The next big cuts in Washtington

[j_b]

That's what the Euros do, and they use broad, flat consumption taxes like the VAT to do it. It's also why income taxes constitute a far lower percentage of their total tax take than ours, despite all of the hyperventilating here about how progressive their tax system is vis-a-vis the US.

 

so the euros aren't shoshalists today? their tax rates don't amount to extortion of the rich anymore? The only hyperventilating we heard on this very topic is yours and your friend's!

[JayB]

You'd have to actually look at the effect of deductions and income thresholds, not just top marginal rates in order to determine how heavily they tax the incomes of their top deciles or quintiles in practice.

 

Whatever the case may be - they seem to have figured out that they couldn't finance their welfare states simply by sticking it to the rich. Maybe because they can do math? Hence the broad consumption taxes like the VAT, which generate significantly more of their total tax revenue than their income taxes do. High marginal rates on the rich for populist theater, broad consumption taxes on everyone to actually raise money.

 

If they couldn't finance the welfare state in Eurloand with high marginal rates alone, the odds are high that we aren't going to be able to do it here either.

[Jim]

If you spend some time looking at the data, JayB has a point. Raising marginal rates on the upper incomes is not going to solve the deficit problem. The upper income bracket, say above above $250k a person, have been getting off easy lately and letting the Bushie tax breaks expire would be a good thing, help revenue, and would be more fair.

 

But - it isn't going to solve the problem. The unfunded Medicare drug program (should repeal that dog) and two wars - plus the down economy has us digging a deeper hole. Let the Bushie era tax breaks expire, remove the limit on Social Security Tax ( I think it stops at about $102k), and yes, let all Bush tax cuts - including the middle class ones, expire.

 

Cutting the Pentagon budget by about 25% would give us a needed boost as well.

[Hugh Conway]

The VAT came about as a cheap way to raise taxes because the burden of compliance was put on the individual - not so much because they didn't want to stick it to the rich

[prole]

If you spend some time looking at the data, JayB has a point. Raising marginal rates on the upper incomes is not going to solve the deficit problem. The upper income bracket, say above above $250k a person, have been getting off easy lately and letting the Bushie tax breaks expire would be a good thing, help revenue, and would be more fair.

 

But - it isn't going to solve the problem. The unfunded Medicare drug program (should repeal that dog) and two wars - plus the down economy has us digging a deeper hole. Let the Bushie era tax breaks expire, remove the limit on Social Security Tax ( I think it stops at about $102k), and yes, let all Bush tax cuts - including the middle class ones, expire.

 

Cutting the Pentagon budget by about 25% would give us a needed boost as well.

 

cough health care costs cough

[j_b]

If you spend some time looking at the data, JayB has a point. Raising marginal rates on the upper incomes is not going to solve the deficit problem. The upper income bracket, say above above $250k a person, have been getting off easy lately and letting the Bushie tax breaks expire would be a good thing, help revenue, and would be more fair.

 

But - it isn't going to solve the problem. The unfunded Medicare drug program (should repeal that dog) and two wars - plus the down economy has us digging a deeper hole. Let the Bushie era tax breaks expire, remove the limit on Social Security Tax ( I think it stops at about $102k), and yes, let all Bush tax cuts - including the middle class ones, expire.

 

Cutting the Pentagon budget by about 25% would give us a needed boost as well.

 

JayB spews outrageous horseshit about "hauser's law" and claims we only talked about raising marginal tax rates, and your response is that JayB has a point? wtf is wrong with you?

 

Nobody claimed that simply raising taxes on the wealthy would solve the budget deficit as has already been said several times in this thread, as well as many times before.

[j_b]

You'd have to actually look at the effect of deductions and income thresholds, not just top marginal rates in order to determine how heavily they tax the incomes of their top deciles or quintiles in practice.

 

Whatever the case may be - they seem to have figured out that they couldn't finance their welfare states simply by sticking it to the rich. Maybe because they can do math? Hence the broad consumption taxes like the VAT, which generate significantly more of their total tax revenue than their income taxes do. High marginal rates on the rich for populist theater, broad consumption taxes on everyone to actually raise money.

