So you oppose this. What do you support?

Post #306,690 by drook 4/3/09 10:48:35 AM Reply	So you oppose this. What do you support? -- Drew
Post #306,696 by beepster 4/3/09 11:19:40 AM Reply	Once again you invented a position from a simple and very direct statement. That statement was "people making under 250k will pay more taxes". I didn't say this was good, bad or indifferent. I didn't say I supported it or opposed it. I didn't say it was strictly based on income taxes, corporate taxes, tooth fairy taxes or any other taxes. The simple statement was...by the end of this admnisitration, which had promised people making under 250k that they would not pay any more in taxes...these people would be paying more taxes. How you got from there to "Bill says that all taxes hurt poor people" is beyond me. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #306,699 by boxley 4/3/09 11:38:16 AM Reply	read obamas lips, he is lying like every other pol
Post #306,702 by beepster 4/3/09 11:49:21 AM Reply	don't tell scott that least till after the chin wipe. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #306,707 by boxley 4/3/09 12:08:50 PM Reply	naw, he is desparate to believe in the dream too bad it died in 1968 and the hucksters took possession of the corpse and drag it around the block every 4 years banging drums, blowing kazzos and speechifying before putting it back into the closet and back to ripping off the citizenry business as usual thanx, bill
Post #306,709 by Another Scott 4/3/09 12:42:33 PM Reply	Specifics would be nice. http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/ Under the Obama Plan: * Middle class families will see their taxes cut Â and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan. * Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. * ObamaÂs plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut Â his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit. Point me to specifics that go against what he has said. In condensing 3 paragraphs into a sentence, sometimes words get left out. Shocking, I know. Show me a bill that's pushed by the majority or that Obama has signed that goes against those 3 paragraphs. Thus far, all you've given is your opinion. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #306,712 by drook 4/3/09 1:24:18 PM Reply	Couple reminders http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9716 Taxes will go up. On everybody. Maybe not income taxes..but trust me...families making under 250k will pay more cumulative taxes by the end of this administration. Okay, that's the "simple statement" you seem to be referring to. http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9719 Fed cigarette and alcohol taxes, excise taxes on airline tickets, utilities etc...increases in taxes on manufacturers passed on via price increases, et al. Tax burdens, each and every one. Add them up sometime. http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9810 The cig tax is regressive. So now you are starting to name some of the other taxes. http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9769 How about 40% of the people making 20% of the money paying 0% of the taxes? Would you consider that broken too? Will taxing Microsoft products effect Bill Gates in any real fashion? Will it change his tax burden? Will adding a 5$ iPod tax change Steve Job's tax burden? Or rather, will adding those taxes mean that there are 500-1000 less people working for MS or Apple? or the next gen ipod touch sells for 254 instead of 249. To the first point, you are clearly suggesting that you do think the two lowest quintiles paying no taxes is "broken". And since I never answered the question, no I don't think that's broken. To the second point, you are clearly suggesting that the iPod tax (meaning taxing corporations) leads to people losing their jobs. You did it again here: http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9797 If you want to complicate it and say "company x cuts costs so they don't have to pass it on"...company x has just fired 100 people..those 100 people are consumers. If you're suggesting that raising corporate taxes will lead to job losses -- and if you're not, then what was your point? -- you're suggesting that adding corporate taxes leads to a bad outcome. That sounds suspiciously like a value statement. Something you're now claiming you never made. Or are you now going to say that threatened job losses are not "bad" just a "simple statement"? http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9803 What I'm telling you is that your thought that taxing corporations hurts rich people more is bullpucky. First, let's not talk about taxes "hurting" anyone. That pure talking point bullshit. Now, this is actually the key issue I'm asking you to take a position on. If you accept the premise that taxes will be levied somehow, then all tax plans are different ways of assessing the tax burden. You have repeatedly asserted without evidence that "families making under 250k will pay more cumulative taxes by the end of this administration". You have alluded to reasons why this is true. What I'm asking you to do is offer an alternative. If you are so convinced that this administration's actions will result in families making under 250k paying more taxes, what actions could the administration take that you think would not have this result? If, as I've said, your answer is that there is no way to asses taxes that wouldn't have this outcome, then what would have the least impact? Stop sniping and offer an alternative. http://iwt.mikevital...w.iwt?postid=9815 It really isn't that hard to come up with a plan. Great! And yours is ... ? -- Drew
