Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
As I think about all of this, it strikes me that this debate, from my side anyway, is driven, not so much by the current absolute numbers of taxation, but by the knowledge that, no matter how high taxes would ever grow, the tone and direction of the other side would never really change.

What makes you think that the flipside of that debate would be any different?

Do you imagine that (say) Grover Norquist will ever actually say, "25.6%? Whew. OK, good job, everyone -- I think we're done now."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
What makes you think that the flipside of that debate would be any different?

Do you imagine that (say) Grover Norquist will ever actually say, "25.6%? Whew. OK, good job, everyone -- I think we're done now."

True. It's just a constant state of tension that (theoretically) keeps us all equally dissatisfied. We need to knock them down when we can because we know damn well you guys will raise them when you can, and vice versa.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
As I think about all of this, it strikes me that this debate, from my side anyway, is driven, not so much by the current absolute numbers of taxation, but by the knowledge that, no matter how high taxes would ever grow, the tone and direction of the other side would never really change.

In short, even if we were back to a 95% tax rate for everyone above middle class, with full funding for every program ever discussed presently, the "needs" would simply expand to make the revenue insufficient.

I can hear it now. "95% is simply not enough. There are still people in Skokie who haven't received their free opera tickets in weeks! WEEKS! The human toll of this neglect is incalculable, and it occurs simply because those with the most refuse to pay their fair share! Those bloodsucking rich don't care if we starve deserving people - and children! - of cultural experience - this regressive system has to go. Those of us who fought in Viet Nam understand human suffering, and we won't rest until we reverse the cruel and regressive tax policies that allow the most well-off to continue unjustly robbing the rest of us, and our children, of the basic entitlement to opera that our forefathers promised to us."

You still haven't addressed my point. The tax cuts put in place by the current adminnistration, which were sold as middle class tax relief, did not benefit the middle class. The greatest benefits were bestowed upon the wealthiest Americans, not the ones who do most of the working and spending that keep our economy running and keep the greater number of people employed.

Perhaps it's because you can't answer this charge that you and Club are working so hard at misdirecting the debate.

Why, Bimore, why?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

I know my disdain for Condi Rice's job performance borders on obsessive, but even I didn't expect this guy to have my back.

I find it funny that while my exasperation with the admin has increased on a prettty steady line over the past few years, I have nevertheless gained a grudging respect for certain members of the admin, like Rumsfeld, who may be a collossal prick but has done yeoman's work in trying to modernize a stodgy military. Doesn't mean I like these folks any better, but I can see that they are effective in what they do. When I think of this phenomenon I often think that I could stomach a second term for W if he fired a few folks. Condi's name would be on the top of that list (in bold, maybe with stars and arrows next to it), perhaps Wolfowitz, definitely Ashcroft (because he's an inept grandstander, not because he's traipsing on my civil liberties), and uhhhh...Cheney, I guess. Can any of you guys on the right look into this for me? Hank? Club?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You still haven't addressed my point. The tax cuts put in place by the current adminnistration, which were sold as middle class tax relief, did not benefit the middle class. The greatest benefits were bestowed upon the wealthiest Americans, not the ones who do most of the working and spending that keep our economy running and keep the greater number of people employed.

Perhaps it's because you can't answer this charge that you and Club are working so hard at misdirecting the debate.

Why, Bimore, why?

Because, Taxwonk, because!

First, why do you say that the wealthiest Americans don't work? Do you start from the proposition that all wealth over some certain amount is unearned and undeserved? Seems to me that, in our capitalist system, the ones with the most money (who are made up, by and large, of small business owners, (who, BTW, employ one or two people in our system). and NOT your hated inheritance babies) have, by definition, provided value to enough people who were willing to trade money for their efforts to amass wealth. "Value" isn't an unknown term - it means that they made the people who gave them their money satisfied that they took something from that business owner that was worth what they paid. Is a dollar earned shoveling shit more noble than one earned designing and selling water purification systems? If that's the case, let's do away with schools, and strive for the uneducated life of mules. No? You mean we value education, because an educated person can accomplish more than simply the sum of their muscle capacity? And yet, to you, the results of that education - the ability to work smarter, instead of just stronger - is an ignoble thing? Like it or not, people who cannot offer to other people any product or service that is valuable to those other people are not going to do as well as those who can. That makes sense, because they bring little to the table. Yes, these people should be supported. But, I would stop far short of your seeming wish to elevate those people to some position of nobility and honor over those who CAN do something valuable. They're not exalted because of their lack - they're simply lacking. Likewise, the people you denigrate - the productive ones who make money - don't deserve your scorn based on that very ability to make money.