 

If they couldn't finance the welfare state in Eurloand with high marginal rates alone, the odds are high that we aren't going to be able to do it here either.

 

are you talking to me? because I fail to see any direct answer to anything I said. You can keep shifting the goal posts as much as you wish by pretending neoliberal Europe is some kind of middle class paradise that would tax the wealthy if they only could but I am growing tired of your constant strawmwn and miss-directions. People may talk at one another without ever addressing any specific points in your world but not in mine. You are still on the hook for spewing regressive think tank propaganda about the effect of raising marginal tax rates on the federal revenue.

[Jim]

If you spend some time looking at the data, JayB has a point. Raising marginal rates on the upper incomes is not going to solve the deficit problem. The upper income bracket, say above above $250k a person, have been getting off easy lately and letting the Bushie tax breaks expire would be a good thing, help revenue, and would be more fair.

 

But - it isn't going to solve the problem. The unfunded Medicare drug program (should repeal that dog) and two wars - plus the down economy has us digging a deeper hole. Let the Bushie era tax breaks expire, remove the limit on Social Security Tax ( I think it stops at about $102k), and yes, let all Bush tax cuts - including the middle class ones, expire.

 

Cutting the Pentagon budget by about 25% would give us a needed boost as well.

 

JayB spews outrageous horseshit about "hauser's law" and claims we only talked about raising marginal tax rates, and your response is that JayB has a point? wtf is wrong with you?

 

Nobody claimed that simply raising taxes on the wealthy would solve the budget deficit as has already been said several times in this thread, as well as many times before.

 

I'm more apt to resond to posts that have some reason behind them, even if I disagree with a stated opinion. If you could show some stats to back up your hysterics I might also agree with you.

[j_b]

i already posted data supporting my point. It's not my fault if you don't have the common decency to acknowledge it. As to your continued ad-hom about my calling you on your giving credibility to a patented bullshit artist, you know what what you can do with it.

[billcoe]

If you spend some time looking at the data, JayB has a point. Raising marginal rates on the upper incomes is not going to solve the deficit problem. The upper income bracket, say above above $250k a person, have been getting off easy lately and letting the Bushie tax breaks expire would be a good thing, help revenue, and would be more fair.

 

But - it isn't going to solve the problem.

True, but it would help. We need to cut the budget AND make the tax laws fair. The Obama tax cuts for the rich only will continue to exacerbate the budget horror show we can't seem to stop.

 

This is a great link with facts concerning the vast majority of the population being hosed by the rich I'd like to see Jayb refute. http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

 

The federal spending and reach into every little aspect of our lives is still out of control IMO. Raising everyone's taxes might crash the economy, but someone has to grab the tiller and fix this issue soon, or pay the piper later. Cutting government spending should be done as well, if you raise taxes and spend it via big gov't then you haven't done jack or shit except to make things worse.

[Jim]

 

This is a great link with facts concerning the vast majority of the population being hosed by the rich I'd like to see Jayb refute. http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

 

The federal spending and reach into every little aspect of our lives is still out of control IMO. Raising everyone's taxes might crash the economy, but someone has to grab the tiller and fix this issue soon, or pay the piper later. Cutting government spending should be done as well, if you raise taxes and spend it via big gov't then you haven't done jack or shit except to make things worse.

 

I'm with you on that - good link. Thanks. How this is going to churn out will be interesting - but agreed, need to work both ends of the forumula.

[prole]

The federal spending and reach into every little aspect of our lives is still out of control IMO.

 

I'm always amused and puzzled by this "get government off our backs" narrative. Apart from the intensification of the domestic security state and militarization of our borders (both "small-govt" conservative pet-projects) and the federal income tax (which you suggest might need to be raised for some), I'm not really seeing how "big government" is "reaching into every aspect of our lives" in some sinister way. Please enlighten us as to the nature of your oppression.

[j_b]

especially puzzling because Bill appears to have finally realized that Reaganism was the cover to enable the largest upward redistribution of wealth ever, yet he still spews the "government is the problem" mantra.

