PDA

View Full Version : Politics



billbenson
07-06-2012, 07:44 PM
Does anybody know of a non partisan politics forum that discusses things from a theoretical standpoint rather than an ideological one?

Everybody is biased these days and very few of us are economist and they can't even agree. It would be nice to find a source of accurate or at least intelligent information without the bias.

Steve B
07-07-2012, 08:28 AM
I can't imagine how a concept like that is even possible. Politics by its very nature is ... well, political. I think the college courses I took on economics were mostly theoretical because they at least attempted to teach both theories for how to grow an economy - but, since we only used one textbook in each class, I'm sure it had a bias.

Good luck and let us know if you can find something.

cbscreative
07-07-2012, 12:55 PM
Can't offer an answer, but the thread title made me wonder if the new members here would think you're being bold.

billbenson
07-07-2012, 03:52 PM
Well if you treat a country like a business and run it that way, irrelevant special interest groups, for example, wouldn't become part off the decision making process. Yes there are more ways than one to solve a problem. And like a business, different governments are going to have different requirements. Take the tobacco industry, for example. They try to run their business in the best way they can for their business. So Steve B, bias will always exist. But I think it is possible to remove the "chatter" and un based opinion and distortion of the facts from the discussion.

My brother just got his masters in Theology at 64 y/o. He's Catholic. He didn't get get the degree for any career purpose. He got the degree to have intelligent discussions with his peers.They won't all agree. But they can talk intelligently on a subject without large degree's of bias.

Forums provide a good means of doing this. Some forums manage to congregate experts in their area while turning away the non experts.

You are probably right Steve B, but there has to be something out there that is better than the media!

Steve B
07-07-2012, 05:52 PM
Good luck to your brother. Not sure if more education will remove the bias in any subject. It may even make it stronger.

billbenson
07-07-2012, 06:49 PM
Hopefully this goes without saying but LETS KEEP THIS THREAD GENERIC

I'm not an economist. How can I possible make a presidential decision on economic policies and plans. Rather than listen to talk show hosts with sound bites from their economists of choice to make their particular point, I would much rather spend 15 minutes reading educated opinions from two qualified economists with different solutions to the same problem. And I bet they can agree on aspects of solutions.

Guess I'm just an optimist.

Steve B
07-07-2012, 07:23 PM
If that's the case you will want to take a Macro Economic class or two. There is no quick way to learn economic theory. You may want to read up on John Maynard Keynes to get the theory that believes there is a role for gov't. to help an economy. I forget who the main guy representing a more conservative theory was, but I remember Ronald Reagan often quoted the other guy.

I didn't major in economics, but I took 4 different classes in it and did well. The subject is still open to interpretation and I doubt you'll get a much clearer picture than you already have. I'm sure a consertative and a liberal could sit through the same classes and both be convinced they were right about their opinion all along.

The standard textbook used by many colleges (30 years ago anyway) was written by Paul Samuelson. Not sure if it is still considered a staple or not.

billbenson
07-07-2012, 10:01 PM
The subject is still open to interpretation and I doubt you'll get a much clearer picture than you already have. I'm sure a consertative and a liberal could sit through the same classes and both be convinced they were right about their opinion all along.

That's really a sad statement although I suspect its true. There are always multiple solutions to a given problem.

huggytree
07-08-2012, 08:05 AM
everything and everyone slants their view.....realize this and get your info. from multiple sources....

i think politics has always been there and slanting has always existed.....but i do think our country is moving farther apart politically.....the news has always been biased, your just seeing it appear to be worse just because the 2 sides no longer have anything in common........compromise doesnt happen anymore because it cant...too far apart...and its getting more black and white...less grey....

i for one cant understand the other sides point of view.....i see no room for compromise either....thats why our politics are now 'my way or the high way'...our political parties are no longer competing...they are at war

huggytree
07-08-2012, 08:10 AM
I'm not an economist. How can I possible make a presidential decision on economic policies and plans.
Guess I'm just an optimist.

there's 3.5 years of evidence that all the things tried up to this point arent working...keeping things the same for 4 more years = the same results

thats how i see it....a change 'may' not help things at all, but no change definitely wont help

Steve B
07-08-2012, 08:10 AM
I still can't think of the guy I was thinking of, but I did remember that Reagan got a lot of inspiration from Arthur Laffer. Look up the Laffer Curve and you'll see a bit of the supply side economics (aka Trickle Down and Reagonomics).

billbenson
07-08-2012, 08:21 AM
there's 3.5 years of evidence that all the things tried up to this point arent working...keeping things the same for 4 more years = the same results

thats how i see it....a change 'may' not help things at all, but no change definitely wont help

Huggy, allow my to repeat my above comment:


Hopefully this goes without saying but LETS KEEP THIS THREAD GENERIC

Harold Mansfield
07-08-2012, 12:58 PM
I haven't seen a non partisan website or discussion, ever. I do remember some attempts in the past, but it's just not realistic. No matter how well you police it, and set the rules, it's too passionate and there will always be that one person that breaks free and interjects his opinion to slam one side, and then another person jumps in to defend that side or point out his flawed position based on thier opnion, or facts or whatever, and then it's on. Now it's a free for all of "Your side sucks", "You're an idiot"..blah, blah, blah.

I'm guilty of it myself. I participate in political discussions online daily, and I LOVE them because it's easy pickens. Even now, I want to respond to Huggy's comments, but it will just open up that free for all.

In my experience the minute a political conversation has 2 people participating in it, it's already partisian.

You may have better luck looking for economics discussions, but if you are talking about the economics of this country, I still don't see how you avoid the partisian opinions littering the threads because it is directly related to policies.

billbenson
07-08-2012, 05:24 PM
A guy that was interesting was William Buckley albeit he was definitely way to the right. Most of us have opinions unsupported by facts as has already been demonstrated in this thread. Buckley supported his opinions with facts and invited people onto his show to factually prove him wrong. Unfortunately, as you stated Harold, the show frequently ended up with a scholar debating someone with an unsubstantiated opinion. But Buckley did also have other educators and scholars as guests as well which made for educational discussions.

KristineS
07-09-2012, 12:35 PM
I think the problem is that people can't separate the ideas from the rhetoric that surrounds them. Take Rush Limbaugh for instance. Definitely not a fan of him or his stance on women, but I did read a couple of his earlier books and while I didn't agree with everything he said, I thought he made sense in some areas. The problem is that everyone is so focused on pushing their own agenda that a lot of good, solid ideas get lost in this rush of "I'm right and you're wrong".

An interesting book on Economics, and one I actually wrote a paper on for my economics class in college is "Eat the Rich" by PJ O'Rourke. It examines different systems and gives examples of where each system works and where it doesn't. Not huge on economic theory, but the book does make it economics accessible for more people. I found it good reading and still re-read it every once in a while.

vangogh
07-10-2012, 12:56 AM
I still can't think of the guy I was thinking of

Were you thinking of Milton Friedman?

Bill I think Steve has the right approach. Give yourself a crash course in economic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_theory). The link is to the Wikipedia page, not necessarily because it has the best information, but it should list most of the names you'd want to look into.

Unfortunately I don't think you'll find an absolute answer as to who has the right ideas in the coming election. The best you can do is try to sort through all the BS both parties will try to feed you in order to better understand he economic policies each wants to promote. Then decide which aligns more with what you think the best approach is based on your own research of economic theory.

Also consider that the ideas of both parties are probably the right ones, albeit under different economic conditions. Each party would have you believe that their ideas are right under any condition, but they'd both be wrong about that. There are times where raising taxes is best for the economy and their are times when lowering taxes is best. Similar sometimes the right thing is to borrow even if it increases debt and sometimes the right thing is to pay down the debt. Try to take stock of the current economic conditions and see the different economic theories in light of current conditions.

And after you've done all that, flip a coin. :)

Just kidding, though do keep in mind this is all pretty complex stuff that has never and probably will never reach any kind of consensus about what's right.

billbenson
07-10-2012, 05:09 AM
I'll take a peek VG. I don't have the time to make a great study out of this, but I would like to improve my knowledge. Not a lot of economics in engineering school. On the political side of this topic, I wonder how many Americans actually make a study of how to keep America strong and safe. Isn't that the presidents job. Its truly sad that people vote out of IMO complete ignorance or what affects them locally or even worse, by special interest positions. That's not the presidents job.

Also, what are the time frames of economic trends. I suspect it's something like the stock market. There are short, medium, and long range trends. If that is the case, making a judgement on what someone has done in 4 years as an analysis of why to change paths is probably not the right path. That's like day trading as compared to long term buy and hold strategies...

