Stephen King tells rich people upset over tax increases: ‘Tough shit’

[Magibeg]

Originally Posted by twilyth

In that case, reducing taxes on lower income groups and making that up on higher income groups will lbe revenue neutral and will stimulate economic growth.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

We will never agree on that so I'm not going there.

I know we've been over this already, but i was wondering if you could be a little more specific on how low taxes for the wealthy would immediately stimulate the economy when businesses appear to already have a large amount of capital saved up. It was to my knowledge that if the economy is suffering from stagnation in demand there's no reason to increase supply so to speak.

[FordGT90Concept]

I didn't say we should lower taxes on the wealthy any more than they already are. I did say taxes on everyone else should be lowered to match what the wealthy are paying.

Alternatively, throw out the tax code and implement something like Cain's 9-9-9 plan, flat tax, or fair tax, so everyone is treated fairly.

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I didn't say we should lower taxes on the wealthy any more than they already are. I did say taxes on everyone else should be lowered to match what the wealthy are paying.

Alternatively, throw out the tax code and implement something like Cain's 9-9-9 plan, flat tax, or fair tax, so everyone is treated fairly.

cains plan punished the poor and made it much easier on the wealthy. Also according to most experts it wouldn't have generated enough revenue.

cain even ackowledged to issue with the poor and said there would be exceptions added for them...sound familiar?

flat tax runs the same risk as cains plan because as twilith pointed out, the poor have to spend most of their money on the things they need to survive, this is why right now they pay virtually no income tax (though they do pay into social security and medicare)

the tax code will never be "fair"

[FordGT90Concept]

The "poor" pay no taxes except on consumption. How is that fair to everyone else? The "poor" also cost the most to the state. By not taxing them fairly, you promote the welfare state.


I find it ironic how people, such as yourself, defend the IRS and it's 60,000+ page code. It cheats the lower and middle incomes far more so than the wealthy. Frankly, I don't care how taxes are reformed so long as the tax code can be explained in its entirety in 10 pages or less.


Everyone has a different definition of what "fair" is. You, for example, believe it is fair not to tax low income individuals. I don't. So no, "fair for everyone" doesn't exist and never will.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by jmcslob

Actually it was solved...back in the 1930's....

There has been one person that has been saying this for a very long time "Volker".....This should have been taken care of in 2009 but Obama decided to try to tackle Health care....He had the choice of one or the other...Hindsight is a bitch..

Problem now is Obama still has the support of the people to get real Financial reform....aka bring back Glass-Steagal under a new name....But the problem there is the Republican Party....They say they are the party of Fiscal responsibility but they don't feel betting and leveraging and swapping is irresponsible.....Actually I'm sure they do but they've been bought out..

Anyways The answer is there but what we need is actual politicians...we need to get businessmen out of Washington so our politicians can represent the peoples interests.

He sort of has a point, he just doesn't understand why - fractional reserve banking systems are based largely on faith.

[Steevo]

The problem with the poor ford is there is enough to go around, it is a simple greed problem by the rich,. they feel entitled to have more and will do whatever it takes to get it.


Ford Motor company decided the cost of a persons life years ago, and as a function of greed, they decided their money was better spent defending their right to make profit instead of preventing the loss of life.


Take thousands of thousands of this example and you will find WHY the poor are poor. Once you fairly factor that in you will come up with the idea that a certain population due to illness, defect, mistreatment and social disease will always be poor, you then come up with that as the liability and burden of those who make the problems, the rich, and you must decide how much their suffering is worth.

Or how much brain damage they have due to the toxins the companies release to make bigger profits.


Take this ummm, uhhh, thing for example. WTF is it, but someone is making money off it.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/356853/nbc...ughter-tanning

Yeah, to look like that you obviously require some level of mental retardation, brain damage, or other environmental factors. Remember, its new jersey.

[twilyth]

I had a witty response, but I forgot . . . and then I started growing another hand - out of my forehead.

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The "poor" pay no taxes except on consumption. How is that fair to everyone else? The "poor" also cost the most to the state. By not taxing them fairly, you promote the welfare state.


I find it ironic how people, such as yourself, defend the IRS and it's 60,000+ page code. It cheats the lower and middle incomes far more so than the wealthy. Frankly, I don't care how taxes are reformed so long as the tax code can be explained in its entirety in 10 pages or less.


