Friday, January 20, 2012

Miscellaneous 108

1) The sad thing about Romney is that once upon a time the dude probably would have made a pretty decent general election candidate. Unfortunately, he's since then made far too many irrational and divisive comments for that to have even remotely stuck and he presently looks like nothing more than a partisan piss-ant. Man, oh, man, do I ever hate partisan politics.............2) I fully agree with the Democrats (and some Republicans) that revenues need to be a part of any deficit equation compromise. But I also agree with my colleague, HR (Heathen Republican), that this whole "the rich need to pay their fair share" rhetoric really needs to stop. It's divisive. It's demagogic. And it's deceptive (the top 1% make 20% of the adjusted gross income, but pay a full 38% of all income taxes). If I were to advise the President on this one, I would have him focus more on the need to reduce the deficit and how raising taxes on the affluent is one of the lesser disruptive ways to do that, and skip that nastier singling out rhetoric of his.............3) I'm also pretty pissed at Obama for his walking away from a deal (purportedly) that had 800 billion in revenue in it. I guess that he heard that the Gang of Six (which I also supported) plan had 1.2 trillion in revenue and decided to move the goalposts. Not a classy move by the President, in my opinion.............4) I was watching C-Span the other night and the always interesting Tom Friedman was on. I always learn a lot from this fellow but what I learned last night was especially gratifying. It seems that one of my all-time favorite movies is also one of his favorites; Orson Welles's groundbreaking "Touch of Evil". We even apparently have the same favorite scene in the movie; the part where Welles's character goes up to Marlene Dietrich and messes up the cards that she's reading for somebody else. Remember it? He says to her, "What's MY future?" and she goes (with that eerily deadpan Dietrich delivery), "You haven't got any." Now, Mr. Friedman was obviously making an analogy here. But I didn't care. I was just amped that the dude liked "Touch of Evil".

46 comments:

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: ...this whole "the rich need to pay their fair share" rhetoric really needs to stop. It's divisive. It's demagogic. And it's deceptive (the top 1% make 20% of the adjusted gross income, but pay a full 38% of all income taxes...

It isn't "deceptive" in the least. We're talking about percentages of different numbers (the adjusted gross income being the significantly higher one). When a certain class takes such a HUGE percentage of the income, they SHOULD pay a large percentage of the taxes. Currently they are NOT paying their fair share.

But of course a conservative corporatist would disagree... so it's really no surprise that you're agreeing with HR.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: I'm also pretty pissed at Obama for his walking away from a deal (purportedly) that had 800 billion in revenue in it.

Good news Will! You don't need to be "pissed" at the president anymore... because what you're describing never happened.

According to the Washington Post, "In his session with reporters, Boehner refused to embrace that figure. There was more discouraging news a few hours later, when 33 Senate Republicans released a letter urging the supercommittee to adopt a plan that would rewrite the tax code with no net tax increase".

Senate Republicans rejected the deal and then moved the goalposts, not the White House.

The WP story also says, "The Republican [offer] contained no tax increases. Instead, it offered to generate new revenue solely through economic growth and through the less-generous inflation index, which would push people into higher tax brackets faster".

In other words... boner wanted to raise taxes on working people. That plus this "deal" made unnecessary cuts to entitlement programs. I'd have been pissed if the President had accepted it (not that I believe the offer was ever real).

dmarks said...

WD said "When a certain class takes such a HUGE percentage of the income, they SHOULD pay a large percentage of the taxes. Currently they are NOT paying their fair share."

Actually, what you say "should" be happening already is reality. The rich indeed pay a large percentage of the taxes. This is your condition for "Fairness", and it has already been met. No need for your second sentence.

Time to stop being greedy. Manage your own money, and keep your nose out of others' wallets.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Only in your bizarre world, wd, would a 20% income, 38% taxes ratio be considered "not their fair share".............On the other issue, though, you may be right (though I believe that the Gang of Six compromise DID have legitimate revenue increases). I wouldn't put it past the Republicans to pull this President's chains like that.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: Only in your bizarre world... [yada, yada, yada, the poor poor wealthy]

I bet you Mitt Romney's 10 thousand dollars that a majority of Americans think the wealthy should pay more. IMO it is your world that is bizarre.