Harold Mansfield
07-10-2012, 11:20 AM
I get information from the most unlikely of sources that most people NEVER look at. If you really want to get an inside look of what is actually going on in Congress ( not the rhetoric) but what they actually spend their time doing, and where money actually goes (quietly), go through the reports from the

CBO ( Congressional Budget Office), Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http://www.cbo.gov/)

and GovTrack.GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress (http://www.govtrack.us/)

Many times I'll listen to or read what politicians are saying, and then go to these sites to find it. And more times than not, you can see documented proof that they are outright lying. Or intentionally misleading by omitting information that makes up the complete picture. One side is particularly guilty of this over the past 3 years. And if you look at who contributes the most to them on this site:
OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting (http://www.opensecrets.org/), you see why.


One of my main talking points when I get into political discussions is "Don't believe me. Read it for yourself. Read the actual bill. Look at the actual people who voted for or against it. Look at this clause that was added. Look who donates to whom. and so on... "

But sadly, MOST people won't ever read anything. And even worse is that it's hard to reach people who have decided that anything that doesn't fall in line with what they believe is some kind of magic trick. It's a lost cause.

One of my biggest pet peeves is people who say that "they're all the same", and crawl back into their hole of apathy. Because if you actually read, you'd see that they are NOT all the same. And it's not all the same. To me, that's just an easy excuse to absolve yourself of any responsibility to educate yourself. It's a cop out. And if you truly believe that, then shouldn't you be standing up against THAT?

I don't mind that people have a different opinion. I actually like it. It's healthy. An exchange of ideas is how Democracy works. But I do have a problem when people base their ideas and opinions on false information. To me that is more damaging to a Democracy than anything. And those people end up screwing all of us because they didn't know what they were doing. And didn't ask. They got 3 seconds worth of information, made up their minds, and cast a vote to screw us all ( themselves included) . That infuriates me.

Disagree with me. But do it based on facts.

billbenson
07-10-2012, 12:04 PM
I'll look at those as well Eborg. I have a friend who actually sat down and read Obama's medical plan before making a decision about it. Of course that's a bit time consuming for most of us.

Harold Mansfield
07-10-2012, 12:20 PM
I'll look at those as well Eborg. I have a friend who actually sat down and read Obama's medical plan before making a decision about it. Of course that's a bit time consuming for most of us.

I still refer to it. It's a big bill. But it's a big change and covers a lot of ground that politicians have been talking about for decades.

I do give the administration credit though. Their web, and social media properties are top notch. If you say you can't find information about what is going on, you aren't looking. Not only is it there, but it's easy to follow. All of the .Gov websites have been updated and redesigned. I haven't seen any company do it better. I've been actually getting tips from some of their implementation and user friendly navigation for my own sites.

I first noticed it during the Stimulus and bank bailouts. Every dollar was accounted for online and every state has their own site that showed where stimulus funds were being used. You don't have to listen to politicians balk about. You can see where the money went in thier own state. We've NEVER had that before. And they are still updated. Who has paid us back. Who still owes. How much we made in interest. It's great.

http://www.sigtarp.gov/pages/home.aspx
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx


From Facebook (The White House Facebook Timeline goes back to the 1700's, https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse) , to Twitter, to even Pinterest (http://pinterest.com/source/whitehouse.gov/), The U.S Government has the best web properties and marketing that I have ever seen. And it feels good to say that my Government isn't antiquated as you would expect it to be.

Love or Hate The President, this administration has been amazing with bringing the Government online and they have done it well.

vangogh
07-10-2012, 12:42 PM
Reading the original source is definitely best and one of the nice things about the current administration is they've opened up a lot of government documents to the public online. There's a wealth of information out there. It's a lot and realistically you aren't going to be able to read it all, but you can find specific bills, etc. if you want to know more.

For what you want to know about the economy and who you might vote for, I think you have to start with some general education about economics. They'll give context to the specifics. Without that context you're making decisions based on a generic bias like "taxes are bad" so that any time taxes are proposed you see it as bad. No question all the learning will be time consuming, but if you want to really understand, you have to put in the time.

cbscreative
07-10-2012, 03:40 PM
Although it's not free from interpretation and opinion, I still prefer to look at history because in the thousands of years we have documented and recorded, there are patterns that show what works and what doesn't. In his later years, Solomon, the wealthiest person in human history, wrote, "There is nothing new under the sun." I believe that's true. It's all happened before and it keeps repeating. You can take any economic policy and it's been tried before. Our culture does get all full of itself with the misguided conceitedness to believe we're in uncharted waters, but modern man is no smarter than his ancestors and we're not actually clever enough to find anything they somehow missed because it can't be done.

Granted, we have technology like the world has never known (even that could be argued through unexplained evidence), but it's incredibly presumptuous of us to think we can repeat history and get different results. What's really amazing is this technology can be used to cross reference the historical patterns and connect the dots. It's our predetermined bias and political persuasion that get us in trouble. I would go so far as to say your search for economic insight is best served outside the political arena. Based on our past discussions, bill, I think your ability to separate bias and be more objective is well above average.

Harold Mansfield
07-10-2012, 03:46 PM
That's EXACTLY how we keep getting into trouble. Every few years someone comes along who proposes to be smarter than those before him and says, "This time it will be different", and we repeat the whole cycle over again.

We have short attention spans and a very short memory. It's the old Seinfeld joke of never remembering how hungry you were when the check comes. "How could we have possibly eaten all of this food?"

billbenson
07-10-2012, 06:34 PM
Can you believe we are on page 3 of a political thread that hasn't been deleted or closed :)

Thanks for the links you posted a couple of posts back Harold.

vangogh
07-11-2012, 12:03 AM
I still prefer to look at history because in the thousands of years we have documented and recorded, there are patterns that show what works and what doesn't.

I'm a student of history and completely agree. However I'd add that we still have to consider the context of our current situation. You can't apply any pattern to today and think the results will be the same. There will be similarities between today and say The Great Depression, but there will also be differences. You want to look to history to identify the patterns that have worked and that haven't and then you need to figure out how to apply those patterns to what's different today.

You also have to remember that many of the patterns of the past are open to interpretation. You can observe that something worked, but which part did the heavy lifting. Sometimes we might look at something from the past and decide it was the cause, when in reality it was the effect of another cause or perhaps something completely unrelated that happened to follow a similar pattern to what we observed to work.


Can you believe we are on page 3 of a political thread that hasn't been deleted or closed

That's because we're actually having a discussion and not arguing about ideology. :)

billbenson
07-11-2012, 03:50 AM
I'm a student of history and completely agree. However I'd add that we still have to consider the context of our current situation. You can't apply any pattern to today and think the results will be the same. There will be similarities between today and say The Great Depression, but there will also be differences. You want to look to history to identify the patterns that have worked and that haven't and then you need to figure out how to apply those patterns to what's different today.

You also have to remember that many of the patterns of the past are open to interpretation. You can observe that something worked, but which part did the heavy lifting. Sometimes we might look at something from the past and decide it was the cause, when in reality it was the effect of another cause or perhaps something completely unrelated that happened to follow a similar pattern to what we observed to work.



I've been studying stock option trading recently. I'll make a post on it when I get further along. I see it as at least a 1 year process until I understand it well enough to make a decision as to whether I can make money at it or not. I wouldn't be putting the time into it if I wasn't optimistic that I can make money at it though.

The reason I mention it though, is its highly statistical in looking at historical data and if you so choose, using that to project future stock market actions. There are hundreds of calculations you can do on past data to increase the probability of being accurate in predicting what the stock market will do in the future. The long term is pretty easy. The stock market will probably go up. But how do you apply that to what a stock is going to do next week? Short term traders are betting that their gains will be higher than their losses on a regular basis.

Apply that to political economics. For the short term, i.e. 4 years for a president. Using long term historical data needs to be heavily analyzed and your conclusions on who to select for a president may be positive over the course of your life, but you will make errors! Making voting decisions on what has happened historically is more about giving your kids a good future rather than short term solutions which will directly benefit you.

Steve B
07-11-2012, 06:50 AM
Yes Steve it was Milton Friedman I was trying to come up with. Thanks.

cbscreative
07-11-2012, 12:58 PM
You also have to remember that many of the patterns of the past are open to interpretation.


Although it's not free from interpretation and opinion,

Yep. Although I mostly disagree with your statement about applying a pattern to today and think the results will be the same. I get your point about the differences, so there's no disagreement there, but there are patterns that hold true regardless of circumstances. The primary example that comes to mind is taxes.

This one is highly predictable. None of us want to pay more tax than we have to. In fact, the reason taxes so easily become a politically charged issue is because none of us want to be in the group that gets targeted for higher taxes. I'm skirting the political here, but I hope what you see is that the group being targeted is just responding the same way you would if you were in that group. This doesn't change with time and circumstances.

Whatever you tax disproportionately, you will have less of. I forgot which ancient country did this without looking it up, but they had the brilliant idea to tax trees. Citizens were taxed based on how many trees they had on their property. The result? They created a desert.