Second, you seem to live a life (or at least you argue arguments) defined by envy. You've said that, yes, the middle class got a tax break. (More importantly, the middle class avoided the tax raise that would have come in Goreworld, but that's a different topic.) We did - I got a tax break. I distinctly remember it. But, you say that the rich got a bigger break as a way to prove that the middle class did NOT get the tax break promised. (Your words were "did not benefit the middle class".) I don't get this. The tax break that I get is dimished because someone else got a bigger one? Nope - I still saved that thousand bucks.

Wow, this could have used more paragraph breaks.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I know my disdain for Condi Rice's job performance borders on obsessive, but even I didn't expect this guy to have my back.

It's really sort of funny. He's bitching about Rice relying too much on the wrong info that misled Bush into thinking there were WMD.

But, go back to late 2003. He was the one puffing it up and giving it to Rice.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Because, Taxwonk, because!

First, why do you say that the wealthiest Americans don't work? Do you start from the proposition that all wealth over some certain amount is unearned and undeserved? Seems to me that, in our capitalist system, the ones with the most money (who are made up, by and large, of small business owners, (who, BTW, employ one or two people in our system). and NOT your hated inheritance babies) have, by definition, provided value to enough people who were willing to trade money for their efforts to amass wealth. "Value" isn't an unknown term - it means that they made the people who gave them their money satisfied that they took something from that business owner that was worth what they paid. Is a dollar earned shoveling shit more noble than one earned designing and selling water purification systems? If that's the case, let's do away with schools, and strive for the uneducated life of mules. No? You mean we value education, because an educated person can accomplish more than simply the sum of their muscle capacity? And yet, to you, the results of that education - the ability to work smarter, instead of just stronger - is an ignoble thing? Like it or not, people who cannot offer to other people any product or service that is valuable to those other people are not going to do as well as those who can. That makes sense, because they bring little to the table. Yes, these people should be supported. But, I would stop far short of your seeming wish to elevate those people to some position of nobility and honor over those who CAN do something valuable. They're not exalted because of their lack - they're simply lacking. Likewise, the people you denigrate - the productive ones who make money - don't deserve your scorn based on that very ability to make money.

My complaint is that the biggest tax breaks were given to those who don't earn their income. Look at the two biggest tax cuts; the dividend cut and the reduced captial gains tax. Neither of those are aimed at the business owners you are talking about. Once again, your typical wage earner, even your high-income typical wage earner owns his or her stocks by and large through 401(k) plans and IRAs. The value of stock held by those plans doesn't benefit from a reduced tax on dividends or capital gains. Those tax breaks are designed to help Ken Lay and others who earn most of their money through privately held investments.

I don't exalt shovelling shit over designing and building air or water purification systems or practicing law. On the contrary, I am suggesting that both are disadvantaged over income derived from private investment. I don't even exalt income earned through wages from income earned through private investment. I believe that both should be taxed on an equal basis, and that the people who earn far more of either investment, wage, or business income than most should shoulder a greater percentage of the tax burden.

I don't know where you got the idea that I have scorn for any particular group of taxpayer. I submit that you're projecting. If you can, point to one statement I've made that supports this assertion of yours.

Second, you seem to live a life (or at least you argue arguments) defined by envy. You've said that, yes, the middle class got a tax break. (More importantly, the middle class avoided the tax raise that would have come in Goreworld, but that's a different topic.) We did - I got a tax break. I distinctly remember it. But, you say that the rich got a bigger break as a way to prove that the middle class did NOT get the tax break promised. (Your words were "did not benefit the middle class".) I don't get this. The tax break that I get is dimished because someone else got a bigger one? Nope - I still saved that thousand bucks.

Wow, this could have used more paragraph breaks.

The tax break you got isn't diminished because someone else got a larger one. The tax break you got is diminished because it was much smaller than Bush claimed it would be when he was pushing it, and it's musch msaller than Bush now claims it is. On the other hand, the top 1% of taxpayers got a tax break that was more than 5 times the size of the one you got.

In other words, Bush lied. That is my point. Bush lied. He said he was going to make life better for all taxpayers, and he didn't. Instead, he took care of his largest contributors, and threw you and I a bone. Am I going to turn down the bone? No.

But am I going to vote for a man who lied? Not if his name is George Bush.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
But am I going to vote for a man who lied? Not if his name is George Bush.

That's an important distinction this election.

(More later.)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's really sort of funny. He's bitching about Rice relying too much on the wrong info that misled Bush into thinking there were WMD.

But, go back to late 2003. He was the one puffing it up and giving it to Rice.

