IGX

When one considers the amount of money the mega rich hide from taxes...

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_con ... t=2&lang=1

I hope that Reagan had an extremely painful passing into the next life. A diaper and oatmeal via a straw seem too lenient for that turkey necked motherfucker.

I really hate that I am supposed to enjoy being trickled upon by the wealthy. The fact that Romney hides so much of his earnings should raise a few flags, even amongst you tea-baggers. Do those tricorner hats obscure your vision that much?

The Laffer Curve says that government should tax at the rate that maximizes it's revenue-- why do you oppose that?

.

Turdacious wrote:The Laffer Curve says that government should tax at the rate that maximizes it's revenue-- why do you oppose that?

I oppose the Laffer Curve not because of the hypothesis, but because of the completely retarded method of "plotting" the data.



I mean, seriously? Anybody with the equivalent of 5th or 6th grade math could tell you that the trendline is all jacked up and accounts for only one or two data points and a statistical outlier.

A while ago I once took the data points referenced from the 2004 Laffer Curve to form a trendline;

So then what does the Testiclaw curve look like?

For Cleaner, it's apparently not enough that Obama run against W. Cleaner wants to debate the Laffer Curve with Reagan.

It's THIS economy, stupid. And Obama fumbled his chance to repair it.

Tax is the link between state and citizen, and tax revenues are the lifeblood of the social contract.

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_con ... ?idcat=2#1

Nice poetry. "Social Contract" is a gobbledygook term. Creates obligations between people that are based upon mythology.

How about "The State has a role in our lives. Taxes are how the State acquires the money needed to achieve its roles". Even Anarchists would agree.

We support progressive taxation, founded on the basic principle that tax should be based on ability to pay - that is, the wealthy should pay higher rates of tax.

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_con ... ?idcat=2#6

"From each according to their abilities". How did that work in the USSR and is working in the EU? How about in Greece?

The principle of progressive taxation has been supported almost unanimously by democratic choices in countries around the world – and we support those choices.

Ibid

Eat shit - trillions of flies cannot be wrong.

How come Reagan gets hosed for "tax cuts" but John Kennedy doesn't?

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... melot.html

Why cut taxes at all? Why not leave them at the 91 percent margin on certain incomes? Who needs more than $400,000 in 1964 dollars (about $2,961,006.45 in todays dollars http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). Slate won't deal with it - Kennedy was a tax cutter.

Kennedy cut taxes... so did Reagan. Reagan should have balanced the budget, like Kennedy wanted to do.

Sure! 91% is great incentive. I read Napolean Hill's "Think and Grow Rich" so that I could give 91% of my richness to the IRS. I thought and thought and thought but every time I accumulated some start up money, the IRS took it and told me I had to work harder. I just don't understand about them taxes.

cleaner464 wrote:When one considers the amount of money the mega rich hide from taxes...

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_con ... t=2&lang=1

I hope that Reagan had an extremely painful passing into the next life. A diaper and oatmeal via a straw seem too lenient for that turkey necked motherfucker.

I really hate that I am supposed to enjoy being trickled upon by the wealthy. The fact that Romney hides so much of his earnings should raise a few flags, even amongst you tea-baggers. Do those tricorner hats obscure your vision that much?

Arther Laffer has bee pretty clear that his theory has been hijacked by those who think taxes are too high, and that decreasing taxes will not raise revenue here.

When Reagan was elected, America was a very different place. You've since had 30 years' movement to the right.

No serious person believes that cutting taxes will raise revenue.

"From each according to their abilities". How did that work in the USSR and is working in the EU? How about in Greece?

Those are the choices? We can either have the lowest tax brackets in decades, or we're the USSR/EU/Greece?

Ignoring the argument about one unifying currency or inadequate tax collection policies or realty give-aways concerning the EU and Greece, do you really believe there is no point between 0% taxes and Stalin?

Eat shit - trillions of flies cannot be wrong.

