lol Republitard debate is on.

[pseudorandom21]

You can watch the CNN/Western Republican debate live on CNN.com right now.
I just find these events so hilarious, Perry just looked like an idiot and it looks like he's wearing makeup too.

[pseudorandom21]

I lol'd so hard, Rick Perry and Santorum were acting the fool as always.

[coolbeanbob]

9-9-9

[pseudorandom21]

I can see how a flintstone would think paying more in taxes would be ok...
Or perhaps you missed all the backlash about it making citizens pay more, and also specifically by taxing food and other products people need to survive.

Sure, give the federal government a bigger budget so they can line out all the problems right?

[Agilemind]

HaHaHa If the Republicans would let them tax the millionaires (by an additional *gasp* 5% *gasp*) there would be no need to tax the necessities. Plus your kids' school might beable to *gasp* afford up-to-date textbooks.
*gasp*

*choke*

*collapse*

I hope the top 1% will take you out for a really good drink after you're done defending their interests.

[WaltP]

I'm just waiting to hear the Democridiots. They're a hoot!

As for charging the rich 5% more -- why? Make the tax laws sensible.
Line 1: What did you make?
Line 2: Deductions - few and sensible, not hundreds of pages worth.
Line 3: What's left?
Line 4: Multiply by 20%
Line 5: Send it in.

Everybody does the same form, from $10,000 to $10,000,000,000 income.

Why penalize the rich just because they are worked harder (smarter) than the non-rich?

[Agilemind]

Why penalize the rich just because they are worked harder (smarter) than the non-rich?

I'll let Paris Hilton know you think she's smarter and works harder than you do.

[WaltP]

I'll let Paris Hilton know you think she's smarter and works harder than you do.

I see, you believe that the parents should not pass their wealth to their children. So what should they do with it? Should all the money you have left when you die go to the government? Interesting concept. Or maybe an aptitude test be given to the children and anyone with an aptitude less than, say, 462, gets no money?

So far your user name is lacking... :icon_wink:

[Agilemind]

I see, you believe that the parents should not pass their wealth to their children. So what should they do with it? Should all the money you have left when you die go to the government? Interesting concept. Or maybe an aptitude test be given to the children and anyone with an aptitude less than, say, 462, gets no money?

So far your user name is lacking... :icon_wink:

I think we should assume the rich "deserve" to be rich just because they are rich. And that telling them to give back to the services they or their ancestors benefited from to become rich is not "penalizing" them.

[WaltP]

I think we should assume the rich "deserve" to be rich just because they are rich. And that telling them to give back to the services they or their ancestors benefited from to become rich is not "penalizing" them.

"Telling them" is penalizing them. The rich should -- and do -- give back to the community and the system on their own. The problem is everyone seems to think they should be taxed more simply because they have more. IMO that is wrong.

[pseudorandom21]

I don't think taxing the rich more is wrong at all, particularly because some people are struggling to survive. It's like a mandatory conscience, instead of donating to a homeless shelter the government steals the money and then takes part of it, and gives the rest to the starving/homeless.

Could give tax breaks to the wealthy for donating to charity then?

[WaltP]

I don't think taxing the rich more is wrong at all, particularly because some people are struggling to survive.

So taxing the rich prevents people from struggling. You obviously don't live in the US. Otherwise you'd know that the extra taxes will not go to struggling people.

It's like a mandatory conscience, instead of donating to a homeless shelter the government steals the money and then takes part of it, and gives the rest to the starving/homeless.

You're dreaming. They build bridges to nowhere. Rather than making sure our borders are safe and adding to the 40,000 border guards, they pay 120,000 IRS agents to police their own people instead, finding those that made mistakes trying to understand the convoluted tax laws. They pay people to make the tax laws more complicated rather than making them simple. They pay retired congressmen and representatives a pension of 100% of their last wage.

Where's all this money come from?

Could give tax breaks to the wealthy for donating to charity then?

They already give tax breaks for this. We all have this break. Schedule A lines 16-19.

What we need is for the rich to pay their fair share and stop being given huge loopholes to lower their taxes.

Last year my federal tax bill ... was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income -- and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

So the rich pay 50% less than us because of loopholes. Not because of the tax tables. Their tax is pretty much the same as ours -- 28-35%.

[pseudorandom21]

I agree with you then, it's much more out-of-line than superficially appears.

Not to mention Bjarne Stroustrup's quote "Proof by analogy, is fraud." -Bjarne

[sergent]

Plus your kids' school might beable to *gasp* afford up-to-date textbooks.

Chinese probably spend 3x less money on schools, but they get 2x the education in US. Not all problems can be solved by money *gasp*, some require change in attitude *gasp*.

[GrimJack]

Chinese probably spend 3x less money on schools, but they get 2x the education in US. Not all problems can be solved by money *gasp*, some require change in attitude *gasp*.

Yeah, and their schools collapse on their kids - they get what they pay for.

[Agilemind]

What we need is for the rich to pay their fair share and stop being given huge loopholes to lower their taxes.

So the rich pay 50% less than us because of loopholes. Not because of the tax tables. Their tax is pretty much the same as ours -- 28-35%.

I absolutely agree on that point, tax loopholes (particularly in the US) are awful and should be stamped out. But that isn't in itself an argument against raising taxes on the rich.