Late '03? So you're saying that after the end of major combat, when the ISG was proclaiming confidence about finding WMDs while it went about doing what it was appointed to do (that is, find WMDs), this somehow undermines his credibility for criticizing the NSC's prewar actions? That's pretty tenuous. I myself think you'd be better off going with the "disgruntled former employee" songbook.

I also think that, rather than complaining about her reliance on the "wrong info", his bitching is about her inability to manage the different pipelines of information well enough, seeing as how the Office of Special Plands and the Office of the VP were running their own data mining operations. But I guess we'll all have a better idea of the facts behind these charges when the WMD inquiry wraps up in 2009.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In other words, Bush lied. That is my point. Bush lied. He said he was going to make life better for all taxpayers, and he didn't. Instead, he took care of his largest contributors, and threw you and I a bone.

He proposed a large tax cut, and came up against a Congress with a significant contingent that was vehemently anti-tax-cut. They compromised. He got less than he wanted. It was an open process - you could read the proposals as they were delivered.

This was a lie?

I think ya'all have severely devalued the concept of "lie" this cycle.

As for the rest - I thought we were discussing income tax rates. When did we move on to capital gains? Does that mean you've abandoned the income tax rate argument?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Late '03? So you're saying that after the end of major combat, when the ISG was proclaiming confidence about finding WMDs while it went about doing what it was appointed to do (that is, find WMDs), this somehow undermines his credibility for criticizing the NSC's prewar actions? That's pretty tenuous. I myself think you'd be better off going with the "disgruntled former employee" songbook.

I also think that, rather than complaining about her reliance on the "wrong info", his bitching is about her inability to manage the different pipelines of information well enough, seeing as how the Office of Special Plands and the Office of the VP were running their own data mining operations. But I guess we'll all have a better idea of the facts behind these charges when the WMD inquiry wraps up in 2009.

Maybe I said it unclearly. Back in late 2003, he wrote a significant report that, on the surface, did a lot towards building the impression of lots of weapons and facilities. If you read the report very carefully, you could discern that he was qualifying everything in that regard - but the surface, apparent reading was, SH had weapons. I thought it ironic that, after writing that cheerleader's report for Rice, he complains that Rice was getting, and accepting, bad info. I'm not saying he's not correct now - I'm not thrilled at all with the state of our intelligence, and Rice would seem to have some large responsibility for that - simply that he had a significant hand in exactly what he complains of.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
He proposed a large tax cut, and came up against a Congress with a significant contingent that was vehemently anti-tax-cut. They compromised. He got less than he wanted. It was an open process - you could read the proposals as they were delivered.

This was a lie?

I read all the proposals. From the Bush Budget to every bill introduced. It's part of my job. And none of them offered what was claimed, tax cuts for the middle class. He got most of what he asked for, and what he didn't get, he bargained away to save the big tax breaks he did get.

As for the rest - I thought we were discussing income tax rates. When did we move on to capital gains? Does that mean you've abandoned the income tax rate argument?

What do you mean by moving on to capital gains. Capital gains are income, the same as any other income. And if you think I'm arguing about tax rates, you've still missed my point.


I'm arguing about tax relief. Or more accurately, the fact that Bush promised it for every taxpayer, but only gave it to the wealthiest of taxpayers.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk


I'm arguing about tax relief. Or more accurately, the fact that Bush promised it for every taxpayer, but only gave it to the wealthiest of taxpayers.

Hey, anyone willing to work hard enough to earn enough is entitled to those tax breaks as well.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
. . . .And none of them offered what was claimed, tax cuts for the middle class. . . . Bush promised it for every taxpayer, but only gave it to the wealthiest of taxpayers.[/B]

You're confusing me again. I got a tax cut. So did you. When did he tell me it was going to be hugely bigger than what it turned out to be?

And, I offer this, as a way of speaking of math subjects that avoids the pain to me:

August 19, 2004, 12:01 p.m.
Killing the Class-Warfare Argument
The rich are paying more taxes since the Bush tax cuts.
http://nationalreview.com/script/pri...0408191201.asp


One of the inconvenient facts for the foes of the Bush tax cuts is that the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich rose after the economic stimulus plan was put into effect. This consequence of the Bush tax cuts is highly damaging to the case by the Bush-haters that his tax cuts disproportionately benefit Halliburton executives and Bill Gates. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts took some 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely, so it’s hard to argue that working families didn’t get a financial benefit.

But the Left continues to work as best it can around these facts. The Kerry-Edwards campaign is now touting a new study by the Congressional Budget Office which purportedly finds that last year’s tax cut was tilted to the rich. There’s just one problem with this class-warfare whine: It just isn’t true.