But dmarks' world is the most bizarre of all. He thinks everyone should pay zero taxes! (While at the same time he has made statments in favor of welfare. Where does he think the money will come from?)

The IRS knows how much everyone makes because you have to tell them when you file your tax returns. Thus, the IRS has it's "nose" in everyone's wallets.

But according to dmarks the noses should be kept out! The only way to accomplish this would be for taxes to be zero!

Clearly, dmarks = anarchist. How totally looney is that?

dmarks: Time to stop being greedy.

I agree completely! I am SICK of the greed. The greed of the wealthy who don't want to pay their fair share, that is.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, you didn't listen to me. I said that the top rates SHOULD go up (back to 39.6% - this in that we really need to reduce the deficit). My criticism here is more with the class-conflict ladened presentation. THAT is what I find divisive.

Rusty Shackelford said...

One can only chuckle at WD,his ilk and their almost maniacal hatred for success and successful people.

Does it stem from their childhood? Or perhaps its because they did'nt have the ambition,courage,work ethic or smarts to actually go out and be successful.They would rather be similar to parasites feeding off someone elses endeavors.

Its like they were standing on the corner waiting on the American Dream but that bus just tooted its horn and rode right by them.

So now they have no shame holding out their hands asking those americans who did in fact get an education in something worthwhile,worked the long hours,had the courage to take chances and became successful to share the fruits with them.Share with them just because they are here and they want it.They really dont have any shame at all.Its sad what America is becoming when people like WD feel it moral and their right to demand that people who worked their asses off,put in the 80 hour weeks,risked their capital and took the chances give parts of those assets to him,while he did nothing to earn it.Yes,he has no shame.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

I know why Rusty is chuckling... it's because we ARE engaged in class warfare and the wealthy are winning. He chuckles because people like Will have been tricked into believing anyone who advocates the wealthy pay their fair share have a "maniacal hatred" for the wealthy. These people are jealous because they're lazy failures.

I'm not laughing at all. That people foolishly believe the nonsense Rusty is spouting is very troubling. This isn't about hatred or jealously; it's about doing what is right. I'm all for people who work hard and put in 80 hour weeks keeping a large percentage of their money. It's theirs; they earned it.

But when people start "earning" absurd amounts of money... by underpaying their workers or gaming the system, I believe it is the government's moral obligation to step in. IMO nobody can "earn" these huge sums of money unless they are stealing from someone else. This is usually accomplished by underpaying workers (whether they be US or foreign).

I support higher taxes on moral grounds... not because of hatred or jealously. If someone can get rich by working hard... I say more power to them. I do not hate them. I just think they should pay their fair share.

IMO it is people like Rusty who have no shame when they should. Advocating that it is just fine with them that a small group of people hold so much of our nation's wealth while so many live in poverty is despicable.

Because of his class warfare rhetoric I say, "shame on you Rusty!" And to a lesser extent shame on Will... for buying into the lies of people like Rusty and wrongly asserting that saying the wealthy should pay their fair share is divisive, demagogic or deceptive. It is none of those things.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Oh well, at least I got "lesser shame".............Seriously, though, wd, what part of "I'm in favor of the top rates going back to 39.6%" DON'T you understand? Is it simply because I don't froth at the mouth when I say it?

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,you make my point for me.What the hell is "doing what is right?"

In your troubled mind its exactly what I said.You want people like me who put themselves through school,I might add without a federal loan,willingly started at the bottom rung,put in the time and effort and with a little luck had a bit of success.Wow,sounds like the old american dream.

Yes WD,I'm one the people who pays 37% of the nations tax bill while also making positive contributions to society.Yet,you personally want more....you want me to subsidize your life of sitting on you ass peddling obscure,outdated movie scores over the internet.Something that contributes absolutly zero to society.