Post #306,716 by beepster 4/3/09 2:49:22 PM Reply	Reminders of what, exactly? Me pointing out things brought forward in your posts? Its a simple statement. I and others like me (people making under 250k) will pay more taxes. There is no alternative. When government spending goes up by more than a trillion dollars, EVERYONE will pay for it. You seem to want that burden to be shared by one class more than another (it already is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29861648// ) . I'm simply stating that the burden will be felt by everyone..and that proportionally people with less money will feel it more than people with more...and the why is simple...they have less money to start with. Now, to make you happy I have to tell you ways that I think would be less palatable to one group or another? Why? I'm going to pay more taxes. Nothing I propose or anyone else will propose that will change that. And I certainly am not making more than 250k. I think I would have noticed. On the "feel" front again...the same issue is used to argue against income tax cuts of any kind. Rich people get bigger breaks with them. The why is simple...because they make more income. Its not opinion...its mathematics. So tax cuts are bad..unless they're "targeted". In which case, it just takes longer to get to it final resting place...which is anyone who buys anything. The point on corporate taxes is painfully simple. Its a zero sum game. Consumers WILL pay the tax in one form or another. The layoffs are one logical outcome of your statement that "maybe they won't pass it on"..with the corresponding pressure to insure that it doesn't hurt their bottom line (ie...the rich people you want to pay). And it still lives the "rich" people running those companies completely unscathed. You can look at it another way...maybe the $5 price hike has the exactly predicted economic outcome (people by fewer at higher prices...supply and demand...basic Fr Guido Sarducci econ 101)...so they buy fewer parts..less growth in the supply channel will mean fewer jobs (maybe not layoffs..but positions that would have to be filled will not be...like guys throwing boxes around in their warehouse)...or maybe they gain efficiency by cutting travel expenses (meaning that folks in the travel industry ..like hotel cleaning staff, airline gate agents, ground crew) are displaced.(not that this would ever happen...unless of course you talk to some hotel managers that are seeing this happen right now). If it appeared to put me in a "position" of corporate taxes are bad..it did so in your head only. Its straight logical outcome from the zero sum nature of corporate taxes. Does this mean I think they should be eliminated? Nope. Should they be raised? Not if you consider the potential impact on our competitiveness in a global marketplace and the other issues that come along with that. (as I've pointed out before, we're already pretty darned high) But make no mistake, you and I pay those taxes at the end of the day and will also suffer any impact of loss of competitiveness in an ever more global environment. At no point is their a "least impact" position until you start taxing STORED income. So while you think it will never pass, the only way to get out of consumer driven taxes is to tax wealth. This is how you get away from the gamesmanship of someone like Warren Buffet...who pays himself 100k/yr and a slight bonus. Do you think ANY proposal brought forth but mine will impact him in any real fashion, passable or no? You seem to think that I must have a "position" here. Ok then. My position is simple. I want to keep as much of my money as possible. I'm getting income tax relief from the Obama plan (hurray). And I'm telling you now that when I add up the cumulative taxes I pay during this year, I will be paying more. I really don't care about how it impacts you, Bill Gates or Joe the plumber. Would I like to pay less and have Bill Gates hit with a billion dollar tax bill? You betcha...but you've told me thats not possible. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #306,718 by Another Scott 4/3/09 3:07:25 PM Reply	A "bill of attainder" is unconstitutional. HTH.
Post #306,720 by boxley 4/3/09 3:14:09 PM Reply	tell that to the congress re: aig bonus taxes :-)
Post #306,722 by Another Scott 4/3/09 3:21:49 PM Reply	Notice that talk of that died down in the Senate. Lots of people think it would be unconstitutional for that very reason. Cheers, Scott.
Post #306,725 by beepster 4/3/09 3:38:03 PM Reply	Key difference the bill in consideration was only aimed at companies taking TARP money. It wasn't universally applied to the entire population of bonus earners. The "wealth tax" is not an attainder. It is a "land grab" that falls in that spirit..but as its NOT a complete confiscation it could very well pass constitutional muster. Want to make it even more palatable? Make it a 35% immediate tax and for anyone paying that tax, forgive that estate of any further inheritance tax. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #306,727 by Another Scott 4/3/09 3:43:14 PM Reply	Back up. I was replying to your closing statement about wanting to see Bill Gates pay a $1B tax and how you didn't understand why that wasn't feasible. That isn't going to happen, because that would be a bill of attainder. It's unconstitutional. The legislature can't single out a person for punishment. http://en.wikipedia....er#American_usage Sorry, I'm not going to bite on even more topic drift. ;-) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #306,729 by beepster 4/3/09 3:56:29 PM Reply	read back wealth tax on anyone with assets over 10M. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #306,719 by drook 4/3/09 3:13:18 PM Reply	Wasn't my intention to focus on corporate taxes Do you really think a "wealth tax" would pass? In a society recently conditioned to think of inheritance tax as a "death tax"? When people talk about "punishing success" if you try to target a tax at the wealthy? When the debate is framed in terms of who will be "hurt" by a tax? That's the problem with the constant anti-tax message. The whole concept of taxation is demonized to the point that it's impossible to even discuss the best way to implement it. -- Drew
