A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Someone's Evil Twin]

Originally posted by blue_Triangle
Flames ain't suposed to be funny- they're just supposed to be desparate and stupid and cruel. Hope that helps, but for now you need to step back away from this........

Post Ipsa Loquator.

Again.

[Shape Shifter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb17.html

[Replaced_Texan]

• Q: Which of the following is treason?
  1. Not wishing the President a happy birthday even when he is clearly wearing a party hat and a "Kiss The Birthday Boy" shirt
  2. Questioning the progress, purpose, or justification of the Iraq war
  3. Providing material aid to a hostile enemy of the United States
  4. Telling America "Hey America yo mama's so fat by the time she bends over it's Daylight Savings Time."
  
  Answer: All of them are treason but number four is the worst treason of all on account of America is real sensitive about the fatness of its mama.
  
  Q: I'm at a formal dinner party when the President shows up half-naked and stinking of rum. Can I tell him he is inappropriately attired without committing treason?
  A: No. By embarassing the Commander-in-Chief you're providing aid and comfort to our enemies such as Osama bin Laden and Al Franken.
  Q: What if it's the Vice-President in a muu-muu reeking of ether?
  A: No. By embarassing the Vice-President you are a heartbeat away from providing aid and comfort to our enemies.
  Q: What about the President Pro Tempore of the Senate? Nobody cares about the stupid ol President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
  A: No, that's three heartbeats away from treason which is still dangerously naughty.
  Q: The Secretary of Agriculture naked and smeared in monkey dung?
  A: No. By embarassing the Secretary of Agriculture you are providing aid and comfort to the enemies of agriculture, like potato blight and Dutch Elm disease. Are you on the side of Dutch Elm disease?
  Q: Assistant to the postmaster general wearing a suit of old condoms and whale blubber?
  A: Now you're being silly. Where would the assistant to the postmaster general get a hold of whale blubber?
  
  Q: Oh no, I've accidentally committed treason! What do I do!
  A: Don't worry there is still time to make up for it! America's very forgiving an there's always another second chance to cheer up your country after you've gotten it down. Here's a few examples:
  
  
  Calling America an illegal occupier --> three God Bless Americas, two public denunciations of Ted Kennedy as an Islamist sympathizer
  
  Voting against tort reform --> four America the Beautifuls, three strident blog posts on Why We Must Win
  
  Selling nuclear technology to North Korea --> four National Anthems, one delicious chocolate ice cream cake especially for the President
  
  Leaking a CIA agent's identity to Robert Novak --> one fifteen minute segment plugging White House policy on the Sunday morning talk show of your choice
  
  Leaking a CIA agent's identity to Robert Novak to get back at her treasonous husband --> Totally not treason! Buy yourself a taco.

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_...70213550100400

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think what I've been saying is necesarily in tension with any of your goals. You seem to be stuck on the idea that consumption tax=flat tax. That's not necessarily the case. That may be the cheapest to administer (or it may not), but one could use the current income tax system but shift the tax burden to those who consume, and particularly those who consume a lot, and have it just as progressive as the current scheme (although, sure, it would benefit those who save more than those who borrow for consumption).

I don't equate a consumption tax with a flat tax. A flat tax can easily be made more progressive by exempting a certain level of income. In fact, in the 1970's Milton Friedman proposed, and Richard Nixon ordered a study on a flat tax that acutally went negative (people earning below a subsistence level received a tranfer payment) as an alternative to the existing tax and welfare systems. I think one of the lesser-known tragedies of the Nixon Presidency was that this idea was not more aggressively studied and pursued.

However, I am afraid I fail to see how you can institute a consumption tax that would be progressive and still be workable. Sure, you can exempt spending on certain items, but you have to draw a line somewhere. You could also impose different rates, e.g., a 5% rate on clothing but a 20% rate on imported cars costing greater than $45,000. However, these types of systems rapidly become unworkable if you get too many exemptions or different rates. And they all fail to tax accretions to wealth that go unspent.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But why do you want to encourge his spending more? If you give Bill Gates a dollar, would you prefer to see him spend it or save it? If he saves it, and it's invested productively, won't that benefit everyone more than if he puts another flat screen TV in his house?

Besides, someone eventually has to spend it. If gates saves it, his kid might go nuts on the spending of his trust. It's not like the savings disappear, never to be taxed again.