I see your ilk everyday WD,people who have no ambition or drive yet want the same rewards as folks who do.Yep partner....you really dont have any shame.Why you dont,I could'nt beging to guess.Perhaps its your upbringing,or perhaps you're just lazy.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Rusty, I want to do what's right for our country... you're the one trying to turn a discussion on taxation into a personal attack on me (a person you've never met and know virtually nothing about). Shame on you for that.

What I do is participate in the free market when I sell my film score CDs. I should be admired by Conservatives for this. At least I certainly should not be admonished for it. What Rusty does is parasitically fleece deluded suckers. What the hell is the value to society in that? Answer: there is none. I'd say the gaming industry is actually a detriment to society.

The guy should be embarrassed about what he does for a living, yet he comes here and brags about it. Clearly Rusty is the one who has no shame.

Will: Is it simply because I don't froth at the mouth when I say it?

No, it's because that's your upper limit. Any more then that and you start to worry about the poor, poor wealthy people who will be hurt.

Rusty Shackelford said...

You poor deluded soul WD.We "fleece" no one.We dont force people at gun point to avail themselves of our entertainment.If you dont want to come here dont.If you choose not to see a good show dont.If you'd rather eat at Wendys then have a good meal go right ahead.If in your small mind you feel the gaming industry,which by the way employee's hundreds of thousands of your fellow americans is a detriment to society I'd say you have a very strange view of this country.

I did'nt admonish you for your way of life.What I said was dont you or anyone else engage in work that by your own choice does'nt afford you the things you think you deserve just because you breath the same air,then expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I don't worry about the poor, poor rich people. I just don't think that a 70% top tax rate is good for the economy. When you reach a taxation level that high, it discourages investment and causes people to spend valuable time and resources on tax evasion. A 40% top rate on anything over $250-500,000 a year (especially when you combine it with state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.) seems like a pretty fair rate to me (and, yes, it's closer to the progressive caucus's 49% top rate than your 70%).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And higher tax rates do not necessarily translate into increased revenue......"It is not just a question of what Andrew Mellon said. It is a question of hard facts, easily checked in official documents available to all - and ignored all these years. Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of $1 million or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting $1 million a year in income five years later."

Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/tax-law-income-tax/15330393-1.html#ixzz1k9mbJlxk

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

I think a 70 percent top tax rate would be good for the economy and would encourage investment. Also, if you're saying that there is a direct correlation between high tax rates and fewer people taking large incomes... I'd say that's proof that I'm right.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Wouldn't an 80% tax rate be even better then?......I'm saying that there appears to be a correlation between higher tax rates and a lesser amount of money flowing to the government. During the Wilson years, tax rates hit that 70% mark and it resulted in people sheltering their money and paying less to the government.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

How would a 70% tax rate act as an incentive to invest. If you knew that the profits to your next endeavor would be going largely to the government, what type of an incentive is that?. There's definitely a point (at some point) of diminishing returns, wd.

dmarks said...

WD said: "But dmarks' world is the most bizarre of all. He thinks everyone should pay zero taxes! "

I never said this, nor do I think it. You obviously have me confused with someone else.

What I do think is that, when you allow the rulers to forcibly take other people's property, it is a serious thing, and should not be done lightly. Even it is for a good cause, such as the betterment of society.

There are good reasons to allow this, and there are bad reasons. Bad reasons include wanting revenge or wanting to cut people down, or falsely accuse those who have created and retained their own wealth of doing it by wrongful means. Or especially wanting the rulers to plunder in the name of what you think is "fair": ignoring the fact that your definition of "Fair" is your own personal one and applies only to your own situation.... and you have no idea what is fair to others or not.

dmarks said...

Will said: "How would a 70% tax rate act as an incentive to invest."

a 70% tax rate on Americans would be a strong inventive for Americans to invest.... in Haiti, Mexico, Canadia, Jamaica, the DR, the Bahamas, and all neighboring countries.

WD said: "Also, if you're saying that there is a direct correlation between high tax rates and fewer people taking large incomes."