Post #306,721 by boxley 4/3/09 3:17:05 PM Reply	what is this recently BS? even ancient roman texts discuss the injustice of the empire seizing the lands and goods of the recently deceased leaving the progeny poor thanx, bill
Post #306,724 by drook 4/3/09 3:32:32 PM Reply	The inheritance tax doesn't do that Pretending it does isn't honest debate. It's a talking point. -- Drew
Post #306,726 by boxley 4/3/09 3:38:56 PM Reply	so the state only seizes 45% difference in degree only in britain the confiscation rate was at 90% plus just a few years ago. Its exactly the same thing, the state confiscating income that has already been taxed thanx, bill
Post #306,730 by drook 4/3/09 4:24:01 PM Reply	So 0.5% would also difference in degree only? "Some" "half" "most" and "all" are not just differences in degree. Second point, I pay state income tax. Doesn't that make state sales tax "confiscating income that has already been taxed"? Why does that suddenly become unacceptable when it's inheritance tax? -- Drew
Post #306,733 by boxley 4/3/09 5:35:42 PM Reply	so one only rents money from the state? after you have lived your life you need to turn it back in? Nice world you want to live in. Never owning anything, le stat uber alles no thanx, bill
Post #306,734 by drook 4/3/09 5:47:18 PM Reply	I'll take a page from Beep's playbook for this one I never said I wanted anything. I just asked some questions about the alternatives. Can't accuse me of having a position here. -- Drew
Post #306,735 by boxley 4/3/09 6:05:12 PM Reply	:-) you said complaining about said tax was recent I was merely pointing out that it has been bitched about since government was invented
Post #306,737 by beepster 4/3/09 7:09:08 PM Reply	bing bing bing I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #306,739 by drook 4/3/09 7:26:02 PM Reply	No, I said calling it a "death tax" was recent That's what language murder does. It's done intentionally to ensure even reasonable questions can't be asked. -- Drew
Post #306,755 by Ashton 4/4/09 4:52:15 AM Reply	Exactly. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken
Post #306,762 by boxley 4/4/09 8:25:07 AM Reply	sure it is http://www.heritage..../taxes/bg1719.cfm the language murder is calling them estate taxes, death is when they are imposed Estate taxes are not a new phenomenon; they date back almost three thousand years. As early as 700 B.C., there appears to have been a 10 percent tax on the transfer of property at death in Egypt.1 In the first century A.D., Augustus Caesar imposed a tax on successions and legacies to all but close relatives. Transfer taxes during the Middle Ages grew out of the fact that the sovereign or the state owned all assets. Although the king owned all real property in feudal England, he would grant its use to certain individuals during their lifetimes. When they died, the king would let the estate retain the property upon payment of an estate tax. In the United States, the tradition of taxing assets at death began with the Stamp Act of 1797. While the first Stamp Act on tea helped precipitate the Revolutionary War, the second was far less dramatic. Revenues from requiring a federal stamp on wills in probate were used to pay off debts incurred during the undeclared naval war with France in 1794. Congress repealed the Stamp Act in 1802. apparently you may be more medieval than you appear "Transfer taxes during the Middle Ages grew out of the fact that the sovereign or the state owned all assets"
Post #306,764 by Another Scott 4/4/09 9:20:18 AM Reply	Don't be intentionally dense. It's unbecoming. http://en.wikipedia...._Tax.22_neologism The political use of "death tax" as a synonym for "estate tax" was popularized in the Gingrich period by Jack Faris of the National Federation of Independent Business. [25] It has been widely but inaccurately attributed to Republican pollster Frank Luntz. In a memo, Luntz wrote that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not" [26]. Linguist George Lakoff alleges the phrase is a deliberate and carefully calculated neologism which is used as a propaganda tactic to aid in the repeal of estate taxes. However the use of "death tax" rather than "estate tax" in the wording of questions in the 2002 National Election Survey increased support for estate tax repeal by only a few percentage points.[27] FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #306,776 by boxley 4/4/09 2:24:55 PM Reply	I have heard the term death tax since I was a kid fookin death taxes, the earl has to rent out his bedroom to pay the fooking things My father and his friends socialists to communist all of them disliked the death tax. Sorry you all havnt heard the term till recently. It was a much bigger issue for the deepee generation
Post #306,781 by Another Scott 4/4/09 2:42:59 PM Reply	Ok.
Post #306,785 by Ashton 4/4/09 5:35:38 PM Reply	Waddaya 'spect in a place where Cholmondeley is pronounced 'Chumley'? (And That.. is the Toffs talkin) ..further down the ladder -
Post #306,788 by boxley 4/4/09 6:02:45 PM Reply	we had "glagow" eddie burns, frank the hunky the strine and a few assorted others (including undercovers during the strikes no doubt)

Welcome to IWETHEY!