Everyone has a different definition of what "fair" is. You, for example, believe it is fair not to tax low income individuals. I don't. So no, "fair for everyone" doesn't exist and never will.

failure to read is a bad thing I already posted they pay into medicare and social security. They also pay fica, property tax, vehicle registration taxes, and environmental taxes ON TOP of all consumption taxes and sales taxes.

only bigoted republican idiots think the poor pay no taxes.

[FordGT90Concept]

Depends on how "poor" we're talking about. When I said poor, I meant people on welfare. They are unemployed so they don't pay into Medicare nor Social Security; moreover, they draw on Medicaid and Social Security. They likely don't have a vehicle, don't own property, don't directly pay property tax (because of Social Security), and environmental taxes vary greatly between locales. The only time they are taxed is when they buy goods and taxable foods.

You're describing people that are above that benchmark which is remarkably high:
HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt

Welcome to the United Welfare States of America.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Depends on how "poor" we're talking about. When I said poor, I meant people on welfare. They are unemployed so they don't pay into Medicare nor Social Security; moreover, they draw on Medicaid and Social Security.

They likely don't have a vehicle, don't own property, don't directly pay property tax (because of Social Security), and environmental taxes vary greatly between locales. The only time they are taxed is when they buy goods and taxable foods.

And once again you redefine terms to suit your purposes. You know damn well that's NOT what we were talking about.

[FordGT90Concept]

Just like "fair," everyone defines "poor" differently. I call anyone receiving government aid "poor."

FEULNER: A nation of takers

More than 67.3 million Americans rely on assistance from Washington for everything from food, shelter and clothing to college tuition and health care. These benefits cost federal taxpayers roughly $2.5 trillion annually.

67.3 / 312.8 = 21.5% of the population receives government aid as of 2012.

By my definition, that makes 21.5% of the population "poor."


We have an epidemic in the USA and it is surfacing as a debt problem. If we don't change our trajectory, you're living in the modern interpretation of Rome.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Just like "fair," everyone defines "poor" differently. I call anyone receiving government aid "poor."

FEULNER: A nation of takers


67.3 / 312.8 = 21.5% of the population receives government aid as of 2012.

By my definition, that makes 21.5% of the population "poor."


We have an epidemic in the USA and it is surfacing as a debt problem. If we don't change our trajectory, you're living in the modern interpretation of Rome.

Which is why **I** specifically used the term low-income. But hey, pick and choose if that's what floats your boat.

[Steevo]

College tuition is a loan, with interest, the same thing a bank does.

How much of that money is Social Security funds paid in by people who now use it?

References sited in the article to support the numbers?

None.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by twilyth

Which is why **I** specifically used the term low-income. But hey, pick and choose if that's what floats your boat.

"low-income" is also extremely variable.

Originally Posted by Steevo

College tuition is a loan, with interest, the same thing a bank does.

How much of that money is Social Security funds paid in by people who now use it?

References sited in the article to support the numbers?

None.

The Heritage Foundation: The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

It does include Social Security and Medicare. All taxpayers pay into all these programs and the rest of government. Add in the fact that people are living longer, healthcare costs more, and inflation, almost everyone puts in less to those programs than they draw out. Ever since the 1960s Social Security has been heading for insolvency which is why they created Medicare to ease the healthcare burden on it.

It excludes federal and state employees.

In 2010, the first year ever, federal dependence spending exceeded average disposable income:

Focusing on Social Security and Medicare alone, Americans face $45.9 trillion in unfunded obligations (read: new borrowing) over the next 75 years.

...

One reason this growth will be so significant is that these programs increase on autopilot, which further perpetuates dependence, since these programs are not subject to regular debate and evaluation. Unlike nearly all other federal outlays, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are mandatory spending programs that operate outside the annual budget process. This exemption entitles these programs to call on all federal revenues first, regardless of other budgetary priorities. Substantive policy reform is required if this automatic dependence is to be halted. The solution is to turn these programs into 30-year budgeted programs, subjecting the budgets to debate every five years.

...

The concept of a safety net ought to be restored to gear Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid toward those who truly need these programs.

...

Today, Social Security and other government programs provide much or all of the income to low-income and indigent households. Nearly all the financial support that was once provided to temporarily unemployed workers by unions, mutual-aid societies, and local charities is now provided by federal income, food, and health programs.