They take their large incomes, indeed. To countries with less greedy governments. And I don't blame them one bit.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Apparently that's what they did during the Wilson administration big time; from 206 millionaires to 21 in less than 5 years. Can you say the law of unintended consequences?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: Can you say the law of unintended consequences?

Unintended, or intended? Seems like a good thing to me, lowering the number of people taking million dollar salaries (which would be a lot more in today's dollars).

dmarks: They take their large incomes, indeed. To countries with less greedy governments.

Unless they change their citizenship, they should have to pay the difference between the US tax and the tax in whatever country they move to.

People shouldn't be able to weasel out of paying their taxes... not unless they want to renounce their US citizenship. Either way their company should be charged a tariff when they import goods to the US.

If someone wants to leave the US to avoid taxes... I say, "get the hell out - and stay out"! If you want to be a US citizen (and make money in our country) then there are responsibilities that come along with that. You have to contribute your fair share.

dmarks: a 70% tax rate on Americans would be a strong inventive for Americans to invest.... in... neighboring countries.

Let them. But charge a tariff if they want to import their goods back to the US. And they should still pay US taxes, unless they want to renounce their citizenship.

dmarks: ...and you have no idea what is fair to others...

So, under the dmarks system everybody would be able to decide the tax rate they wanted to pay? Or perhaps you mean that only Conservatives would decide what the rates would be?

Sorry dmarks, that isn't the way it works. If we vote people into office that say they'll raise taxes... and then they do; that's democracy, not "theft". Your definition of theft is ludicrous. I sure as hell am not going to go along with it. And I'll continue to vote for candidates who say they'll raise the top tax rates.

If someone refuses to pay, I say take what they owe by force. And then throw them in jail. Because not paying the taxes you owe... that's what I consider stealing.

dmarks: I never said this, nor do I think it. You obviously have me confused with someone else.

If you don't think it, then why did you say it? You said the government should keeps it's nose out of people's wallets. But their noses are already there. Everyone has to file a tax return. The only way to keep the noses out would be for taxes to be zero. You said it, not me. I do not have you confused with someone else.

Will: How would a 70% tax rate act as an incentive to invest?

If someone were approaching the threshold (and about to be pushed into a higer tax bracket) they could, instead of taking the money out of their business in the form of a paycheck, reinvest the money in their company. It's really quite simple: higher taxes are a disincentive for taking large paychecks and an incentive for leaving the money in the business and growing it.

dmarks said...

"If you don't think it, then why did you say it?"

I didn't even say it.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: I didn't even say it.

Sure you did. You said the government should keep it's nose out of people's wallets. But it's nose is there. You have to tell the government how much you make. So how else could you get the government's nose out... unless taxes were zero?

Explain that to me please.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

These weren't million dollar salaries, wd (there weren't million dollar salaries when Wilson was in office). These were millionaires who hid their money because of the exhorbitantly high tax rate. As soon as the rates came down again, the money came back to the country and revnues went up again. Capish?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

They didn't invest it in their company, in other words (not that every single rich person has a company obviously).

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: Capish?

No. Income tax only applies to income. I don't know what the brackets were during the Wilson administration, but I assume the highest rates only kicked in when your income was very large. So why would millionaires (people who had accumulated a million dollars or more, but made less per year) be hiding their money? Who were they hiding it from?

Will: ...the money came back to the country and revenues went up again.

Bringing in revenue isn't the only reason to collect a tax. Another reason would be to influence behavior. Impose a larger tax on high incomes and those people will look for a way to reduce their taxable income (like not taking such a large salary and instead leaving the money in their company and growing it).

And I'm sure there are many other ways you can reduce your taxable income... like a chartiable foundation, for instance (I wouldn't know what they all are because I'm not in a high bracket). Things that would benefit the economy. Capish?

Will: not that every single rich person has a company obviously.

