Should taxes be raised at the end of this year?

[Observer]

It was civil because you were agreeing with them.

You obviously missed Velleity's response to my post.

If you are going to break out your kneepads, at least have the decency to do the deed behind closed doors.

[dagon]

What form would that middle-class relief take?  I can see the scenario of returning to the tax structure we had under Clinton, with the corresponding tax surplus for the treasury.  But I don't know what "middle-class relief" means.

i don't know how it would all shake out.  i only know that simply restoring the clinton tax structure isn't going to be enough.  we have seen a decline in real wages for the past 20 years while cost of living has gone way up:

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29

we've got to get new infrastructure,  green jobs, innovation jobs;  basically MORE jobs which pay better than what we've seen;  plus tax relief for the working class.

everyone agree on these points it's just that republicans seem hell bent on blocking ANYTHING that does not think of the wealthiest members of the corporate class first.

that is what these tea-party idiots should really be pissed off about.

peace

[Velleity]

I'd love to, but I don't know what that has to do with my question, or how you envision that happening.  

You need to understand supply and demand. If you increase government spending you increase demand.

I can't really go through the math or draw the graphs for you but that is the bottom line. The supply curve is simply the marginal cost. There will be a supply up to the point where the marginal profit equals zero, and there's no real evidence that you can affect that.

The demand curve is moved by monetary and fiscal policy. It will shift upward if the government spends, and downward if the government doesn't spend, and so on. More taxes, down. Less taxes, up.

GDP = Price * Quantity. These are the axes upon which the supply and demand curves are plotted.

Now if you want to use money in a certain way there's no reason why you couldn't do it, and you have the whole notion of multipliers. Some spending is more efficient than other spending because of marginal propensities to consume. If you give a billionaire an extra $100, what do you suppose the billionaire is going to do?

If you give it to me I might blow that on a couple of dinners out.

Which gets spread around better?

[Observer]

The only tax structure that should be acceptable to any American is one applied uniformly to all, regardless of income level.

Pick a number, let's say 10%.

I should pay 10% of my income in taxes, no deduction, no expemptions.

Velleity should pay 10% of his income. Dagon should pay 10% of his income, Bill Gates should pay 10% of his income. Anything else is discriminatory. There should be no bottom limit below which people are exempt from paying, and there should be no deductions or exemptions for even the wealthiest of us.

The graduated system we use now penalizes success and rewards failure. It never ceases to amaze me how some of you can cry out to "Tax the Rich" in one breath, and in the next, wonder why they take their businesses overseas.

[Velleity]

It was civil because you were agreeing with them.

You obviously missed Velleity's response to my post.

If you are going to break out your kneepads, at least have the decency to do the deed behind closed doors.

Aw, poor thing.

 

If you're really in the market for sympathy you would dispense with the snark. Alas, you're all about the snark.

[Velleity]

The only tax structure that should be acceptable to any American is one applied uniformly to all, regardless of income level.

Pick a number, let's say 10%.

I should pay 10% of my income in taxes, no deduction, no expemptions.

Velleity should pay 10% of his income. Dagon should pay 10% of his income, Bill Gates should pay 10% of his income. Anything else is discriminatory. There should be no bottom limit below which people are exempt from paying, and there should be no deductions or exemptions for even the wealthiest of us.

The graduated system we use now penalizes success and rewards failure. It never ceases to amaze me how some of you can cry out to "Tax the Rich" in one breath, and in the next, wonder why they take their businesses overseas.

This notion has been discredited for more than a century, only to be dusted off time and time again by lesser minds like yours.

Ridiculous. Totally and utterly ridiculous. You have no idea what the word "fairness" means.

[SpaceCadet]

It was civil because you were agreeing with them.

You obviously missed Velleity's response to my post.

If you are going to break out your kneepads, at least have the decency to do the deed behind closed doors.

I've been asking some fairly tough questions.  I can't do that over at the other place without Bean launching into some tirade about douchebag liberals and Tipsy and JPT calling for a civil war!

[dagon]

The only tax structure that should be acceptable to any American is one applied uniformly to all, regardless of income level.

Pick a number, let's say 10%.

I should pay 10% of my income in taxes, no deduction, no expemptions.

Velleity should pay 10% of his income. Dagon should pay 10% of his income, Bill Gates should pay 10% of his income. Anything else is discriminatory. There should be no bottom limit below which people are exempt from paying, and there should be no deductions or exemptions for even the wealthiest of us.