I feel I need to point out that every rational person realizes that taxes are needed to fund government. We should all be paying and paying fairly. The problem comes in when we pick winners and losers with the tax code. Every attempt to do that is destined for failure no matter what the circumstances. Most of us have probably played Monopoly and landed on the Luxury Tax. I remember in the 80's when they actually tried a luxury tax. The only ones who really suffered from it were the workers who made boats and other luxuries. A lot of people lost their jobs while the "rich" were mostly unaffected.

I make no claims to be an economic expert, but I do see patterns like this that are steadfastly consistent. We live with a political system that is constantly trying to violate proven principles of taxation and expecting a different result. Both sides of our political aisles share equal guilt on that folly, and both sides have mostly ignored voices trying to sound the alarm.

Steve B
07-11-2012, 01:45 PM
Interesting point on the trees. If you ever notice how narrow the houses were in the old section of Philadelphia (and probably other older cities), it was because they had a "frontage" tax. It was an easy way for a tax collector to charge based on how big a house was - but the result was very skinny houses that were very deep. I heard the same kind of things when the switched to taxing based on windows etc.

Dan Furman
07-12-2012, 12:41 AM
I feel I need to point out that every rational person realizes that taxes are needed to fund government. We should all be paying and paying fairly. The problem comes in when we pick winners and losers with the tax code.

The problem always is nobody can really decide what is fair, and what constitutes a winner/loser.

For example, the Poor Man says "listen Rich Man, you have a million bucks, and you live ten times better than I. So what if you have to pay a little more... You're still doing great from where I sit."

But the Rich Man says "hey Poor Man, I earned this, and I create jobs. Tax me more, and I'll just close the factory and put my money overseas."


The bad part is both points have merit, and lots of fans.

billbenson
07-12-2012, 02:02 AM
I kind of like the luxury tax concept. The rich guy could very well be pouring most of his money back into his business which in turn creates jobs. He also might have 3 multi-million dollar mansions and a large collection of classic cars and yachts. Lets simplify it down to the car you drive. These days I would set the basic car price at $50k and if someone goes out and buys a $100k Porsche they should pay a tax premium on that.

I wouldn't set the limit at $20k which can still buy you an acceptable transportation vehicle today. If you do that, you really are penalizing the rich guy for making money.

Steve B
07-12-2012, 08:35 AM
People also don't understand percentages and/or can't agree how to define "more". From a percentage point of view - it's easy to make everything even - but the rich guy or girl will pay a lot more when they look at the total amount. One side conveniantly focuses on percentage and the other conveniantly focuses on the total dollar amount. "Rich" people pay a whole lot more in taxes from a total dollar point of view, but they pay considerably less from a percentage point of view.

Harold Mansfield
07-12-2012, 11:49 AM
Our tax system doesn't max out. It's based on percentages. EVERYONE pays more than the guy below him. So the very wealthy don't have a monopoly on that argument. If you make 60% of the money, you should, as a group be paying 60%, of the taxes. That's basic math. You knew that wealth was taxable when you were accumulating it. To get it, using the resources of the very Government that you now think you should be exempt from supporting, and then claim that you should get special treament, is a big "screw you. I got mine" to everyone else.

But the argument itself starts out with a false assumption that we want to tax people more, becuase they have more. Most of the tax arguments I see just want everyone to pay the same percentage. Allowing certain people to not only pay less of a percentage, but also be privy to loopholes that are only available to a select few is an insult to everyone else who pays the full rate and also pays more than the guy below him.

Trying to make the case that my percentage equals more money than your percentage, to me is selfish and arrogant. It's saying my money is more important than yours.

Furthermore, what we have now is NOT tax breaks for employers, human resources departments, and payroll. It's tax breaks on personal income. Continuing to make the argument that a CEO will create jobs if he gets a personal tax break on his income is not only misleading, it's dead wrong. CEO's don't use their personal income to make payroll, hire or train people. So this policy is in essence special treatment to those of certain income levels, supported by a complete lie about how the economy works.

When I have this discussion with my friends, and start asking how many jobs has a rapper or NBA star that they hate created with their tax cut, it infuriates them and they start to understand the ridiculousness of the policy that you don't have to have employees to get this tax break, you just merely need to make a certain amount of money. It has nothing to do with jobs.

And arguing that if people with money have more of it, they may pass it around is a defeatist attitude that is no different than those that say freeloaders want the government to take care of them. It's still waiting for someone else to take care of you, and by giving them tax breaks you are still paying for it.

Jobs are created when there is an increase in demand for goods and services. Regardless of personal tax rates. Consumers create jobs. 1%-2% of the population cannot match the consumer power of 300 million people. When everyone spends, the people at the top make more money. You can't choke out the people that buy your products, and expect to make more money.

I argue that higher ( or fair) taxes promotes growth and energizes people to make more money. Lower personal taxes take away that incentive because now you can make more, by doing less. Much like "lazy, freeloading, welfare cheats". We are still paying for it with our taxes.

History backs me up. Maybe not for the same simplistic reasons, but historically our economy was better when taxes are higher. And we created far more jobs, millionaires and successful businesses.

Taxes under Bill Clinton saw the largest growth of the century. We created 20 million jobs and a budget surplus ( even with a war) . Taxes under the next President went to historic lows and we lost 8 million jobs. I won't sit here and say that I have the economics education to understand that completely, but it's not the first time, so there must be something to it.


Here's a history of tax rates from 1916-2013. I know what years I made the most money.
http://top-federal-tax-rates.findthedata.org/

billbenson
07-12-2012, 12:30 PM
I've heard that even if the wealthy were to be taxed at the same rates as everyone else, the percentage of the total tax revenue from them would be quite low. I have never seen anything to support that though.


@Harold - You use the wealthy sports figure example. Isn't Michael Jordan creating a new basketball team i.e. jobs? Oprah creating her own network i.e. jobs? Wealthy people don't just stick their money in under their mattress in most cases. Venture capital money comes from people with money and it creates jobs. I'm not an accountant so correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't the reinvestment of their money smartly one of the loopholes that allows them to have their low tax rates?

That's why I like the luxury tax concept. The portion of their money they use to live a lavish lifestyle should be taxed at a normal rate. The portion that they reinvest in things that create jobs is a legitimate loophole to me.

Harold Mansfield
07-12-2012, 01:40 PM
@Harold - You use the wealthy sports figure example. Isn't Michael Jordan creating a new basketball team i.e. jobs? Oprah creating her own network i.e. jobs? Wealthy people don't just stick their money in under their mattress in most cases. Venture capital money comes from people with money and it creates jobs. I'm not an accountant so correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't the reinvestment of their money smartly one of the loopholes that allows them to have their low tax rates?

That's why I like the luxury tax concept. The portion of their money they use to live a lavish lifestyle should be taxed at a normal rate. The portion that they reinvest in things that create jobs is a legitimate loophole to me.

Of course. And they should get tax breaks based on the fact that they are creating jobs and HAVE employees. Not a blanket break based on income alone with no requirement to actually be creating anything or hiring anyone.

The way it is now, every lottery winner gets a tax break just based on income. Every wealthy person is not a job creator. Rarely are any of them using their own money in the first place, so that personal income tax break is not what is stimulating job growth.

So why does rapper Little John get the same "job creating" tax break as Oprah who is actually hiring people? Also, CEO's who make a salary that is in the millions. How is that personal tax break helping the company they work for add jobs? Is GE going to start hiring now, because it's CEO is only paying 12% on his income? And GE itself doesn't pay ANY taxes, and they have downsized more jobs in the last 5 years, than added them. While getting billions of Gov Contracts. So why are we subsidizing this?

But the basis of my argument is that personal income tax breaks do not create jobs, an increase in demand for good and services does. More people working, increases that demand. So taking $1billion dollars for a blanket tax break, cannot have the same result as taking that same billion and investing in putting people back to work so that they can become tax payers themselves and start buying goods and services again. That is a definite. Personal income tax breaks is a maybe.

If they did, we'd be swimming in jobs right now. It's been 11 years. When is it going to kick in?

Harold Mansfield
07-12-2012, 01:46 PM
But there is more to it than that as well. There ARE jobs out there. But, not enough people with the training and education to fill positions that are available. I also argue that spending money to solve this problem and train and educate people has a lifetime lasting effect that makes more people tax payers and consumers, than giving a few people special treatment by taking in less money, and hoping they do something with it to "help out".

"teach a man to fish", not give all of the fish to certain people and hope that there's enough left over for everyone to eat. If they decide to share at all.

billbenson
07-12-2012, 02:09 PM
But the basis of my argument is that personal income tax breaks do not create jobs, an increase in demand for good and services does. More people working, increases that demand. So taking $1billion dollars for a blanket tax break, cannot have the same result as taking that same billion and investing in putting people back to work so that they can become tax payers themselves and start buying goods and services again. That is a definite. Personal income tax breaks is a maybe.

If they did, we'd be swimming in jobs right now. It's been 11 years. When is it going to kick in?

On the surface that makes sense. But it's really an economics analysis again, which I know nothing about!