The highest rates only kick in at 15 million (under Robert Reich's plan). I'm sure every one making that kind of money has some kind of LLC set up as a way of reducing their taxable income. The "rich" people you're talking about aren't the ones making 15 million a year.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

They were hiding (the money) from the government evidently, wd. The country went from 206 millionaires to 21 during Wilson's administration. Those are the facts, OK?.......And what exactly are you saying here, wd? That there ISN'T a point of diminishing returns, or simply that the 70% figure isn't that point?......And I'm sorry, but any system that penalizes an individual from keeping his or her money and/or doing with it what THEY choose is a system that is fraught with disincentives. I mean, I know that you don't want people to make over a certain amount of money (it greatly wounds your sensibilities, I gather) and all, but in a free society things like that aren't determined by bureaucrats, paper-pushers, disgruntled bloggers, etc.. Nope, they're determined by the market, hard work, ingenuity, luck, etc..

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And it wasn't just Wilson. Hoover raised the top tax rates from 25% to 63%. How did that work wd? Did that do all of the wonderful things that your high tax/social engineering system is supposed to?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Oh, and, for the record, in the 1930s, a lot of businesses DID try and leave the money in the companies. All that that resulted in was your hero, FDR, putting an undistributed profits tax on the money.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will, yours is the corporatist solution, and I reject it. The citizens of the US should not kowtow to wealthy tax cheats in order to get them to not hide their money.

If a US citizen invests money in a foreign country that person should be required to disclose whatever profits were made in the foreign country. Then they should pay the difference between the US and foreign tax rates.

If they refuse... then an IRS agent should make a best guest estimate and slap on a fine. If they won't pay, then they go to jail.

Will: ...in the 1930s, a lot of businesses DID try and leave the money in the companies.

I said "invest", not "leave". If wealthy individuals try to hide money in their corporations, they SHOULD be taxed.

For the record, I'm 100 percent in favor of social engineering.

Will: And I'm sorry, but any system that penalizes an individual from keeping his or her money and/or doing with it what THEY choose...

Boo-freaking-hoo. I'm not sorry. The greedy bastards need to pay up or face the consequences. I've had enough of our system that coddles the wealthy.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And what if the company doesn't need more capital or employees? Then what, wd? And what if the person wants to start a SECOND business with a separate profit scenario? And you're going to send the gestapo/IRS becasuse people don't behave the way that you want them to? Nice, pal.............Greedy bastards? Who in the fuck are you to cast dispersions on people simply for being successful? They already pay THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT of all income taxes now (this, despite the fact that they only make 20% of the AGI), for Christ. Can they pay a little bit more? Yeah, probably. But for you to show such disdain for these people is sickening. No, you're not envious. Nope, not you. Greedy bastards - you gave yourself away, wd.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: No, you're not envious. Nope, not you. Greedy bastards - you gave yourself away, wd.

You gave yourself away. You're a conservative to your core. The "envy" card is always played by the Conservative.

Then what, wd?

I pointed out in my previous post that there are other ways a wealthy individual can reduce their taxable income. If they choose not to take advantage of any of those options, then, yes, of course they pay.

Will: But for you to show such disdain for these people is sickening.

So you approve of people hiding their money and cheating the government? That sickens me.

Will: Who in the f**k are you to cast dispersions on people simply for being successful?

I'm a person who believes in democracy and thinks wealthy individuals should pay the tax rates we've decided on through our elected representatives.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,you envy of success is really telling.

What the hell happened to you to call successful people "greedy bastards?"

You too can be successful,just put your mind and efforts into it.

Just imagine WD if you put as much effort into going out and making some real money instead of wasting valuable time scouring the net searching for inane opinions that support your beliefs.

My god man if you became one of the 1% you could do all the things you ask them to do...you could pay all the federal tax you wished.You could give all you wished to charity.You could actively support Alan Graysons return to office.

There you have it WD,your old pal Rusty just put the start of your business plan towards success in front of you.Of course we could refine the plan,hell,how about putting together an infomercial for you CD's? You could become the next Ron Popeil.

O.K. WD,lets stop with your class envy....you can go out and get your slice of the pie.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Rusty: What the hell happened to you to call successful people "greedy bastards?".