The graduated system we use now penalizes success and rewards failure. It never ceases to amaze me how some of you can cry out to "Tax the Rich" in one breath, and in the next, wonder why they take their businesses overseas.

you don't mean any of this observer.  under your "flat-tax" structure,  we wouldn't be able to pay for all of the things that you salivate over on a regular basis;  such as the strongest military in the world or imperial actions overseas.

it wouldn't just put us "safety-net" liberals in our place.  it would affect your jingoistic ass as well.

peace

[Velleity]

you don't mean any of this observer.  under your "flat-tax" structure,  we wouldn't be able to pay for all of the things that you salivate over on a regular basis;  such as the strongest military in the world or imperial actions overseas.

it wouldn't just put us "safety-net" liberals in our place.  it would affect your jingoistic ass as well.

peace

Not to mention the fact that it would be yet another huge shifting of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. Yeah, that's we really need. Let's put more of the tax burden on the middle class right now, or what's left of it.

 

[Velleity]

I've been asking some fairly tough questions.  I can't do that over at the other place without Bean launching into some tirade about douchebag liberals and Tipsy and JPT calling for a civil war!

The funny thing here, SpaceCadet, is that he knows that these posters are morans.

It's a pity that he can't find his way out of his ideological rut.

[Velleity]

Obs, you know how to act like decent human being. Why don't you start acting that way again?

I'm not going to debate you about this. That offer stands as is.

[SpaceCadet]

i don't know how it would all shake out.  i only know that simply restoring the clinton tax structure isn't going to be enough.  we have seen a decline in real wages for the past 20 years while cost of living has gone way up:

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29

we've got to get new infrastructure,  green jobs, innovation jobs;  basically MORE jobs which pay better than what we've seen;  plus tax relief for the working class.

everyone agree on these points it's just that republicans seem hell bent on blocking ANYTHING that does not think of the wealthiest members of the corporate class first.

that is what these tea-party idiots should really be pissed off about.

peace

Tax relief for the working class is a phrase that sounds good, but I don't know how that would work at the federal level.  Depending on how you define the "working class", most of them pay no federal income tax as it is.  So how are they going to get "tax relief"?  They pay payroll taxes for social security and Medicare, but they will be beneficiaries of both of those some day.  They could be exempted from those taxes as well, I suppose, but shouldn't they be required to pay something toward their own support during their eventual non-working years?  Shouldn't they have to pay something toward their own retirement?

[Velleity]

Tax relief for the working class is a phrase that sounds good, but I don't know how that would work at the federal level.  Depending on how you define the "working class", most of them pay no federal income tax as it is.  So how are they going to get "tax relief"?  They pay payroll taxes for social security and Medicare, but they will be beneficiaries of both of those some day.  They could be exempted from those taxes as well, I suppose, but shouldn't they be required to pay something toward their own support during their eventual non-working years?  Shouldn't they have to pay something toward their own retirement?

Why are you worried about "Shouldn't they have to pay?" Isn't the overall economy more important?

You have to enable consumers to consume, one way or another. That's the bottom line. You can't take away their earnings, home equity, and 401(k) and then expect them to consume indefinitely. You have to have policies that flatten out the distribution of income. If you have a better idea than progressive taxation and unions, great.

So far I haven't heard anything constructive from the likes of Observer. He won't even acknowledge the economic basics here.

[Velleity]

you don't mean any of this observer.  under your "flat-tax" structure,  we wouldn't be able to pay for all of the things that you salivate over on a regular basis;  such as the strongest military in the world or imperial actions overseas.

it wouldn't just put us "safety-net" liberals in our place.  it would affect your jingoistic ass as well.

peace

Of course you're right about this, but oddly Observer doesn't realize what economic decline, of the kind he favors, will do to us a military power.

[dagon]

Not to mention the fact that it would be yet another huge shifting of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. Yeah, that's we really need. Let's put more of the tax burden on the middle class right now, or what's left of it.

 

true,  i'm just pointing out that observer hasn't thought this through.  i really don't think he was to live in a country with NO money for crumbling bridges, highways, medical innovation and oh yeah,  a lot of really expensive weapons and starving middle class.

oh that's right,  the private sector will just pay for all of that right?

peace