This shift from local, community-based, mutual-aid assistance to anonymous government payments has clearly altered the relationship between the receiver and the provider of the assistance. In the past, a person in need depended on help from people and organizations in his or her local community. The community representatives were generally aware of the person’s needs and tailored the assistance to meet those needs within the community’s budgetary constraints. Today, housing and other needs are addressed by government employees to whom the person in need is a complete stranger, and who have few or no ties to the community in which the needy person lives.

There's some excellent logic in there.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

"low-income" is also extremely variable.



The Heritage Foundation: The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

It does include Social Security and Medicare. All taxpayers pay into all these programs and the rest of government. Add in the fact that people are living longer, healthcare costs more, and inflation, almost everyone puts in less to those programs than they draw out. Ever since the 1960s Social Security has been heading for insolvency which is why they created Medicare to ease the healthcare burden on it.

{le sigh}The point is that you knew damn well we weren't talking about people on public assistance. If you want to pretend otherwise since you can't defend your argument otherwise, fine. I don't mind if people weasel out of a losing position. I would just prefer that they be honest about it. That's all. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[FordGT90Concept]

Heiritage Foundation agreed with my assessment of "low-income" so, "{le sigh}" to you too. You're arguing sementics and frankly, I don't care.

The fact of the matter is we have a problem and every year we don't deal with it is another year it gets worse. If we don't change the programs creating the debt, then prepare to bend over and accept socialism borderline on communism. Capitalism can't work in this environment the government is creating. This recession may never end because of it.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Heiritage Foundation agreed with my assessment of "low-income" so, "{le sigh}" to you too. You're arguing sementics and frankly, I don't care.

The fact of the matter is we have a problem and every year we don't deal with it is another year it gets worse. If we don't change the programs creating the debt, then prepare to bend over and accept socialism borderline on communism. Capitalism can't work in this environment the government is creating. This recession may never end because of it.

And the fact of the matter is that by having a progressive tax rate, we make the problem go away and when the economy turns around, we have a budget surplus again.

[FordGT90Concept]

Progressive tax rate doesn't fix the issue of increasing dependency. Give it another 100 years and I bet more people will be dependent on government aid than working--completely unsustainable.

Oh, and taxing more also slows the economy which means more permanently unemployed people dependent on the government. Simply put, taxing more doesn't pass the logical test: it's lose-lose.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Progressive tax rate doesn't fix the issue of increasing dependency. Give it another 100 years and I bet more people will be dependent on government aid than working--completely unsustainable.

Well, at least you don't disagree with the fact that killing the Bush tax cuts would solve the supposed budget crisis.

You know this country has had a progressive tax rate pretty much since we've had a federal income tax. This idea that the richer you are the less you should pay is some kind of koolaid they've only been selling people for the past decade or so and it needs to stop NAO.

[FordGT90Concept]

Even without the Bush tax cuts, the debt will continue to rise. You need even higher taxes or cut spending to balance the budget.

The wealthy pay a rate closer to 15%, not 35%. That loophole needs to be filled--by replacing the entire tax code.

I never said the wealthy should pay a lower rate than everyone else. I said it should be equal. I won't complain much if they are taxed more but only if the amount is reasonable. I stress that government shouldn't play Robin Hood. If you're going to tax the wealthy more, you better have a damn good reason. For example, if that increased revenue from the wealthy was dedicated to infrastructure or defense I could agree with it as long as it is a reasonable percentage. People with vast wealth often have equally valuable assets they want protected; likewise, they know that infrastructure is what separates USA from third world nations so all except the snobbiest would approve of spending money to fix problems before they happen.

If you're raising taxes on the wealthy just to fund welfare programs they'll never use, I have a problem with that. Governments have no business playing Robin Hood.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Even without the Bush tax cuts, the debt will continue to rise. You need even higher taxes or cut spending to balance the budget.

You don't happen to have a source for that do you - since it contradicts the source I provided. That's the difference between a debate and a pissing contest. Which kind of exchange do you want to have?

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The wealthy pay a rate closer to 15%, not 35%. That loophole needs to be filled--by replacing the entire tax code.