Harold Mansfield
07-12-2012, 02:27 PM
But the basis of my argument is that personal income tax breaks do not create jobs, an increase in demand for good and services does. More people working, increases that demand. So taking $1billion dollars for a blanket tax break, cannot have the same result as taking that same billion and investing in putting people back to work so that they can become tax payers themselves and start buying goods and services again. That is a definite. Personal income tax breaks is a maybe.

If they did, we'd be swimming in jobs right now. It's been 11 years. When is it going to kick in?

Not to mention the residual benefits to everyone and every business if you put those people to work repairing our infrastructure so that it is easier for us to get our goods to market and provide services.

How much could a company save on the cost of gas if their trucks could take a more efficient route? Or spend less time in traffic?
How much more productive could employees be if our internet connections were as fast as they are in S. Korea or Germany?
How many more factories would be willing to set up shop here, if we nurtured technologies that would allow them to actually create their own electricity?
(This one may get parisianed) How much more attractive would the U.S be to headquarter a company, if that company wasn't responsible for paying the healthcare costs of all of it's employees AND their families who don't even work there?
How much cheaper and faster could we get our exports out, if our ports were efficient?
How many shipping options would open up if we had high speed rail?
How many more people could fill high tech positions if public schools had the resources to teach courses that prepared them? And how many companies would set up shop here if we had a larger pool of educated workers to choose from?

I see far more benefits in investing in ourselves as a nation, than I do in giving a select few special tax treatment. If I make more money, I buy more stuff from GE, therefore they make more money AND I'm paying more in taxes to keep this thing going. Win. Win.

cbscreative
07-12-2012, 03:47 PM
The problem always is nobody can really decide what is fair, and what constitutes a winner/loser.

For example, the Poor Man says "listen Rich Man, you have a million bucks, and you live ten times better than I. So what if you have to pay a little more... You're still doing great from where I sit."

But the Rich Man says "hey Poor Man, I earned this, and I create jobs. Tax me more, and I'll just close the factory and put my money overseas."


The bad part is both points have merit, and lots of fans.

I've brought this up here before, but the most fair tax I've ever seen even has the name, FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org). For the most part, the only real opponents to the idea are tax attorneys and lobbyists, so that alone tells you there must be something good for the rest of us.

Here are just a few merits I like about it:

It eliminates the IRS, income tax, corporate tax, death tax, capital gains, and several other taxes.
Everyone pays (including drug dealers and illegal aliens) and there are NO loopholes.
All income up to poverty level is exempt (they use a "prebate" which is paid to legal citizens).
It creates the most business friendly tax system on the planet (reversing motivation to go offshore).
Businesses can make decisions based on business benefit instead of tax implications.
It's transparent because it's only paid on new purchases in the form of a sales tax.
It eliminates embedded taxes hidden in everything we buy (economists calculate an average of 22% on these).
It eliminates filing of tax forms, compliance costs, and the ludicrous waste of paper.
It ends the argument about the rich not paying their fair share (at least in taxes anyway).
It's something Democrats, Republicans, and even other parties can agree on.
Consumers get to pick the winners and losers instead of government and lobbyists.

Basically, unless you're either profiting from the convoluted tax code like the lobbyists are, or siphoning power like the politicians are, there's no reason not to like FairTax. It's not perfect, no system is, but what scares a lot of powerful people about it is that it would literally return the power to the people and end the shell game they play with the 70,000+ pages of tax code we have now.

One last point especially relevant to this thread is that the FairTax proposal has been examined by an army of leading economists and has passed their scrutiny with near perfect grades. Even conservative estimates on the positive effect it is expected to have on the economy over just 5-10 years are very encouraging.

billbenson
07-12-2012, 08:50 PM
That always made sense to me as well Steve. Maybe Evan we see this thread and give us his opinion.

Harold Mansfield
07-12-2012, 08:54 PM
Yeah. But does it raise enough money to support a nation of 350 million people and the services that they need?
Is it based solely on sales tax?

cbscreative
07-13-2012, 12:10 PM
That always made sense to me as well Steve. Maybe Evan we see this thread and give us his opinion.

I once talked to an accountant who is an avid supporter of FairTax which piqued my curiosity since he makes his living doing taxes. He told me he would still have plenty of productive ways to use his skill without having to deal with our overcomplicated tax code.


Yeah. But does it raise enough money to support a nation of 350 million people and the services that they need?
Is it based solely on sales tax?

Yes and yes.

FT is one of the most heavily researched proposals ever developed. It has been reviewed, and even adjusted as needed, by experts in all relevant fields. They concluded that 23% would fund the government at its current level. Since 22% of the cost of goods and services is embedded taxes, that's only a 1% increase in prices. The competition in our market will assure that prices don't just climb by 23% because lower costs of doing business will lower the prices. Even the extra 1% will naturally fall away when you figure the compliance costs of figuring out taxes that will no longer be needed. I'm pretty certain prices will drop significantly.

You also have to figure that everyone will have to pay this tax: government buyers, tourists, drug dealers, illegal aliens, anyone who buys anything new. There are no exceptions because exceptions open the door for the complex nightmare we have now.

It does protect anyone below poverty level from paying any tax because the same infrastructure we already have in place to issue refunds and soc sec checks will be used to pay legal citizens an advance ("prebate"). IOW, if you have a family of 4, the tax amount on everything up to poverty level for a family of 4 will be paid to you. Everyone who lives above board will get the prebate regardless of income. If you really are below poverty, you won't be actually paying tax. And you take home your entire check with NO deductions.

Another interesting aspect is this proposal makes zero attempt to deal with government waste and spending. FT people correctly treat gov't spending as a separate issue. It funds gov't at its current level.

This form of taxation is actually more stable. Income levels fluctuate and we all know people cheat on taxes, shifting the burden to honest taxpayers. Consumer spending is much more consistent than income, so it will provide gov't with stable tax revenue. Prior to 99 years ago, our gov't was funded solely through consumption taxes. It was actually illegal to tax income until the 16th Amendment was added so they could impose this horrible system we have now.

And if these benefits aren't enough, the gov't will save a considerable amount of money under FT. The IRS spends a third of everything they take in just to collect taxes. Get rid of this inefficient dinosaur and gov't will have even more money. That doesn't mean they won't waste it, but that's a separate battle. Most states have sales tax and it's far more efficient than the IRS. Besides, with the positive effect FT will have on the economy, unemployed IRS people will have plenty of new jobs to choose from.

Harold Mansfield
07-13-2012, 04:21 PM
If we just got serious about Campaign Finance Reform and lobbyist weren't allowed to buy votes, then we wouldn't have all of these loopholes and special despensation rules and there would be no opposition to creating a fair tax system.

Nothing fair will ever get done as long as lobbyist control Congress and write all of the bills. The people with the most money will just keep buying the Government that benefits them.

cbscreative
07-14-2012, 01:00 PM
Nothing fair will ever get done as long as lobbyist control Congress and write all of the bills. The people with the most money will just keep buying the Government that benefits them.

That right there says it all. Those are also the people who hate FairTax because they lose their power grip and can't manipulate it. How dare anyone try to level the playing field and create a simple tax system that makes such good sense. And freeing us from the bonds of April 15th every year... why that's unthinkable!

billbenson
07-14-2012, 04:01 PM
Well it would increase unemployment. I mean think of the numbers of ex IRS employees on the street with no salable skills!

cbscreative
07-14-2012, 04:42 PM
I mean think of the numbers of ex IRS employees on the street with no salable skills!

It warms my heart and brings a smile to my face just thinking about it.

What is even more satisfying is thinking about all those unemployed lobbyists trying to figure out what their going to do to replace their 6 and 7 figure salaries. To see the look on their faces if FairTax actually gets enacted would be truly priceless.

billbenson
07-14-2012, 08:04 PM
Ok Jobs:

The elderly woman next door's son lost his local government job over 5 years ago. He still hasn't found a job. What he has done are handyman sorts of jobs for his mother (my neighbor - about 80 y/o). He has been charging her rates and asking for money to the point she may loose her house and run out of money before she dies. She's in good health and a sweet lady. Her late husband had planned so that she would be financially secure through her life.

So I have absolutely no sympathy for my neighbors 45 y/o ish son (lives well, big house, sports car etc BTW). Even in this job market, you can find a job within 5 years. If its Walmart, then you have to adjust your life style. And he's not completely unskilled.

So I'm not completely sympathetic with many of the people that can't find jobs. If you have to move to North Dakota to get a job, retrain, work in retail, whatever; you do what you gotta do.

But people are people. There are a lot of people like my neighbors son or worse out there who won't do what it takes to get a job. This now gets back into the economics side. It strikes me that even if it means higher taxes, this is one that the government has to take on. Rebuilding road infrastructures or projects similar just to make jobs.

I'll leave it at that for comment.