What the CBO report did conclude was that the total tax share by the richest 1 percent declined modestly from 2001 to 2004. But that wasn’t because of the tax cut. It was because of the recession. When the economy contracts and incomes fall as they did in 2001 and 2002, tax payments by the wealthy fall the fastest. This is because of the progressive rate structure of the income tax. In other words, if everyone’s income falls by 10 percent, the overall percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy falls, because they pay a higher marginal tax rate.

What this means is that the best way to get the rich to pay more taxes is to incentivize their incomes to rise. For every extra dollar the rich person earns, about 30 to 40 cents goes into the government coffers. And since the Bush tax cuts have helped put the economy back on track, as evidenced by the 4.5 percent real growth rate of the economy since May 2003, the share of taxes paid by the rich has started to rise again.

Those who actually read the CBO study will discover that it confirms exactly this point. From 2001 to 2004 incomes have fallen sharply for the highest income groups. IRS data shows that in 2002, taxable income fell by about 4.3 percent, with declines steepest among the highest income groups. In 2002, income fell for the second year in a row. Prior to 2000, annual incomes hadn’t fallen since 1953. The New York Times recently reported that income fell 63 percent from 2000 to 2002 for the highest income bracket. When the rich make less; so does the government. So why do members of the Left hate the rich so much? Without them, there would be no money to finance the government.

A recent report from the Treasury Department confirms that the rich are paying a bigger share of taxes than they would if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t passed. The Treasury estimates that the top 1 percent of earners will pay about 32.3 percent of taxes this year, which is the same as the CBO estimate. The Treasury also estimates, however, that absent the tax cuts, the top 1 percent would be paying only 30.5 percent of taxes, down 10 percent from 2001.

The Treasury data confirm that the real impact of the tax cuts on the rich has been precisely the opposite of what the CBO study suggests. By resuscitating the economy and spurring a turnaround in income growth, the tax cuts have increased the share paid by the rich. Real income growth has increased significantly since the 2003 tax cuts were passed, increasing at faster than a 6 percent rate in the first two quarters of 2004. With the economy now growing more quickly, we can expect the tax shares paid by high-income groups to increase.

There is another reason to suspect that as the Bush tax cuts continue to kick in, they will increase tax payments by the wealthy. People are much more likely to work harder, engage in entrepreneurial activity, and make investments when the government is confiscating less of the monetary rewards for these activities. When you tax something, you get less of it.

This is obvious to most people. It’s why we tax socially undesirable activities like smoking and drinking. It’s why we fine people for traffic violations. Similarly, when we tax income, people tend to have less of it — either from working less or spending their time, effort, and money on tax-avoidance schemes. JFK understood this, writing that “Middle and higher-income families are both consumers and investors — and the present rates not only check consumption but discourage investment, and encourage the diversion of funds and effort into activities aimed more at the avoidance of taxes than the efficient production of goods.”

Those who argue that the Bush tax cuts were a “give-away” to the rich assume that incomes grow at a constant rate, regardless of how heavily they are taxed. That is the fallacy of the recent CBO study. The report concedes: “Our analysis does not account for incomes changing in response to the tax cuts.” It’s like assuming that you’re not going to take off any weight if you stop eating hot fudge sundaes with whipped cream and cherries on top. This is the same whimsical logic that compelled the tax accountants on Capitol Hill to famously estimate that a 100 percent income-tax rate would bring in billions of dollars in federal revenue.

One final point: The CBO study confirms that the rich carry the bulk of the tax burden on their shoulders. The CBO estimate says that the share of income taxes paid by the richest 20 percent of earners fell from 82.5 percent to 82.1 percent in 2004. The report also states that the top 10 percent of earners will pay “only” 66.7 percent of 2004 taxes, with the top 1 percent paying 32.3 percent. Fully 80 percent of Americans pay less than 18 percent of total income taxes. Not even Al Sharpton could look at this data and say the rich are getting a free ride.

How much exactly does the Kerry-Edwards team want the rich to pay? Seventy percent? Eighty percent? One hundred percent? Does the Left want rich people like Barbara Streisand, George Soros, Teresa Heinz, and Ted Kennedy to pay all the taxes? Hey, now there’s an idea . . .

— Stephen Moore is president of the Club for Growth. Phil Kerpen is a research assistant at the Club for Growth.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I thought it ironic that, after writing that cheerleader's report for Rice, he complains that Rice was getting, and accepting, bad info. I'm not saying he's not correct now - I'm not thrilled at all with the state of our intelligence, and Rice would seem to have some large responsibility for that - simply that he had a significant hand in exactly what he complains of.

The only way he had "a significant hand in exactly what he complains of" is if you think an architect and a building inspector have the same job.