I can agree with that, but not in the sense you mean. So-called "loop holes" are important tools of public policy and allow you to moderate and influence a free market without outright regulation. With regulation, you need enforcement. With tax incentives, the market polices itself. The problem is that in many cases, a) it is inartfully done and b) it tends to have unforeseen consequences that need to be managed.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I never said the wealthy should pay a lower rate than everyone else. I said it should be equal. I won't complain much if they are taxed more but only if the amount is reasonable. I stress that government shouldn't play Robin Hood. If you're going to tax the wealthy more, you better have a damn good reason. For example, if that increased revenue from the wealthy was dedicated to infrastructure or defense I could agree with it as long as it is a reasonable percentage. People with vast wealth often have equally valuable assets they want protected; likewise, they know that infrastructure is what separates USA from third world nations so all except the snobbiest would approve of spending money to fix problems before they happen.

If you're raising taxes on the wealthy just to fund welfare programs they'll never use, I have a problem with that. Governments have no business playing Robin Hood.

Your notion of "fairness" in relationship to taxation doesn't compute. Taxes are like good deeds. Maybe they'll come back to you some day and maybe they won't. I don't know where you get this idea that the wealthy have the right to certain protections or other benefits.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by twilyth

You don't happen to have a source for that do you

The pic you posted.

Originally Posted by twilyth

I can agree with that, but not in the sense you mean. So-called "loop holes" are important tools of public policy and allow you to moderate and influence a free market without outright regulation. With regulation, you need enforcement. With tax incentives, the market polices itself. The problem is that in many cases, a) it is inartfully done and b) it tends to have unforeseen consequences that need to be managed.

I'm of the school of thought that governments should have 100% transparency in all matters. If you're going to regulate something, be blunt about it. Don't hide it in 60,000 pages of legislation.

Regulation requires enforcement regardless of how it is implemented.

Taxes are the wrong way to incentivize. Public contracts are an excellent way to incentivize. Why? Competing contractors police the market for you. Additionally, if contracts are rewarded in parrallel, you can see which contractors are good and which are not.

Tax incentives are nearly impossible to police without huge government resources knocking on doors and a lot of expensive research.

Originally Posted by twilyth

Your notion of "fairness" in relationship to taxation doesn't compute. Taxes are like good deeds. Maybe they'll come back to you some day and maybe they won't. I don't know where you get this idea that the wealthy have the right to certain protections or other benefits.

Taxes have nothing to do with "good deeds." It's forcing people to pay for services weather they like it or not. Any tax that lands on people who don't use the services is a bad tax in my eyes.

The taxes that make the most sense are those applied to consumption because you're only getting taxed when you lawfully purchase a taxable product. It makes virtually all taxes optional. Then again, as you pointed out previously, consumption taxes hurt the lower you are down on the income ladder because they make up a larger percentage of your purchases.

Another example of a good tax is changing Social Security and Medicare over to personal savings accounts. Income is deducted and placed into a private savings account just for you and your family. If you want to, you can opt out but by doing so, you get a single check for the worth of the account and you can't draw on the services it would otherwise provide. It removes the burden of both programs from the federal government and puts individuals in charge of their own retirements.

Bottom line is: we need to balance taxing simplicity with paying for the services we actually use.

[twilyth]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The pic you posted.

The increase is trivial compared to keeping the tax cuts. Further, having a truly progressive tax, like the tax structure we have historically had - please take a look at this link - would make the line on that deficit graph drop like a Mitsubishi A6M Zero on a dive bombing run.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I'm of the school of thought that governments should have 100% transparency in all matters. If you're going to regulate something, be blunt about it. Don't hide it in 60,000 pages of legislation.

Then by definition you believe in the least efficient form of government possible.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Regulation requires enforcement regardless of how it is implemented.

The amount of enforcement required is far less. Example. I'm a farmer and I get a subsidy for every bushel of wheat I produce. I need the grain tower operator to give me a receipt for the amount I deliver to him. A simple audit reveals any fraud and discourages collusion.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Taxes are the wrong way to incentivize. Public contracts are an excellent way to incentivize. Why? Competing contractors police the market for you. Additionally, if contracts are rewarded in parrallel, you can see which contractors are good and which are not.

Really. So explain how that works with my wheat example.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Tax incentives are nearly impossible to police without huge government resources knocking on doors and a lot of expensive research.

No it works on the same principle as normal policing. Is there a cop on every corner in your town? No? Why not. What's stopping people from breaking the law? It's a mystery.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Taxes have nothing to do with "good deeds." It's forcing people to pay for services weather they like it or not. Any tax that lands on people who don't use the services is a bad tax in my eyes.