Evan
07-15-2012, 09:43 AM
The biggest problem with our current U.S. income tax system is probably not all of the "loopholes" and such, but the inherent design of it. It's based on social engineering, so we give tax credits or deductions for buying or owning a home, having children, getting married, going to college, and doing certain things. I'm not saying that any of these are necessarily "bad" things, but the problem we have is it's always the tax deductions and credits where people start to get creative. If you simply had your income, less a standard deduction and paid tax on that -- it would simplify income taxes and curb much of the abuses. It may also boost compliance as the tax code wouldn't be as convoluted.

While the "FairTax" seems fair on the surface, I think that will be abused even more by businesses (especially small businesses) who will have to collect these taxes and remit it. There is the prospect of more fraud by under reporting sales, and therefore underpaying taxes. That exists in our current tax system right now -- so I can't imagine if we levied a 20% national sales tax (essentially). Finally, if we're giving a "prebate" to certain individuals and essentially create a regressive tax system -- that means there is going to be a lot of maintenance on the part of the federal government.

Incorporating more luxury taxes would be beneficial. It may also be beneficial to have a progressive property tax system, so people are paying X for the first $500K of value, Y for the next $500K of value, and Z for anything above $1M. Just as an example, and I think that'd provide some tax relief to certain areas. I think the $500K and $1m threshold will need to be scaled down depending on the area (or increased too, depending on the area -- eg NYC).

I think the best method may be a combination of factors. The biggest reason the FairTax is always dead on arrival is because if the income tax was eliminated, millions of Americans contribute to Roth IRA's which were promised to be tax free upon withdrawal at retirement. They won't have to pay this tax (for sure) with a FairTax, but either would someone in a Traditional IRA either as it'd simply be what they "spend". You'd start having to twist the rules on retirement accounts by perhaps considering all withdrawals as subject to this new tax just so the benefit promised there isn't lost over time. So again, it won't work for that "practical" reason alone, though there are far many other reasons.

cbscreative
07-16-2012, 11:30 AM
Finally, if we're giving a "prebate" to certain individuals and essentially create a regressive tax system

The prebate is not for certain individuals unless you want to count illegal aliens and people who fly under the radar who would be making the choice not to receive it. Any legally registered taxpayer gets the prebate. As long as you have a SS# and an address to send it to, you get it. In my view, this eliminates any motivation to stay "poor" just to avoid losing it while protecting those who really are poor.


I think the best method may be a combination of factors. The biggest reason the FairTax is always dead on arrival is because if the income tax was eliminated, millions of Americans contribute to Roth IRA's which were promised to be tax free upon withdrawal at retirement. They won't have to pay this tax (for sure) with a FairTax, but either would someone in a Traditional IRA either as it'd simply be what they "spend". You'd start having to twist the rules on retirement accounts by perhaps considering all withdrawals as subject to this new tax just so the benefit promised there isn't lost over time. So again, it won't work for that "practical" reason alone, though there are far many other reasons.

I had to read that a few times and I'm still not sure I understand the problem. The FT isn't being touted as perfect, but economists who have reviewed it claim that the problems are more than offset by the benefits. In some cases, revisions were made to the concept to deal with problems that were discovered. Since I'm not an expert in these areas, I'm forced to trust the near unanimous agreement of the people who are. I do understand business though, and my business sense tells me that FT will improve the economy.

The only people I know of who believe keeping what we have is better are lobbyists and the politicians who prefer the status quo. The people actually paying taxes like FT once they take a good look into it.

I am in no way an expert on IRA's, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the problem you cited based on my limited understanding. For people who use Roth, were they taxed on the income even though they put it into an IRA account? A gov't promise that they wouldn't be taxed upon withdrawal seems highly suspect to me. I'm trying to get why anyone would go for a deal like that given the track record of gov't keeping its promises. There must have been some kind of other incentive to get people to go for a deal like this. What am I missing?

Even if these people are essentially paying a tax they really shouldn't have to, the overall effect is that prices will be lower on things they would be buying anyway (remember the 22% already embedded that we are forced to pay but it's hidden). To hang on to our income tax and the damage it does to our economy just because of the way IRA's are set up is a form of logic I can't make sense out of. It seems more to me like a scare tactic the lobbyists would want use.

No matter what kind of IRA impact this has, by eliminating death tax, capital gains, and several other taxes, I fail to see how anyone other than lobbyists would not still have the opportunity to come out a winner.

Evan
07-17-2012, 08:02 PM
The prebate is not for certain individuals unless you want to count illegal aliens and people who fly under the radar who would be making the choice not to receive it. Any legally registered taxpayer gets the prebate. As long as you have a SS# and an address to send it to, you get it. In my view, this eliminates any motivation to stay "poor" just to avoid losing it while protecting those who really are poor.

There will be quite a bit of fraud with this. This also makes people more dependent on the government, as now they're looking for that money each month. There is also no guarantee that the government doesn't decide to suspend these prebates at some point when in need, and there is nothing people can do. To ever get this to be sold, they'll have to reduce the tax rate... There is no effective way in making this a regressive tax.


I am in no way an expert on IRA's, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the problem you cited based on my limited understanding. For people who use Roth, were they taxed on the income even though they put it into an IRA account? A gov't promise that they wouldn't be taxed upon withdrawal seems highly suspect to me. I'm trying to get why anyone would go for a deal like that given the track record of gov't keeping its promises. There must have been some kind of other incentive to get people to go for a deal like this. What am I missing?

You can contribute into a Roth IRA with after-tax money, and it all grows tax-free. So when they withdraw the $5,000 they put in (after tax) and $5,000 of earnings (assuming it doubled, and that's all) when eligible, all $10K would be subject to the FairTax. Yet people who banked on a Traditional IRA and received a tax benefit now, will withdraw it and still be subject to tax (as was supposed to happen) except this time its the FT which may be lower than an income tax.

The "FairTax" is fair depending on your perspective. I'm not going to debate the merits of it; however, I think the fundamental concept (of prebating money and creating a regressive tax) is going to be more subject to rampant fraud, and abuse by businesses.

Harold Mansfield
07-17-2012, 08:34 PM
People are already dependent on the Government. Most are just too arrogant to see it, or don't see what they depend on as anything bad. It's just those other people that are the problem. Americans are pretty hypocritical about that whole argument.

$100k in farm subsidies. "No problem."
$218 a month in temporary food stamps, "How dare they lay around their lazy asses living off of my tax dollars. Drug test them all. Even if it costs more to test them, than it would save."

I can name 100 ways the average American depends on the Government every single day that has nothing to do with welfare or food stamps.

Americans have this arrogant idea that everyone else in the country is lazy, except them. But in the same breath, seem to worship the wealthy and want to criminalize the poor. I don't know how we got here, but it is disgusting. We used to be human beings.

ddhi@msn.com
07-17-2012, 09:31 PM
It's my opinion that a first year economic student can balance the US budget. The challenge, who gets hurt and how much. The government is by the people
for the people. That single variable is problematic, in my opinion.

billbenson
07-17-2012, 11:56 PM
People are already dependent on the Government. Most are just too arrogant to see it, or don't see what they depend on as anything bad. It's just those other people that are the problem. Americans are pretty hypocritical about that whole argument.


There are things that should be done by the government. Take health insurance or most insurance for that matter, it's really a socialistic concept. Money goes into a pot and is handed out to those that need it. I've been uninsurable until recently because of a medical condition I have. Now I have a substandard insurance plan, but at least I have something. In the private sector insurance is a business. They decline to insure you or cancel you because of health issues. That's a business decision, not a solution for those that need insurance. I'm not saying Obama's plan is perfect, I'm just saying it should be controlled by the government. As long as it is in the private sector it will be unfair.

cbscreative
07-19-2012, 03:37 PM
There will be quite a bit of fraud with this. This also makes people more dependent on the government, as now they're looking for that money each month.

There will be fraud with anything because frauds will continue to be frauds regardless. I would expect this will be more difficult than welfare fraud and should be at least as hard as tax fraud. For sure, it will fall under tax fraud for anyone caught, and the gain may not be worth the risk. Choosing a nice even number, let's say a head of household's poverty level is $20k. Using the 23% FairTax rate, he gets $4600 per year in prebate. That's a small gain for a fraud risk, and incredibly difficult to live on if he depends on it as free ride. It will however be very helpful for families who need it. If this hypothetical individual actually earns $20k, he just got a $4600 raise under FT and gets to keep the $20k too rather than pay income tax on it.

In the case of another head of household who's poverty level is $20k, but let's say this guy earns $100k, he still gets to keep his $100k and gets the $4600 prebate. He'll probably buy a lot more toys and will spend more money paying tax, sort of. Since prices will either stay about the same or go down, even higher wage earners other than lobbyists will feel like they got a raise.


You can contribute into a Roth IRA with after-tax money, and it all grows tax-free. So when they withdraw the $5,000 they put in (after tax) and $5,000 of earnings (assuming it doubled, and that's all) when eligible, all $10K would be subject to the FairTax. Yet people who banked on a Traditional IRA and received a tax benefit now, will withdraw it and still be subject to tax (as was supposed to happen) except this time its the FT which may be lower than an income tax.