[JayB]

If you spend some time looking at the data, JayB has a point. Raising marginal rates on the upper incomes is not going to solve the deficit problem. The upper income bracket, say above above $250k a person, have been getting off easy lately and letting the Bushie tax breaks expire would be a good thing, help revenue, and would be more fair.

 

But - it isn't going to solve the problem.

True, but it would help. We need to cut the budget AND make the tax laws fair. The Obama tax cuts for the rich only will continue to exacerbate the budget horror show we can't seem to stop.

 

This is a great link with facts concerning the vast majority of the population being hosed by the rich I'd like to see Jayb refute. http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

 

The federal spending and reach into every little aspect of our lives is still out of control IMO. Raising everyone's taxes might crash the economy, but someone has to grab the tiller and fix this issue soon, or pay the piper later. Cutting government spending should be done as well, if you raise taxes and spend it via big gov't then you haven't done jack or shit except to make things worse.

 

I don't have enough time to respond to everything in the link right now, so I'll have to offer up a few generalizations.

 

1. Outcomes and intentions are two different things. A tax regime designed to sock it to the wealthy and help the poor may do neither in practice. It's not clear that high marginal rates succeed on either front, particularly after passing through the sausage factory.

 

2. It's important to compare apples to apples. Wages/salary are different than total compensation. Workers and households are not equivalent statistical categories. Marginal tax rates are not effective tax rates. Tax burden calculations that include the value of transfer payments look way different than those that do include them. Etc, etc, etc..

 

3. IMO the ideal tax code is one that optimizes savings, investment, and production. Consumption taxes are way better for that than income taxes. Flat tax rates are better for that than complex, deduction-heavy tax rates. My ideal tax regime would be a progressive consumption tax (tax the difference between total income and total savings) with income indexed transfer payments for the least well off to use for food, shelter, medical expenses, etc.

 

I think Canada is closer to achieving that than we are.

 

[j_b]

1. Outcomes and intentions are two different things. A tax regime designed to sock it to the wealthy and help the poor may do neither in practice. It's not clear that high marginal rates succeed on either front, particularly after passing through the sausage factory.

 

terrible logic. Not enforcing tax policy is not proof that taxation doesn't work to generate revenue. It only shows that having enemies of taxing the wealthy in control of government effectively results in not taxing the wealthy. JayB keeps using the effect of neoliberal policies, to justify neoliberalism but it doesn't work that way. Destroyed urban environments due to outsourcing isn't evidence that outsourcing works, nor is not enforcing regulations evidence that regulations don't work if that needed to be said.

[JayB]

Just to touch on the theme of income inequality - how much is real and how much is a statistical artifact based in changes to the tax code that determine how income is reported?

 

"The first thing to note about the post-1980 increase is the large jump from 1986 to 1988. Piketty and Saez's IRS estimates are based on individual income tax returns, and they are therefore sensitive to tax law changes that affect what gets reported on these returns and when. A long line of research notes that the Tax Reform Act of 1986, by lowering top marginal income tax rates below corporate tax rates caused a decline in income reported by "taxable corporations" (on corporate tax returns) and a corresponding rise in income reported by "Subchapter S" corporations (on individual income tax returns). This represents pure and simple shifting of where large incomes are reported, from one type of tax form to another, but it shows up in the Piketty and Saez data as an increase in income concentration.

 

 

 

A similar them emerges when you use "household income." The composition of households has changed over time across all income quintiles, the "household" in one quintile is not equivalent to a household in another quintile, etc, etc.

 

 

Then when you start discussing actual people and what happens to their incomes over time, instead of statistical aggregates, you complicate the picture still further:

 

Of households in the lowest income quintile in 2001, 28.6% were in a higher quintile in 2003; of those originally in the highest income quintile, 32.1% were in a lower quintile 2 years later.

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf (p.4)

[rob]

all those poor rich guys :cry:

 

How do they even manage????

[prole]

It was a toss-up between this one and "Pure Imagination"...

 

Who can take a cat-turd...

 

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

Edited April 21, 2011 by prole

[j_b]

Anytime that JayB seems to be pulling figures and facts out of his ass (no, the census bureau link isn't a link to the analysis) just assume it is Koch financed CATO propaganda and you'll be right about 99% of the time.

