Politics As Usual

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Oh. I'm sorry that I was curt with you. You make some very valid points. Let's be friends.

Why would we want to be friends? Do you drive an SUV?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you should read "nobody" to mean "people without a political voice," which it kind of does anyway.

Well then why don't we just hike up the lowest marginal rate?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Well then why don't we just hike up the lowest marginal rate?

Because it's already quite high when you consider the loss of benefits from increased income. EITC, welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK.

Club, when you get in, please resolve the 1 billion versus 700 million issue..

Tip: Click the link. Unless you want to trust club's Fox cites over my government sites cites.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because it's already quite high when you consider the loss of benefits from increased income. EITC, welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc.

You were saying that people who get such things really aren't anybody because they have no political voice. So who cares? Screw them. They should get better jobs.

ETKMPCD: I did click the link. I can draw a distinction between "current capacity" and "desired reserves." I'm sure we can pay Halliburton or some other Admin-related entity big bucks to store 300 million more barrels for us. And I hope to god you never ever cite to fox news.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
that is so weird, because I could swear that to have a revenue-neutral flat tax, the flat tax rate would have to be higher than the lowest marginal rate. But I'm sure you are right. Because, well, you are you.

You are correct. The flat tax rate would have to be higher than the lowest marginal rate. What makes it a higher tax for the lower and middle classes is that the flat tax proposals floated by the Rs and by conservative policy wonks exclude non-wage income from the tax base. Hence, your dividend collectors and coupon clippers would have taxable income of zero. The corporate executives who derive more of their compensation in the form of stock options and deferred comp would pay tax only on their salaries. Capital gains would be excluded from the tax base.

In short, the generation above us and the trust fund babies we all went to law school with will pay much less tax than we do, but our taxes will go up because all of our salary will be taxed at an effective rate of 25% instead of progressive bracketing. In addition, we will lose our mortgage interest and state tax deductions to pay for the elimination of Dick Cheney's tax on his Halliburton dividends.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


ETKMPCD: I did click the link. I can draw a distinction between "current capacity" and "desired reserves." .

Good. Then you can explain where we put the extra 300m barrels that we don't have space for in the salt domes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Tip: Click the link. Unless you want to trust club's Fox cites over my government sites cites.

She'll go with FOX. She finds Government sites self-serving.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You are correct. The flat tax rate would have to be higher than the lowest marginal rate. What makes it a higher tax for the lower and middle classes is that the flat tax proposals floated by the Rs and by conservative policy wonks exclude non-wage income from the tax base. Hence, your dividend collectors and coupon clippers would have taxable income of zero. The corporate executives who derive more of their compensation in the form of stock options and deferred comp would pay tax only on their salaries. Capital gains would be excluded from the tax base.

In short, the generation above us and the trust fund babies we all went to law school with will pay much less tax than we do, but our taxes will go up because all of our salary will be taxed at an effective rate of 25% instead of progressive bracketing. In addition, we will lose our mortgage interest and state tax deductions to pay for the elimination of Dick Cheney's tax on his Halliburton dividends.

So which is it -- rates would not go up, or rates would go up? Your ability to put together coherent sentences, while appreciated, does not negate the fact that you are completely contradicting yourself.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So who cares? Screw them. They should get better jobs.

It's one thing to screw them for not having a voice. It's another thing to screw them such that they screw teh other taxpayers by finding it better to stay on welfare than to get a job.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Good. Then you can explain where we put the extra 300m barrels that we don't have space for in the salt domes.

If I accept your 700 million number, then there is no reason not to stop buying (or foregoing royalties in exchange for, which sounds like buying to me, but I will use your slippery bs crap language) oil for a while.

Agree? Disagree?

And I'm sure if someone decided to give us 300 million barrels really for free, we would find someplace to put it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's one thing to screw them for not having a voice. It's another thing to screw them such that they screw teh other taxpayers by finding it better to stay on welfare than to get a job.

Since they have no voice, I see no reason not to screw them futher by eliminating any type of welfare that helps them. Because as you point out, they don't count.

ETKMPCD I think I am done being feisty today. ttyl.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
As a broad conceptual statement this doesn't make much sense to me. You set the tax rate at x based on some intrinsic appropriateness, and then fit spending under the functional income limits that that tax rate creates? What if the tax is too small to pay for the programs you want (and despite the dirty liberal word "programs" I do mean the stuff you want, like the Iraq project, and not the stuff Dems like me want, like free massages for welfare moms)? Are we stuck with deficits until the spending needs decrease on their own?

You seem to stand the notion of taxation on its head. We don't spend because we have to tax; we tax because we have to spend. Aside from that, in the absence of spending data how can you ever justify a tax that is not zer.....oh wait....I think I get you now...

The simple example is how do you handle your household budget? Do you figure out how much you want/need to spend and then do whatever work you can to bring in income to meet those needs, or do you figure out how much your income is and budget from there?

The more complex reason for me is based on moral grounds because I believe that taxation, over a certain level, is stealing.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb


And I'm sure if someone decided to give us 300 million barrels really for free, we would find someplace to put it.

Yes. We'd put it in the reserve and sell 300m barrels that are already there.

What's your point? That we should stop buying oil regardless of the reserve's capacity? Intriguing.

We should stop buying because the price is high. Buy low; sell high.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

He's just great. He's what Republicans used to be before they went apeshit.