If you focus only on the fact that after tax money was used, this may seem unfair, but that appears more smoke and mirrors than a reality. First, in your example, an additional $5k was earned so that's a gain any way you look at it. As for being taxed under FT, only when they spend it, and only if they are buying new merchandise. The fact is, the person in this example would probably be spending it anyway. The difference is 22% embedded or 23% FT. If prices drop under FT, which I believe they will, I call that a win. Even if prices remain unchanged, the fact that they will spend this money either way cancels out the tax.

The traditional IRA people may have a slight net gain, but I hope the Roth IRA people would be more concerned that their kids will get a better deal than to get upset about the income tax they never should have been forced to pay in the first place. We need to slay this dragon before it finishes plunging this country into irreversible ruin. I would gladly sacrifice for that goal.

Evan
07-19-2012, 09:33 PM
There are things that should be done by the government. Take health insurance or most insurance for that matter, it's really a socialistic concept. Money goes into a pot and is handed out to those that need it. I've been uninsurable until recently because of a medical condition I have. Now I have a substandard insurance plan, but at least I have something. In the private sector insurance is a business. They decline to insure you or cancel you because of health issues. That's a business decision, not a solution for those that need insurance. I'm not saying Obama's plan is perfect, I'm just saying it should be controlled by the government. As long as it is in the private sector it will be unfair.

The funny thing is when people argue about socialism. Social security and medicare are socialism. Our education system is socialism. The entire system is based on "socialist" principles because it's meant to encourage certain things in order to benefit "society".

Evan
07-19-2012, 09:44 PM
There will be fraud with anything because frauds will continue to be frauds regardless. I would expect this will be more difficult than welfare fraud and should be at least as hard as tax fraud.

Yes, but certain things are more prone to fraud. Small businesses are notorious for under reporting sales when doing quarterly sales tax payments in order to get an extra boost of 5-9% of profits. When you add 20% to it, you're going to have more under reported sales, and it's going to be more difficult to ever detect. With the current tax system in place, there are ways to minimize that. First, there isn't as significant of an incentive to commit this type of fraud with sales tax, and he is more likely to deposit and report things honestly... That's just how things are based on sales tax audits, and there are ways of auditing it (and also verifying it against your income tax return). With all of the 1099 requirements, most little guys try to do things honestly with reporting income... They get more creative in trying to create deductions.


The traditional IRA people may have a slight net gain, but I hope the Roth IRA people would be more concerned that their kids will get a better deal than to get upset about the income tax they never should have been forced to pay in the first place. We need to slay this dragon before it finishes plunging this country into irreversible ruin. I would gladly sacrifice for that goal.

The traditional IRA (and 401K) participants have a much better advantage, because they were able to take advantage of tax breaks in the past, while Roth IRA (and 401K) participants paid a higher tax at the time hoping it'd go "down" when they retire. It's not smoke and mirrors, the effect will be real.

Finally, if the FairTax is also going to be fair, it needs to take into true considerations of income and poverty levels of geographic areas. $20K in NYC wouldn't even pay rent... You'd be in poverty in many other locations, but you'd be homeless in NYC. The fact that we don't take into account the regional differences at a national level makes any type of "national" tax inherently unfair as well.

cbscreative
07-20-2012, 01:35 PM
Yes, but certain things are more prone to fraud. Small businesses are notorious for under reporting sales when doing quarterly sales tax payments in order to get an extra boost of 5-9% of profits. When you add 20% to it, you're going to have more under reported sales, and it's going to be more difficult to ever detect. With the current tax system in place, there are ways to minimize that. First, there isn't as significant of an incentive to commit this type of fraud with sales tax, and he is more likely to deposit and report things honestly... That's just how things are based on sales tax audits, and there are ways of auditing it (and also verifying it against your income tax return). With all of the 1099 requirements, most little guys try to do things honestly with reporting income... They get more creative in trying to create deductions.

I can't claim to know the details of their plan for a system of checks and balances, but I seriously doubt fraud will be easy. Any retailer has to account for purchases and sales, so I would expect that to be easy enough to track. Under FT, manufacturing is not taxed, only the retail sale of finished goods. I would expect wholesalers will be accountable on a system similar to a 1099. No one is likely to claim fraud won't exist, but I wouldn't expect our government to be sloppy when tax revenue is at stake.


The traditional IRA (and 401K) participants have a much better advantage, because they were able to take advantage of tax breaks in the past, while Roth IRA (and 401K) participants paid a higher tax at the time hoping it'd go "down" when they retire. It's not smoke and mirrors, the effect will be real.

It will go down, but it will go down for everyone. I can't speak for everyone else, but I wouldn't get mad about that. If someone is telling them they should be mad, they probably will be. If the change leaves the country a better place for their kids, then getting mad is selfish to the extreme.

I recall learning my history in school (hated it at the time but I was forced to study it anyway). When FDR instituted social security, people who never paid in a dime got to collect it. Everyone else was forced to contribute. I fully expect my generation who have paid all their life will get screwed. Even best case scenario, they only go back 10 years now for retirees. I paid all my life and the best I can expect is the last 10 years gets credited. I could get mad, but I'm preparing for the royal shafting I expect to receive instead.


Finally, if the FairTax is also going to be fair, it needs to take into true considerations of income and poverty levels of geographic areas. $20K in NYC wouldn't even pay rent... You'd be in poverty in many other locations, but you'd be homeless in NYC. The fact that we don't take into account the regional differences at a national level makes any type of "national" tax inherently unfair as well.

That's not likely to happen and it raises a good point to prove no solution is perfect. Waiting for one that is will only have us doing what politicians are already doing...nothing except studying the problem to death and leaving us with something totally broken. We all know that a perfect plan that pleases everyone will never happen.

Besides, under our current system we all pay from whatever our income is. Under FT, you keep 100% of your paycheck. Even with no prebate at all, that's still a better deal no matter where you live. To reject FT because it's not perfectly fair to every person will only leave us with something that is only fair to those who can afford to manipulate it so we can never afford to fight back.

The only two viable alternatives right now are FairTax and Flat Tax (the VAT has long been in effect in in Europe and has not demonstrated it would be much better than our current income tax). Flat Tax has considerably less support among economists. And the economists are mostly unanimous that our existing system is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Even with my limited understanding of economics I can see that they're right.

Now imagine this. Many states, including Michigan where I live, have a state income tax. If the feds were to switch to a FT, how long do you suppose states will be able to impose an income tax before voters demand a change? States like MI, NY, and CA are among the most heavily taxed. FT will likely bring down the cost of living in many of these areas. We have a growing FT movement here in MI for a state version of the FT. That pressure will become unbearable for our politicians if the feds enact a FT before our state does. Other states will also be forced to follow suit.

Evan
07-20-2012, 10:06 PM
I can't claim to know the details of their plan for a system of checks and balances, but I seriously doubt fraud will be easy. Any retailer has to account for purchases and sales, so I would expect that to be easy enough to track. Under FT, manufacturing is not taxed, only the retail sale of finished goods. I would expect wholesalers will be accountable on a system similar to a 1099. No one is likely to claim fraud won't exist, but I wouldn't expect our government to be sloppy when tax revenue is at stake.

The problem isn't large businesses... It's the 99% of businesses which are "small businesses" which aren't required to undergo financial audits, and are more likely to "fudge" numbers. Like the local restaurant, or the guy selling hot dogs on the street corner.


Besides, under our current system we all pay from whatever our income is. Under FT, you keep 100% of your paycheck. Even with no prebate at all, that's still a better deal no matter where you live. To reject FT because it's not perfectly fair to every person will only leave us with something that is only fair to those who can afford to manipulate it so we can never afford to fight back.

The only two viable alternatives right now are FairTax and Flat Tax (the VAT has long been in effect in in Europe and has not demonstrated it would be much better than our current income tax). Flat Tax has considerably less support among economists. And the economists are mostly unanimous that our existing system is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Even with my limited understanding of economics I can see that they're right.
FairTax is more fair because you keep 100% of your paycheck? But if your taxed on consumption, it's going to effect the poor more, because they'll be paying a higher tax rate under FT than they would under the current system. The prebate is supposed to fix it, but I don't think the prebate would work -- it just is one more thing people are going to rely on from the government monthly and if the checks stop rolling in, people will be complaining. Why make people "depend" on this to begin with? If that's the only way to make this system "fair", then it's fundamentally flawed.


Now imagine this. Many states, including Michigan where I live, have a state income tax. If the feds were to switch to a FT, how long do you suppose states will be able to impose an income tax before voters demand a change? States like MI, NY, and CA are among the most heavily taxed. FT will likely bring down the cost of living in many of these areas. We have a growing FT movement here in MI for a state version of the FT. That pressure will become unbearable for our politicians if the feds enact a FT before our state does. Other states will also be forced to follow suit.