Yes, in your eyes. How is your opinion relevant?

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The taxes that make the most sense are those applied to consumption because you're only getting taxed when you lawfully purchase a taxable product. It makes virtually all taxes optional. Then again, as you pointed out previously, consumption taxes hurt the lower you are down on the income ladder because they make up a larger percentage of your purchases.

These are also called regressive taxes and these are in fact "bad" taxes.

From Investopedia

Definition of 'Regressive Tax'
A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.

Investopedia explains 'Regressive Tax'
Some examples include gas tax and cigarette tax. For example, if a person has $10 of income and must pay $1 of tax on a package of cigarettes, this represents 10% of the person's income. However, if the person has $20 of income, this $1 tax only represents 5% of that person's income.

Sales taxes that apply to essentials are generally considered to be regressive as well because expenses for food, clothing and shelter tend to make up a higher percentage of a lower income consumer's overall budget. In this case, even though the tax may be uniform (such as 7% sales tax), lower income consumers are more affected by it because they are less able to afford it

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Another example of a good tax is changing Social Security and Medicare over to personal savings accounts. Income is deducted and placed into a private savings account just for you and your family. If you want to, you can opt out but by doing so, you get a single check for the worth of the account and you can't draw on the services it would otherwise provide. It removes the burden of both programs from the federal government and puts individuals in charge of their own retirements.

People can do that now with 401k, IRA, Roth accts and a host of other vehicles - but guess what, the vast majority either don't or underfund those accts vis-a-vis what their future needs will be.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Bottom line is: we need to balance taxing simplicity with paying for the services we actually use.

pay to play is now, has always and will always be irrelevant, but I won't try to stop you from dreaming.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by twilyth

People can do that now with 401k, IRA, Roth accts and a host of other vehicles - but guess what, the vast majority either don't or underfund those accts vis-a-vis what their future needs will be.

But in doing so, you still can't opt out of the SS tax if you don't want to collect on it. That I find unacceptable.

Not gonna touch on the other subjects. I'm not sure of my views on them.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by twilyth

The amount of enforcement required is far less. Example. I'm a farmer and I get a subsidy for every bushel of wheat I produce. I need the grain tower operator to give me a receipt for the amount I deliver to him. A simple audit reveals any fraud and discourages collusion.

Audits only reveal what is reported. Unless you invest substantial resources, fraud stays below the RADAR. In short, it only catches the honest people that made a mistake.

Originally Posted by twilyth

No it works on the same principle as normal policing. Is there a cop on every corner in your town? No? Why not. What's stopping people from breaking the law? It's a mystery.

Pretty much every male in this area is a farmer and/or hunts for recreation. People with guns tend to police themselves. At bare minimum, there is a mutual understanding: don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you.

Most of our crime stems from external threats that found their way here like drugs (meth labs were popular until Mexican drug cartels started invading the national parks) and what looks like to me as illegal immigrants partaking in illegal behavior (too tired to remember all the charges but several of them shocked me). There's a few domestic disputes, arsen, robbery, etc. but it isn't very often you hear about the police ending a situation. It's long over before they show up. We got plenty of police too. It's just the mentality we rural folk have that you urban folk lost--a sense of pride in individuality and self-reliance.

Originally Posted by twilyth

Yes, in your eyes. How is your opinion relevant?

How is yours? Do you like paying into Social Security and getting less money back than you put in (it was about 90% last time I checked)? It's a failed institution that is dragging the rest of the country down with it. Time to take Old Yeller back behind the barn and put a bullet through his diseased brain.

Originally Posted by twilyth

These are also called regressive taxes and these are in fact "bad" taxes.

From Investopedia

All taxes are bad. They always hurt someone and someone else always skates by without paying a dime. There is no ideal solution to the problem. Probably why the 16th amendment didn't exist until the 20th century. My, my, my, how did we last over 100 years without it?

Originally Posted by twilyth

People can do that now with 401k, IRA, Roth accts and a host of other vehicles - but guess what, the vast majority either don't or underfund those accts vis-a-vis what their future needs will be.

pay to play is now, has always and will always be irrelevant, but I won't try to stop you from dreaming.

Good for them. Doesn't change the fact the government is playing fucking Robin Hood. If you shoot yourself in the foot, why is it anyone's responibility except your own to fix it or die trying? The welfare state is strong in this one.