First off, the gestational abilities of a separate species and progressive tax policy discussion do not make for useful analogies.

Second: truth is truth regardless of how few believe it, lies are lies regardless of how many believe it.

Why not leave them at the 91 percent margin on certain incomes? Who needs more than $400,000 in 1964 dollars

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ -do you have any clue how brackets work?

I could give 91% of my richness to the IRS.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ -do you have any clue how brackets work?

So then what does the Testiclaw curve look like?

God damn imageshack dropped the image! Here it is;

Testiclaw wrote:

"From each according to their abilities". How did that work in the USSR and is working in the EU? How about in Greece?

Those are the choices? We can either have the lowest tax brackets in decades, or we're the USSR/EU/Greece?

Ignoring the argument about one unifying currency or inadequate tax collection policies or realty give-aways concerning the EU and Greece, do you really believe there is no point between 0% taxes and Stalin?

Yeah. We decide what the Government needs to do. Do we have a Somalia, something like the US had in the early 1800s, something like the US had in early 1900s or do we emulate Sweden, or something else? You budget what needs doing. NEEDS doing, not what some shitbag in some think tank wants to do.

You take the budget. You set an annual Flat Rate of taxation that balances it. In setting this rate exclude the first so many thousands of bucks of income from taxation. Everyone pays an equal share of their income. Equally. Including Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and the incomes of the Kennedy and Rockefeller Family Trust Funds.

If you work harder you don't get punished for working harder. If you want to slack you suffer accordingly. Government has to justify its existence based upon what it does, not how it can play off different groups against each other to benefit itself.

What we have in the US now is a system where Politicians buy votes. They rob Peter to pay Paul so that Peter votes for them. They task the IRS with seizing income. The IRS does its job. What the IRS cannot collect gets turned into "debt" which is sold. This has been going on since there was an income tax. The problem got worse under Reagan, who with the Democratic Controlled Congress, put the US into a huge debt accumulation plan. The only time that it seemed to slow down is when we had a "moderate" Democrat and an "activist" GOP Congress back in the 1990s.

Testiclaw wrote:

Eat shit - trillions of flies cannot be wrong.

First off, the gestational abilities of a separate species and progressive tax policy discussion do not make for useful analogies.

Second: truth is truth regardless of how few believe it, lies are lies regardless of how many believe it.

The Majority isn't always right.

Testiclaw wrote:

Why not leave them at the 91 percent margin on certain incomes? Who needs more than $400,000 in 1964 dollars

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ -do you have any clue how brackets work?

Back in the day I RECALL that the 91 percent was a "marginal rate" only taken on income above $400,000. Kennedy cut the rate to seventy percent. Once he got his brains blasted out of his head by someone or someones, he became a Progressive Secular Saint. So Kennedy didn't cut taxes. He didn't use drugs either. There are also no flies in China. Lots of myths out there.

How well did these rates work? Explain this - why did Kennedy want to Stimulate an economy that was "working well"?

Pinky wrote:No serious person believes that cutting taxes will raise revenue.

Cutting effective rates and gross rates are different things. In his rebuttal to Obama's 2012 State of the Union address, Mitch Daniels suggested that a Republican program would raise effective rates. A tax code that lowered gross rates while raising effective rates is not necessarily a bad idea.

Testiclaw wrote:

Turdacious wrote:The Laffer Curve says that government should tax at the rate that maximizes it's revenue-- why do you oppose that?

I oppose the Laffer Curve not because of the hypothesis, but because of the completely retarded method of "plotting" the data.

Good point, as you imply, it depends on who is plotting the data.

Testiclaw wrote:I mean, seriously? Anybody with the equivalent of 5th or 6th grade math could tell you that the trendline is all jacked up and accounts for only one or two data points and a statistical outlier.]

Corporate income tax rates are probably not the best ones to look at-- effects on personal income taxes are more relevant.

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:No serious person believes that cutting taxes will raise revenue.