If you're not paying an income tax -- you'll be paying a higher sales tax, or other fees. Maybe add $100 to everyone drivers license registrations and such. Either way, the same amount of revenues needs to come in, it's just how do you manipulate it to seem more acceptable. Maybe you charge everyone that needs the police or fire department services $30,000, this way people can pay for the "services they need" and nothing else.

States that have high sales taxes use it as way of collecting revenues from tourists. Those that have high property taxes just decide to subsidize government services based on its residents. Those that have high income taxes do it based on those who earn revenues from working in that state and earn more of it...

cbscreative
07-23-2012, 02:53 PM
FairTax is more fair because you keep 100% of your paycheck? But if your taxed on consumption, it's going to effect the poor more, because they'll be paying a higher tax rate under FT than they would under the current system.

I grew up poor and I have an experienced based understanding of what it's like rather than an observational guess. I worked my share of menial jobs with low pay, so I can answer that question without any theoretical speculation. No matter how low the wage, withholding eats up some much needed spending money. So you get it back when you file taxes. Big deal! That's the worst savings plan in the world, no interest whatsoever! And our system wants me to feel good about getting my own money back. Maybe others fall for that shell game, but I am not among them.

If I were still poor and taxed for consumption under FT, I wouldn't have a problem with that. The opponents of FT try to claim that it will add a 23% (some even say 30%) tax to everything. The fact is, the competitive nature of our free market will drive prices down because the cost of bringing products to market will go down. Since I have to buy stuff regardless of how poor I am, 100% of my paycheck is better than what I have after withholding. Only if prices go up would my tax burden rise, and the current system is driving up prices more than FT could possibly be able to do.

Just complying with the 75,000 pages of tax code produces staggering costs on business. As a CPA, you would know that better than the general public. If you could advise clients based on what's truly best for their business instead of trying to balance it out the tax impact, imagine the possibilities. It might even help offset the motivation to fudge the numbers if there is more reward for playing by the rules.

Evan
08-04-2012, 01:30 PM
I just wanted to add a final comment here. What the "Fair Tax" will do is shift the tax burden more on the middle and lower class than it will on the wealthy, seeing as the wealthy don't necessarily "consume" more.

When you look at who is going to be paying the FairTax, if it is genuinely revenue neutral, there will be a shift downward meaning more and more people with less money will be having their earnings "consumed" by taxes. Also, as a percentage of their income, they will pay more than someone who is wealthy.

Consumption really isn't the problem we have in America, it's an income disparity between individuals. Why we'd resolve that with a consumption-based solution goes beyond me.

Admittedly, the US Tax Code is quite complex, but I don't think the FairTax is going to be genuinely more "fair" for everyone.

Harold Mansfield
08-04-2012, 01:55 PM
I just wanted to add a final comment here. What the "Fair Tax" will do is shift the tax burden more on the middle and lower class than it will on the wealthy, seeing as the wealthy don't necessarily "consume" more.

When you look at who is going to be paying the FairTax, if it is genuinely revenue neutral, there will be a shift downward meaning more and more people with less money will be having their earnings "consumed" by taxes. Also, as a percentage of their income, they will pay more than someone who is wealthy.

Consumption really isn't the problem we have in America, it's an income disparity between individuals. Why we'd resolve that with a consumption-based solution goes beyond me.

Admittedly, the US Tax Code is quite complex, but I don't think the FairTax is going to be genuinely more "fair" for everyone.

I Disagree with the whole "who consumes more" argument. Our tax system is based on a percentage of your income. Everyone pays the same percentage so that everyone looses the same portion of their income. That is equal for all. The argument that my 30% is more than your 30% can be made by every single person since none of us make the same exact income. But people in the middle are never the ones that make that argument against the people that THEY pay more than.

I also argue that many people at the top absolutely DO "consume" more services than most because it is the very system that they use for their success.

Where as roads merely get me to work as an employee, roads are the pipeline to get their goods to market. Trade agreements work to enable me to be a consumer. while they work to enable to them to open markets and create profit. I don't rely on the Navy to protect my products coming out of the Persian Gulf. I don't rely on the Justice Department to protect fair trade agreements against the Chinese. I don't get Government backed bonds to build my stadium. I don't rely on port authority to offload my shipment of iPods from China and load my trucks. I don't get local tax breaks to build my factory. So don't try and make the argument that what everyone pays, should be the same dollar amount as what I pay no matter their income.

I don't use any of those services that make you money. I don't have kids in the local schools. I don't belong to the Parks and Recreation Department's softball League. But I still pay for them without complaining because they are essential to providing opportunity for ALL of us and the kind of society that I want to live in.

I can name 100 different ways that the argument doesn't work...that's why a percentage based system is fair...but only if everyone pays the same percentage. It's not fair when only some people are allowed loopholes to lesson their tax burden (and keep more of thier income), because they essentially start living off of the rest of us that pay our full donation to the system because we make up for those loopholes, or the government has to borrow ( as in what we are doing now).

We need to stop treating people like kings. Everyone has the same responsiblity to this country. And using people who have nothing, as the justification for the arguement to escape paying your share is about the most selfish, cold hearted thing I have ever heard in my life. Can you really be so arrogant and cold as to actaully be angry about someone struggling to feed a family on $218 a month, while you are throwing shrimp out because it went bad? And lounging on a $5k couch? Seriously? You want to pile on those people when you have been so blessed? Is that who we are now? You need a few extra bucks so that you can buy more stuff, at the expense of helping people actually eat? Really? That extra $.10 [ten cents] a day (the average that most Americans pay out of thier paycheck for Food Stamp programs) out of your paycheck means that much to you?

If you care that much, Why not volunteer to teach them some business skills?

Lastly, yes we need to cut spending. But it takes money to run the government. At this very moment 50% of all counties in America have been declared disaster zones. That costs money.
At this time, NO ONE needs any tax breaks and all temporary tax breaks need to expire. Mine included. Everyone needs to pay what ever they are supposed to pay until we can get this thing going again and come up with an across the board, no loophole and legal tricks, tax plan for everyone to follow.

To admit that special treatment for 1% of the country is supposed to result in an economic boom for everyone else, is also to admit that 1% of the people in the country CONTROL EVERYTHING. And we all know that is NOT true. And it if was, isn't that horrible? Why would we want to keep feeding that beast?

Is that tax break going to provide any help for the people like us who work for ourselves and the 1000's of us that start businesses every year and need employees? Absolutely not.


There is NO correlation between personal income tax breaks and job creation. Absolutely none and anyone that can connect the dots of how one stimulates the other and then show me documentation of when in our history this has ever worked, I'd love to see it.

I can, however, name you at least 4 times where, along with deregulation, it has failed and created periods of economic hardships.

billbenson
08-08-2012, 02:44 AM
My mom is very anti Obama. One reason she gives is she said he is promoting a 50% inheritance tax. I haven't heard of this and suspect the sources of her information. In a quick search I found an article that was talking about the net worth of the person who dies. If it's over $1M a higher tax applies.

Anybody have any real information on this "inheritance tax"?

Harold Mansfield
08-08-2012, 10:13 AM
.
The opponents of FT try to claim that it will add a 23% (some even say 30%) tax to everything. The fact is, the competitive nature of our free market will drive prices down because the cost of bringing products to market will go down.


The problem with that argument is that it doesn't work like that. The market is competitive now and I don't seen any prices being driven down. Let's look at just one product and industry, Gas. There are 5 major companies that sell Gas and Oil and they are in competition with each other. And yet I don't see any prices being driven down through competition.

Communications. There are 3 major companies that provide mobile communications and they are competing in a free market, and yet I don't see any prices being driven down.

I don't have a problem with trying new things, but when people start basing arguments on things that are going to happen, even though the situation exists and they aren't happening now, I get scared. It's like looking at a business plan with made up numbers and no thought on how to acheive them.

Tax breaks for the wealthy stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Well, even though we've had that for over a decade and it's not working, people continue to sell it and believe as if this time it will be different. Any college freshman can tell you that jobs are created by an increase in demand for products and services. 1% of the people can't create enough of an increase in demand for that to work no matter how much you bribe them or let them off the hook on thier taxes.

And the argument that they are job creators merely because of thier income, is so flawed that I can't believe sane rational people fall for it. I can name 20 millionaire rappers, 100 NBA players and a few reality TV personalities that blow that theory out of the water in seconds.

And yet politicians keep pushing this, while offering no other variables to get a different outcome, while looking at it's failure which is happening as they speak it.

That's my problem with the free market argument. The market is free now. Why isn't that happening now?

Now if you mean an Unregulated market? That's a different story and a horrible idea. I would never in a million years trust my money, and safety with profit driven companies with no oversight. It's another disaster waiting to happen. Actually, that's how the last disaster happened. Why repeat that?

And I've heard the counter arguments against that too, "In an unregulated market, consumers will pick winners and looser.". Well we already do that. That's as general an argument as "I support the troops". Well yeah. Pretty much everyone does.
But how many people will die before we figure out which product maker is safe? How many people will lose their life savings before we figure out which bank is honorable?