 

Piketty and Saez already answered these talking points back in 2006, here

Edited April 21, 2011 by j_b

[akhalteke]

Anytime that JayB seems to be pulling figures and facts out of his ass (no, the census bureau link isn't a link to the analysis) just assume it is Koch financed CATO propaganda and you'll be right about 99% of the time.

 

Piketty and Saez already answered these talking points back in 2006, here

 

God you are a whiny bitch. STFU for one God damned minute! Jesus fucks sake titty fuck!

[j_b]

another meathead on board!

[akhalteke]

another meathead on board!

 

Meathead huh? You think anyone reads your pithy crap? They see that Munch painting and scroll the fuck down as fast as their fingers can scroll.

 

Why don't you get off your fucking elitist high horse and get fucked.

[Jim]

The "my hair is on fire" thing does get old

[j_b]

if there were any period in your life your hair should be on fire, it is now.

[j_b]

"Elections have become a charade, run by the public relations industry. After his 2008 victory, Obama won an award from the industry for the best marketing campaign of the year. Executives were euphoric. In the business press they explained that they had been marketing candidates like other commodities since Ronald Reagan, but 2008 was their greatest achievement and would change the style in corporate boardrooms. The 2012 election is expected to cost $2 billion, mostly in corporate funding. Small wonder that Obama is selecting business leaders for top positions. The public is angry and frustrated, but as long as the Muasher principle prevails, that doesn't matter.

 

While wealth and power have narrowly concentrated, for most of the population real incomes have stagnated and people have been getting by with increased work hours, debt, and asset inflation, regularly destroyed by the financial crises that began as the regulatory apparatus was dismantled starting in the 1980s.

 

None of this is problematic for the very wealthy, who benefit from a government insurance policy called "too big to fail." The banks and investment firms can make risky transactions, with rich rewards, and when the system inevitably crashes, they can run to the nanny state for a taxpayer bailout, clutching their copies of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

 

That has been the regular process since the Reagan years, each crisis more extreme than the last -- for the public population, that is. Right now, real unemployment is at Depression levels for much of the population, while Goldman Sachs, one of the main architects of the current crisis, is richer than ever. It has just quietly announced $17.5 billion in compensation for last year, with CEO Lloyd Blankfein receiving a $12.6 million bonus while his base salary more than triples.

 

It wouldn't do to focus attention on such facts as these. Accordingly, propaganda must seek to blame others, in the past few months, public sector workers, their fat salaries, exorbitant pensions, and so on: all fantasy, on the model of Reaganite imagery of black mothers being driven in their limousines to pick up welfare checks -- and other models that need not be mentioned. We all must tighten our belts; almost all, that is.

 

Teachers are a particularly good target, as part of the deliberate effort to destroy the public education system from kindergarten through the universities by privatization -- again, good for the wealthy, but a disaster for the population, as well as the long-term health of the economy, but that is one of the externalities that is put to the side insofar as market principles prevail.

 

Another fine target, always, is immigrants. That has been true throughout U.S. history, even more so at times of economic crisis, exacerbated now by a sense that our country is being taken away from us: the white population will soon become a minority. One can understand the anger of aggrieved individuals, but the cruelty of the policy is shocking.

 

Who are the immigrants targeted? In Eastern Massachusetts, where I live, many are Mayans fleeing genocide in the Guatemalan highlands carried out by Reagan's favorite killers. Others are Mexican victims of Clinton's NAFTA, one of those rare government agreements that managed to harm working people in all three of the participating countries. As NAFTA was rammed through Congress over popular objection in 1994, Clinton also initiated the militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border, previously fairly open. It was understood that Mexican campesinos cannot compete with highly subsidized U.S. agribusiness, and that Mexican businesses would not survive competition with U.S. multinationals, which must be granted "national treatment" under the mislabeled free trade agreements, a privilege granted only to corporate persons, not those of flesh and blood. Not surprisingly, these measures led to a flood of desperate refugees, and to rising anti-immigrant hysteria by the victims of state-corporate policies at home."

 

Is the World Too Big to Fail? by Noam Chomsky