Cutting effective rates and gross rates are different things. In his rebuttal to Obama's 2012 State of the Union address, Mitch Daniels suggested that a Republican program would raise effective rates. A tax code that lowered gross rates while raising effective rates is not necessarily a bad idea.

That would be a very good idea, but it's not really what the "cut taxes to raise revenue" crowd is talking about.

It's also not likely to happen. The groups that pushed for the various tax breaks in the first place will fight for their survival.

Turdacious wrote:A tax code that lowered gross rates while raising effective rates is not necessarily a bad idea.

This is true, it isn't a bad idea, so long as the loopholes/deductions removed don't unfairly target middle-and-lower-income people.

Capital Gains and micro-trading are two areas where I firmly believe the rate (gross and effective) should be raised, for example, and it's not something that would burden the working families of the country.

Gene wrote:[...letters and words...]

You are borderline incoherent, and not really addressing points. You still haven't shown that you understand how brackets work, at all, let alone fucking flat-tax nonsense.

We can argue about various rates, but the idea that a flat-tax after a set amount of income is either "fair" or effective for a modern economy is downright fucking ridiculous.

Testiclaw wrote:You still haven't shown that you understand how brackets work, at all, let alone fucking flat-tax nonsense.

A person who earned over $1,000,000 in the early 1960s would be taxed 25 percent on the first $400,000 and then 91 percent on the next $600,000. Giving them an over all tax of $100,000 + $546,000 = $646,000.

Seems like I'm making sense here... http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marg ... Rates.html

What do YOU mean by "brackets" Testiclaw?

Testiclaw wrote:a flat-tax after a set amount of income is either "fair" or effective for a modern economy is downright fucking ridiculous.

There are seven States in the US which have a Flat Income Tax rate. There seven states which have an income tax rate of zero - no income tax. I think most folks would say that Florida, Illinois and Texas have modern economies.

While we're on the topic of "Fairness" - do you think it's fair that about half of the working population pays NO Federal income taxes? I sure don't.

Testiclaw wrote:

Turdacious wrote:A tax code that lowered gross rates while raising effective rates is not necessarily a bad idea.

This is true, it isn't a bad idea, so long as the loopholes/deductions removed don't unfairly target middle-and-lower-income people.

Capital Gains and micro-trading are two areas where I firmly believe the rate (gross and effective) should be raised, for example, and it's not something that would burden the working families of the country.

Lower income people don't really pay federal income taxes-- they only really pay for federal policies when the cost of those policies are split between federal and state governments (as state tax codes tend to be regressive). And just because a tax deduction primarily benefits the middle class is not really an argument that it should stay.

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:No serious person believes that cutting taxes will raise revenue.

Cutting effective rates and gross rates are different things. In his rebuttal to Obama's 2012 State of the Union address, Mitch Daniels suggested that a Republican program would raise effective rates. A tax code that lowered gross rates while raising effective rates is not necessarily a bad idea.

That would be a very good idea, but it's not really what the "cut taxes to raise revenue" crowd is talking about.

It's also not likely to happen. The groups that pushed for the various tax breaks in the first place will fight for their survival.

Of course, limiting moneymaking opportunities for former members of Congress and their staffs would be bad for America.

Gene, if you add up local sales tax + property tax + state income tax, my middle class ass paid more in Texas than in Colorado, so watch out for those arguments.

EDIT: disregard, I think you were just pointing out that Texas (no income tax) and Colorado (flat tax) have modern economies. I agree. Carry on

Testiclaw wrote:We can argue about various rates, but the idea that a flat-tax after a set amount of income is either "fair" or effective for a modern economy is downright fucking ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous, or necessarily more unfair than the current system. An effective flat tax would require doing away with many of the more significant deductions-- and could result in a higher real tax rate for high income individuals. It would likely also require federal sales and/or VAT taxes.

The rich might not necessarily be better off under a flat tax-- especially those wise enough to effectively take advantage of the incentives that the system currently provides.