I didn't do that. I was talking about people who don't think they should pay their taxes, or (worse) people who cheat (by hiding their money). Nobody is a greed bastard simply for being successful. There are many very successful people who are happy to pay their taxes.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're an idiot, wd. My position on this tax issue is identical to that of President Obama. IN FACT, the fact that I round the top rate up to 40%, eliminate the special consideration for capital gains, and lower the cap on mortgage interest deduction basically puts me to the left of Obama. Of course, the fact that your scanning this whole thing from outer-space makes it totally unsurprising that you continue to see me in such a cockeyed manner.............Draconian tax hikes on the wealthy - they backfired under Wilson and the backfired under Hoover. But, noooooooooo, let's listen to wd, he knows what he's talking about.............And who does the "engineering", wd? You? I mean, come on. You're dull. You're unimaginative. You're unsuccessful. You're a prisoner of ideology. You're angry. What makes you think that you can micromanage a complex society/economy?............And I'm not in favor of breaking the law, btw. What I am in favor of is people legally trying to reduce their tax burden as much as possible. This, because I think that they can more productively manage their money than a bunch of idiots who gave us cash for clunkers, ethanol subsidies, Solyndra, subsidies for the Chevy Volt, etc..

Rusty Shackelford said...

Will,WD is a prototypical far left loon.He makes Bernie Sanders look like Dick Cheney.

He just wanders through life pissed off at the world and anyone who has more then he,although it would never cross his mind to strive for success,he'd rather have the federal government hand it to him in one form or another.

I envision him as a person who would think a doctor should be paid the same as a grammer school teacher or a social worker or a bricklayer.

His mind is in a different zone.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: You're an idiot, wd. ... You're unimaginative. You're unsuccessful. You're a prisoner of ideology. You're angry.

You're an idiot. Not for having a differing opinion on tax policy, but for thinking you know so much about me.

Rusty keeps asking what's wrong with me... but I've got to wonder what's wrong with you. Clearly you can't have a rational discussion without resorting to insults and name calling. You've got problems.

Also, President Obama isn't a Progressive, so I fail to see what point you think you're making by saying your position is identical to his... which it isn't, as you pointed out WITH THIS POST! He thinks the wealthy should pay their fair share. You said that language is "divisive".

Will: And who does the "engineering", wd? You? I mean, come on. You're dull.

I would say, "don't be stupid", but I know you can't help it. I never said *I* should do anything of the sort. Congress makes the laws. And, btw dummy, there are plenty of laws already on the books that employ social engineering to various degrees.

dmarks said...

Will said: "They were hiding (the money) from the government evidently, wd. The country went from 206 millionaires to 21 during Wilson's..."

And WD approved of this in a later comment.

Looking at the fact that the rich pay the lions share of taxes now, if you get rid of 90% of the rich, you'd get rid of 90% of the money they pay in taxes. That'd be a reduction in from 40% to 50% of Federal tax revenues.

That's a huge price. There are other huge costs to this, such as the massive business collapse, large and small, with millions and millions unemployed as the rich pull out their investments and cash in their stocks as they leave the country. Not to mention the many employers, including small business owners, who are "gotten rid of" because so many of these are technically rich.

Or imagine the ballooning deficits as the government has to deal with 30%+ unemployment but only half of the money it had before in order to deal with it.

And then he demanded greedy greedy tariffs for no other reason at all but than to make sure no one gets around his envious attempt to kick other people real hard.

So in the midst of this Great Depression he has caused, his greedy greedy greedy tariffs add inflation, and cause even more businesses to collapse and jobs be lost (as this kills all remaining export jobs, and many other domestic businesses fail due to the foreign products that they sell or use in manufacturing soaring in price or being cut off).

All because he personally thinks it is not "Fair" that the rich pay a lot more than the non-rich in actual dollars, as a percent of their income, and as a share of the overall tax picture. That's not enough for him.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Also, President Obama isn't a Progressive"

Minor fact check point: Obama is a progressive/liberal/leftist. That's not my opinion. It is political reality.

dmarks said...