The simple way to put it is that the poor are the ones who benefit most from the social programs that take up the largest chunk of the US budget (public education, medicare, EI). So if you raise their taxes you'd be raising the costs of all those programs by the same amount if you intend to prevent their already low standard of living from slipping farther. And since (I assume you'll agree with me on this point) gov't programs are not as efficient as leaving the money in their pocket to begin with you'll actually lose money by raising taxes on them. Therefore it is more cost-effective to tax the rich (fewer people to chase down and forms to process for the same amount of revenue) than to tax the poor.

PS: bashing the IRS agents is just silly since they are effectively specialized police -> see Greece for what happens when you stop making people pay their taxes.

[WaltP]

The simple way to put it is that the poor are the ones who benefit most from the social programs that take up the largest chunk of the US budget (public education, medicare, EI). So if you raise their taxes you'd be raising the costs of all those programs by the same amount if you intend to prevent their already low standard of living from slipping farther.

Never suggest raising taxes at all. Just that the rich pay their fair share. That will effectively add a lot of tax dollars collected and the tax rates could actually be lowered.

And since (I assume you'll agree with me on this point) gov't programs are not as efficient as leaving the money in their pocket to begin with you'll actually lose money by raising taxes on them.

I'll agree partially.
1) Yes, gov't programs are not efficient.
2) No, leaving the money in their pocket is not efficient either. From first-hand knowledge the poor drive the Cadillacs rather than buy needed items like food, and you get one guess which income bracket buys the most lottery tickets.

Therefore it is more cost-effective to tax the rich (fewer people to chase down and forms to process for the same amount of revenue) than to tax the poor.

Sure it's more effective to just tax the rich at a higher level -- if you ignore the long term outcome.

John is a wealthy business owner. He makes $1,000,000 a year. 30% to taxes leaves $700,000. With that money he pays his staff, buys more raw materials, invests more into his business, all to the tune of $500,000. He ends up with a profit of $200,000.

Let's tax the rich: 45% to taxes leaves $550,000. With that money he pays his staff, buys more raw materials, all to the tune of $500,000. He ends up with a profit of $50,000. Oops -- gotta let a few people go and raise prices to recoup at least $100,000. Necessary economic move. Now more people out of a job and we pay higher prices for his goods and services.

Let's tax the rich: 55% to taxes leaves $450,000. With that money he pays his staff, buys more raw materials, all to the tune of $500,000. He ends up with a loss of $50,000. Oops -- gotta close the doors, can't afford to be in business anymore. Now the entire company's staff is out of a job, and the goods and services provided are no longer available.

PS: bashing the IRS agents is just silly since they are effectively specialized police

Yes, and that's the problem. It's getting to be like the Robin Hood days. We can barely survive, but the Sheriff -er- IRS are still trying to squeeze more out of us. And if we don't have the money, they take our house and car and we're living on the street.

-> see Greece for what happens when you stop making people pay their taxes.

Never advocated no taxes. Other countries have fewer taxes and get by quite well. Some countries have higher taxes and give them back in quality services. We are in the middle somewhere,
1) taxes too high to afford quality services on your own
2) services provided through taxes are barely effective
3) many services are not available to those that have a high enough income to pay taxes.

[Agilemind]

John is a wealthy business owner. He makes $1,000,000 a year. 30% to taxes leaves $700,000. With that money he pays his staff, buys more raw materials, invests more into his business, all to the tune of $500,000. He ends up with a profit of $200,000.

Let's tax the rich: 45% to taxes leaves $550,000. With that money he pays his staff, buys more raw materials, all to the tune of $500,000. He ends up with a profit of $50,000. Oops -- gotta let a few people go and raise prices to recoup at least $100,000. Necessary economic move. Now more people out of a job and we pay higher prices for his goods and services.

Let's tax the rich: 55% to taxes leaves $450,000. With that money he pays his staff, buys more raw materials, all to the tune of $500,000. He ends up with a loss of $50,000. Oops -- gotta close the doors, can't afford to be in business anymore. Now the entire company's staff is out of a job, and the goods and services provided are no longer available.

No sure how the taxes work in the US but I'm pretty sure in our system money payed in wages is not taxed, same for raw materials. Profit is taxed not revenue so expenses such as materials and staff are not taxed so in all those cases the X% would be applied to the $500,000 not to the $1,000,000 so they're always in profit (and laying off staff would just increase the amount they pay in tax so if taxes were 100% laying off staff wouldn't save a business any money at all). The only thing that is not an 'expense' so is taxed is investing in one's business, it is debate-able how much business income would be used by the owner to re-invest in the business or whether it would be used to give themselves a big bonus and take a nice vacation, and generally the recent evidence shows lower taxes does not increase investment in the business (rather they send it off-shore or give themselves bonuses).

[GrimJack]

WaltP is making all sorts of category errors starting with John making 1 mill. He does not say if that is John, John, Inc or John and sons. They each get taxed differently so it is important to know wtf he is going on about. Then there is the marginal tax rate - If you are taxed 25% on 250k, when you go up to the next bracket (say 30%) 251k is not taxed at 30% 250K is still taxed at 25% and 1k is taxed at 30%.

He is setting up some pretty wimpy strawmen then whacking them; he does not actually have a very good argument - at least not as stated.