A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not disputing that it's a slam on the GOP. That part is clear. I think what he meant to say is that the only people would attend are those that HAVE to be there for their job, because no minority would attend voluntarily. However, the way in which he conveyed this thought, which is more true than most of us in the GOP would like, was via a stereotype based on race, and I think you people are giving him a pass that you would not give a Republican.

No, you, being a Republican, immediately read into his remarks what you wanted to. You didn't listen.

He did not say anywhere that a majority of hotel staff were minorities.

If you disagree, go back, look at the comment, and show me how he said that. I suspect you will need somewhere between 50 and 100 words that he did not say to demonstrate the inference, which means it's your reading instead of his speaking.

You have 30 minutes.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
FWIW, I used to argue on a regular basis with a libertarian that thought that the "race/ethnicity" question on the census was inherently racist.

Club's saner than that guy was.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Think again.

Indeed, club. Indeed.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Neither ineluctably follows. They need not be regressive, and they certainly need not be confiscatory, any more than current taxes are at least.

Please be sure to recognize the distinction between the concept of a consumption tax and the implementation of one type of consumption tax, known as a sales tax. The latter is the consumption based alternative of a the flat income tax, which should help to highlight that the problem lies not in the basis for the tax but rather its implementation.

How would you make a consumption tax progressive? The tax form would be total income - savings, and you get taxed progressively on the difference?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Club's saner than that guy was.

In Club's defense, I think he comes from a libertarian sort of point of view under which race is such a live wire that it ought not to be discussed. It's a sort of philisophical commitment to race neutrality through race blindness. I disagree, and I think we can and need to find ways to discuss and address race, buit I can respect where he's coming from, even if I disagree with where he comes out.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Think again. Although not inherently racist, it offends me that it's actually a question that someone thinks has merit. I always check "other," regardless of whether my race is listed.

You're not really an engineer from Chicago are you?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It increases future tax revenues, however, fortuitously at the time that SS will be in most dire straits.

Not if we then switch to a consumption tax and they pass on all that savings to their kids, who continue saving it (or owning capital with it), and passing it on.

But I am mixing two theories. So I will just address the issue w/o using the cheap shot of slapping you with your theories.

Under the current system, money deferred into a 401(k) is subject to SS taxes, but not income taxes, when you put it in, and is subject to income taxes, but not SS taxes, when you take it out. Since SS taxes on that money aren't deferred, the whole projection of SS tax intake vs. benefits paid would be unaffected by increasing 401(k) limits.

The tax revenues that would be increased at the time of withdrawal are the income tax revenues. I think, and you probably agree, that it's all one big pot of money. But people don't see it that way, and the whole "SS deficit" is not couched in those terms. It's seen as a separate deficit from the regular income/spending deficit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In Club's defense, I think he comes from a libertarian sort of point of view under which race is such a live wire that it ought not to be discussed. It's a sort of philisophical commitment to race neutrality through race blindness. I disagree, and I think we can and need to find ways to discuss and address race, buit I can respect where he's coming from, even if I disagree with where he comes out.

Close. It's fine to discuss it, but I think race is about as material as hair or eye color. The rest is an accurate statement of my belief.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You're not really an engineer from Chicago are you?

I'm anything you want me to be, baby

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In Club's defense, I think he comes from a libertarian sort of point of view under which race is such a live wire that it ought not to be discussed. It's a sort of philisophical commitment to race neutrality through race blindness. I disagree, and I think we can and need to find ways to discuss and address race, buit I can respect where he's coming from, even if I disagree with where he comes out.

Ah, yes, the libertarian club. A very white, male club indeed.

I'd hate to think they extended the logic to gender neutrality. Talking about sex is fun.

(ETA: damn, he got a well-timed prior post in there!)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How would you make a consumption tax progressive? The tax form would be total income - savings, and you get taxed progressively on the difference?

Let everyone create "Consumption Savings Accounts" Any contribution is deductible against income--no limits on contribution amounts. Any withdrawal is reported as income in the year it is made. Tax tables like they are now. "Net income" * applicable rate=tax owed.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Close. It's fine to discuss it, but I think race is about as material as hair or eye color. The rest is an accurate statement of my belief.

If it's totally immaterial, what is there to discuss?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Neither ineluctably follows. They need not be regressive, and they certainly need not be confiscatory, any more than current taxes are at least.

Please be sure to recognize the distinction between the concept of a consumption tax and the implementation of one type of consumption tax, known as a sales tax. The latter is the consumption based alternative of a the flat income tax, which should help to highlight that the problem lies not in the basis for the tax but rather its implementation.

Dissent. Any form of consumption tax removes from the tax base all accretions to wealth which are saved rather than spent. Tus, by definition, the tax burden falls more heavily on those who can least afford to shoulder it. You can have a threshhold before the tax kicks in, you can exempt essentials like food, rent, etc., but ultimately, the tax burden for the nation will be borne more heavily by those who can least afford it.

One can argue about the income tax being a disincentive to earn more, which is an argument I've never bought, or being too high or too low. What cannot be denied, however, is that an income tax at least place the tax burden on increases in wealth, rather than depletion of wealth.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Close. It's fine to discuss it, but I think race is about as material as hair or eye color. The rest is an accurate statement of my belief.

That's what the engineer in Chicago said.

The problem is that there are a lot of places where race matters. I know the most about the public health arena, but there are other areas as well. Sickle cell anemia and diabetes are two health problems that tend to be tied to race or ethnicity that I can think of off the top of my head. It's a lot easier for public health authorities to distribute and plan resources if they have good demographic data. I've never seen a public health study where race wasn't a variable, and a lot of times it's a meaningful or significant. The census data, including the racial and ethnic demographic data, is invaluable to public health researchers and the people who are divying up scarce resources.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Not if we then switch to a consumption tax and they pass on all that savings to their kids, who continue saving it (or owning capital with it), and passing it on.

But I am mixing two theories. So I will just address the issue w/o using the cheap shot of slapping you with your theories.

Under the current system, money deferred into a 401(k) is subject to SS taxes, but not income taxes, when you put it in, and is subject to income taxes, but not SS taxes, when you take it out. Since SS taxes on that money aren't deferred, the whole projection of SS tax intake vs. benefits paid would be unaffected by increasing 401(k) limits.

The tax revenues that would be increased at the time of withdrawal are the income tax revenues. I think, and you probably agree, that it's all one big pot of money. But people don't see it that way, and the whole "SS deficit" is not couched in those terms. It's seen as a separate deficit from the regular income/spending deficit.

Fair points, but I'm not really trying to address the precise question of saving SS through increasing 401ks. That said, the SS deficits will almost certainly have to be funded through ordinary income tax revenues, if for no other reason than to pay the IOUs. Good timing if retirees are wihdrawing from their 401ks

As for passing along--the taxes get paid eventually. First, IRAs have mandatory withdrawals (as do 401ks, no?), so you have to pay the taxes at 70+. If you pass to the kids, they still have to withdraw. And if you convert to a Roth in the meantime, you have to pay taxes then. All they provide for is tax deferral, not tax avoidance.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Dissent. Any form of consumption tax removes from the tax base all accretions to wealth which are saved rather than spent. .

But why do you care about wealth unless it's spent? If John D. Rockefeller has gold bars up the wazoo in Switzerland, what does it matter? When he decides to spend them, go ahead and tax them. The fundamental question is why earning income, generally a sign of productivity, is an event we should be taxing, as opposed to consumption, which by definition consumes resources, taking them away from others, is not such an event.