WD said: "For the record, I'm 100 percent in favor of social engineering."

Ugh. Do you even know what it means?

"Social engineering is commonly understood to mean the art of manipulating people into performing actions or divulging confidential information.[1] While it is similar to a confidence trick or simple fraud, the term typically applies to trickery or deception for the purpose of information gathering, fraud, or computer system access; in most cases the attacker never comes face-to-face with the victims."

Of course, you demand that the ruling elites have more and more power over us. I guess it is not surprising that you support them engaging in fraud, deception, and dishonesty in order to plunder even more from their lowly subjects. The might of the ruling class makes right, to you.

I would welcome the rich moving all of their assets to another country if we ended up being ruled by such pirates.

dmarks said...

Will said: "Draconian tax hikes on the wealthy - they backfired under Wilson and the backfired under Hoover. But, noooooooooo, let's listen to wd, he knows what he's talking about."

They contributed to and deepened the Depression, but I guess that is an acceptable price.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, you called me a corporatist and a conservative for having essentially the same position as the President. What am I supposed to call you? Genius?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: ...you called me a corporatist and a conservative for having essentially the same position as the President.

Bullshit. I did no such thing. I'm calling you a Conservative and corporatist because you employ the same rhetoric (lies) they use. Asking the wealthy to pay their fair share isn't divisive, demagogic or deceptive.

Also, the two facts [1] the top 1% make 20% of the adjusted gross income, and [2] They pay a 38% of all income taxes... have nothing to do with one another. The "adjusted gross income" and "all income taxes" are completely different numbers!

It's YOU who is being deceptive by trying to make some kind of comparison between these two percentages. And you're parroting Republican talking points.

In regards to your desire to eliminate corporate income taxes...

A 1/17/2012 CNBC article about Obama's jobs panel says, "The panel calls for lowering corporate tax rates to internationally competitive levels while broadening the corporate tax base by eliminating deductions and loopholes".

Lower, not zero.

Essentially the same position? I think not.

dmarks: I guess that is an acceptable price.

Acceptable price? Meaning I "know" raising taxes on the wealthy would result in all the horrible consequences you mention, but I don't care because I want so badly to punish the wealthy bastards I hate (and am so envious of)?

What a load of bullcrap. If I thought for one instant that what dmarks says is true about the consequences of raising taxes and tariffs I would immediately change my position.

I want our government to implement economic policies that will be beneficial to the economy. THAT is why I support the policies I do. I believe they will result in prosperity for all Americans. NOT because I hate or am envious of rich people and want to hurt them... and damn the consequences. What an utterly ridiculous suggestion.

Yet Will and Rusty have both made similar arguments... and I'm the dumb one here????????

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? They make 20% of the income and pay 38% of all income taxes. They pay nearly twice the proportion of what they make. How in the hell is that not their fair share? And, no, I don't like the lingo at all. It's divisive in that it pits people against each other. Mr. Obama (and I DO agree with him on the POLICY component), if he had any leadership, would knock it off with this pitting people against each other bullshit and put it in terms of reducing the deficit and doing it in a way that doesn't hurt the economy. He probably won't, though.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And, let me ask you, wd, what % of the total income tax SHOULD the top 1% pay; 50%, 60%, 80%, 100%. What, pray tell, would ultimately make that wonderful redistributionist heart of yours happy.............And how much should the bottom 50% pay? They're currently paying 2.7% of all income taxes (over 90% of this group is paying nothing, some of them even GETTING money in the form of an Earned Income Tax Credit). It sounds to me like a lot of people aren't paying "their fair share" these days.............And you don't even understand the fundamentals of behaviorism; that whenever you penalize something you get less of it and that whenever you reward something you get more of it. It's rudimentary, dude.

dmarks said...

Will said: "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? They make 20% of the income and pay 38% of all income taxes."

And WD would be fine if policies whre changed to force these people and their money to flee the country.

What good would it do the situation in the US to have a 38% reduction in revenues from income taxes?