Finally, he probably will spend it. Over one's lifetime, spending=income. Well, let's say income-estate, but still. It's just a timing question.

If all it is is a timing question, why not give incentives for savings over consumption that will enhance the strength of the economy by increasing the flow of money to the most productive uses?

I'm afraid I don't buy the connection between an income tax and an incentive to spend. What's more, except with respect to a very small portion of the middle class, I don't believe that a consumption tax is an incentive to save.

I make a lot of money (well, at least I did before I went into solo practice), and I save(d) as much as I could. But I still bought a new washer and dryer when the old one went on the fritz, and I still put gas in the car, and occasionally took the kids to the movies or Great America. Quite frankly, I couldn't save more no matter what the tax base is.

And as for Bill Gates, he's going to buy the art, take the European vacation, go to the opera, and he will still save millions. Changing to a consumption tax won't affect his spending patterns any more than it will mine.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)


BTW, there's no corporate income tax--taxes are paid on dividends, if those are used for consumption.

If you are actually advocating eliminating the corporate income tax and shifting to a consumption tax, then you can definitely forget. The rates would be so high that Britney Spears would have to do her shopping at Wal-Mart out of necessity rather than choice.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't do socks. My primary fights his fights.

As long as we're still friends, Hank.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you are actually advocating eliminating the corporate income tax and shifting to a consumption tax, then you can definitely forget. The rates would be so high that Britney Spears would have to do her shopping at Wal-Mart out of necessity rather than choice.

There was a time when consumption taxes made up a large part of government revenue. That time effectively ended with the Deal and, more importantly, World War II.

Burger, is your proposal that we return to a government that looks and operates as it did in the 30s? Many conservatives have long argued for drying up revenue and letting expenses follow. It strikes me that your proposal, with revenues coming in on the back end but heavily deferred by exempting savings on the front end, is a set up for such a shift in spending.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think what she's suggesting is our exact same system, with a savings deduction added.

Perhaps. But I thought she was suggesting a tax system of x% times (income minus savings).


I draw this conclusino from her statement that "I am really suggestingt a tax system of x% times (income minus savings)."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The answer is no, because I can make a lot more money doing legal work in the time it would take me then it costs to pay my accountant, and doing taxes is almost as boring and annoying as discussing them with you.

Presumably you so much more money in that time that you can pay the additional income taxes and still have more than enough money to pay your accountant.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Class action reform passed today. Most class actions now get removed to Federal Court. Check.

And did anyone read the article in yesterday's NYT about Buffalo NY (Erie, CO) slashing discretionary spending drastically... and noting that a great part of their spending is the result of unfunded state and federal mandates? Great article. My guess is that the unfunded mandates help accelerate the decline in places like Buffalo and Chicago, as college grads and companies (read: tax base) move to greener pastures and the stagnant or declining tax base has less funds to subsidize services for poor people, the number of whom may increase as college grads and companies move to greener pastures. Unlike Chicago, the people of Erie County balked, actually it sounds like they rioted civilly, at the prospect of higher local sales taxes etc. God Bless Buffalo, I guess.

If you're going to write one of those states-rights beefs about unfunded federal mandates, have the decency also to acknowledge the states-rights beef about the federal government supplanting (hi bilmore!) state class-actions.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb17.html

why for me?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah. We don't export much, do we.

Ah. So your hope is to choke off consumer spending (2/3 of the US economy) and expand investment capital and, if that capital goes overseas, we'll just export to them and make up the jobs that we lost through reduced consumer spending that way?

Great idea. Well worth the insane complexities you propose.

Everyone knows the US savings rate is too low. But any remedy to that needs to be -- and only needs to be -- incremental. A savings rate can also be too high, especially in a well developed economy that has sophisticated capital markets. I.e., Japan, 1990s to present. Proposing drastic, disruptive change is always risky -- and you are doing it to obtain a reward that not necessarily a good thing.

Reading your posts, one would think there is a capital shortage in the American economy. That the reason companies are not building infrastructure and developing capacity is because people are not investing enough money, and because they don't have access to inexpensive financing. None of that is true, nor is there a shortage of productive capacity.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Presumably you so much more money in that time that you can pay the additional income taxes and still have more than enough money to pay your accountant.

I almost said "(yes, after taxes)" in that post but figured it was obvious.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I almost said "(yes, after taxes)" in that post but figured it was obvious.

You do "subtle" here at your own peril.