna, at least not yet. I have important shit I need to get done that takes lots of electricity.
Again, who's saying this? Specifically, not some nebulous "they". You're half right. Do you really think Bill Gates got rich all on his own - through luck, sensible planning and hard work? Hell no he didn't. He doesn't mass produce all those copies of Microsoft, he doesn't distribute them, he doesn't put them on the shelves of stores and he doesn't man the cash register when someone wants to buy the product. Not to mention the route taken getting all that money back into his account. It's takes an entire society to function properly. and Bill Gates et al all fall into that same society. They benefit from the work of others. yes, they all get paid, but so does he and he would not be wealthy without their help. No one begrudges him of that. As for paying a "share" as opposed to a flat amount ... well, that's another conversation. Also, one I wouldn't be opposed to assuming "the rich" also pay that same flat amount (or"fair share").