Regulations aren't there to put a strangle hold on business. They are there to make sure your cell phone battery doesn't over heat and blow your head off because someone was trying to increase the bottom line by cutting corners.

That's why when I hear "free market", to me it just sounds like doubletalk. The market is free now. Supply and Demand already dictate price. People already offshore to pay cheap wages. I don't care what regulations you lift, you can't pay Americans $3 a hour and expect to manufacture a quality product.

The "free market" argument reminds me of the Family Guy episode where the town did away with government ( because that was the problem) to have a free society, and then created a council of people to handle the business of the city like trash collection and maintenance. And everyone allocated funds from their paychecks to pay for the services and a wage for the people that run the city's business full time. And a system of elections to appoint people to the new council every couple of years.

In other words they got rid of government and created a government.

billbenson
08-08-2012, 02:10 PM
The problem with that argument is that it doesn't work like that. The market is competitive now and I don't seen any prices being driven down. Let's look at just one product and industry, Gas. There are 5 major companies that sell Gas and Oil and they are in competition with each other. And yet I don't see any prices being driven down through competition.

Communications. There are 3 major companies that provide mobile communications and they are competing in a free market, and yet I don't see any prices being driven down.



The problem with oil and gas is it is not following the normal supply and demand model for whatever reason. The US produces enough oil to be self sustaining, yet we both export and import oil.

Cell companies, ISP's, airlines all seem to be acting like monopolies which they pretty much are. Even if there is competition, they seem to be pretty much in collusion. Look at all of the airlines now nickle and diming you for luggage etc. It's the same pricing model as cell companies. These types of companies also are at the top for consumer complaints.

I really don't think those are good types of companies to use in your analysis.

Harold Mansfield
08-08-2012, 02:17 PM
The problem with oil and gas is it is not following the normal supply and demand model for whatever reason. The US produces enough oil to be self sustaining, yet we both export and import oil.

Cell companies, ISP's, airlines all seem to be acting like monopolies which they pretty much are. Even if there is competition, they seem to be pretty much in collusion. Look at all of the airlines now nickle and diming you for luggage etc. It's the same pricing model as cell companies. These types of companies also are at the top for consumer complaints.

I really don't think those are good types of companies to use in your analysis.

I think they are. What system is going to stop exactly what you just described? Companies will still operate in collusion and act to keep smaller players out of the market.
We don't own oil and gas. We will never be able to control the prices. It's a product produced and owned by a private industry. They are going to charge what they want. "free market" or not.

At least fair trade and anti monopoly laws provide some protections for others trying to compete, but the biggest will still always control the industry because they will always control the laws that affect them.

People don't have to buy gas powered cars anymore. You don't have to get your wireless plan from ATT, Verizon, or Sprint. But they do. Isn't that consumers already picking the winners and loosers?

billbenson
08-08-2012, 02:41 PM
If you want to use cell phones as an example, they are selling on features. There are still people out there that pay 30 dollars a month and are using a 5 y/o flip phone. But most people want the new smart phones. My wife easily pays for her phone using it for shopping. If she sees an item she wants in a store, she goes online and compares prices.

Also, who knows where their price points really are to provide the service? New features mean developing new phones, upgrading equipment on cell towers and at central offices etc. The way they go about pricing with the hidden costs might be a pain in the butt, however you may be paying a fair price and that's why the prices appear to be non competitive.

Harold Mansfield
08-08-2012, 02:43 PM
If you want to use cell phones as an example, they are selling on features. There are still people out there that pay 30 dollars a month and are using a 5 y/o flip phone. But most people want the new smart phones. My wife easily pays for her phone using it for shopping. If she sees an item she wants in a store, she goes online and compares prices.

Also, who knows where their price points really are to provide the service? New features mean developing new phones, upgrading equipment on cell towers and at central offices etc. The way they go about pricing with the hidden costs might be a pain in the butt, however you may be paying a fair price and that's why the prices appear to be non competitive.

Point taken, but how does "Free market" or Fair Tax change any of that? How will it create more competition and lower prices?

billbenson
08-08-2012, 03:29 PM
Point taken, but how does "Free market" or Fair Tax change any of that? How will it create more competition and lower prices?

I'll leave the tax question to those knowledgeable on the subject. I sell a product at a much higher price than some of my competition. That's my option, but price shoppers frequently go elsewhere. Business has been somewhat slow lately, but I often have days where I can't possibly respond to all my emails and phone calls. So I price high to maximize my profit as a one man show. I may have to lower prices in the future, but that model is working right now. Computers are dirt cheap unless you want special features or Apple, and I bet VG would argue that Apple is a good deal in the long run. I see free market working just fine as far as creating competitive pricing with possibly a few exceptions like the oil industry.

Now if you modify that to how does free market create jobs, I'll defer that to the economists on the board.

billbenson
08-15-2012, 04:12 PM
My mom is very anti Obama. One reason she gives is she said he is promoting a 50% inheritance tax. I haven't heard of this and suspect the sources of her information. In a quick search I found an article that was talking about the net worth of the person who dies. If it's over $1M a higher tax applies.

Anybody have any real information on this "inheritance tax"?

I asked a friend about this. An edited portion of his response is below. My friend is right wing, but he researches the hell out of everything. He read Obama's Medical insurance plan. How many here have done that. I think his last statement which I put in bold is the most important.

One thing that's interesting here is that Obama was able to put through an inheritance tax plan that lowers taxes and and raises the limits to $5M to be in the top bracket. Yet the propoganda that my mom receives says the tax rate is currently 50% which is not true.



This issue is not new to Obama. This goes back to the Reagan Tax cuts which are still in place. Democrats have always wanted to get rid of them, Republicans like them.

The current law ALREADY has a 55% top rate, but that's on a large fortune. Obama pushed a relief act thru in 2010 to reduce it to 35% and raise the exemption to 5M. The law sunsets in 2012 which means we return to pre-Obama rates.

Estate Tax Rate Table - Exemption From Estate Taxes: 1997 - 2013, Estate Tax Exemption (http://wills.about.com/od/understandingestatetaxes/a/estatetaxchart.htm)

My wifes folks get the same crap which blames Obama for the price of gas. It is pure propaganda.

Obama has consistently wanted to tax the rich by getting rid of the capital gains reduction.

To look at that, read Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize economist who write for the NY times. Also look at Warren Buffet's argument that says why do I pay 15% when everyone who works for me pays 35%?

Why does Romney pay 15% when you pay 35%?

The best strategy for your Mom is to die this year.

No really, if she has a large estate (over 1M) she can move it into a trust now and avoid a lot of taxes, Or better yet, you can give $20K to each of your children every year, tax free. She should have been doing that all along, if she's really worried about estate taxes.

But none of this matters if you get wrapped up in the propaganda and don't do the research.

huggytree
08-18-2012, 02:42 PM
just thought id let you guys know that Paul Ryan is my Congressman

i see some discussion about tax cutting and job creation..

i have been remodeling my house yearly and have bought 3 new cars and 1 boat in the past 2 years.....at the end of the year i typically owe $40,000-$65,000 in taxes.....cut my taxes by $20,000 and i guarantee that $20,000 will be spent and add to the economy....if you cut taxes that money will be spent....ill buy a better car, Ill take more vacations, ill remodel my house MORE....take $20,000 MORE in taxes(like Obama wants) and I will spend LESS on these items and services.....

lowering taxes adds jobs.......rich people buy high end products which creates good paying/quality jobs

i love rich people...i love rich customers for my business....i want to be like them....i dont want to tax them more

im for a flat tax...fair for all

id also be for a consumption tax...but i would think everyone would barter for things instead of buying them...craigs list would really be hot

huggytree
08-18-2012, 02:46 PM
just thought id let you guys know that Paul Ryan is my Congressman

i see some discussion about tax cutting and job creation..

i have been remodeling my house yearly and have bought 3 new cars and 1 boat in the past 2 years.....at the end of the year i typically owe $40,000-$65,000 in taxes.....cut my taxes by $20,000 and i guarantee that $20,000 will be spent and add to the economy....if you cut taxes that money will be spent....ill buy a better car, Ill take more vacations, ill remodel my house MORE....take $20,000 MORE in taxes(like Obama wants) and I will spend LESS on these items and services.....

lowering taxes adds jobs.......rich people buy high end products which creates good paying/quality jobs

i love rich people...i love rich customers for my business....i want to be like them....i dont want to tax them more

im for a flat tax...fair for all

1/2 the people pay no federal taxes....i think thats where the problem is....even the poorest person should be taxed 10%....if you dont pay taxes you should lose your right to vote....voting is ultimately deciding where to spend tax money....if i didnt pay any taxes of course id love to spend all sorts of money on every thing....it costs me nothing right?....instead of raising taxes on the rich id love to see them raise it on the poor....why should the rich pay 40% when the poor pay 0%.......were all in this together....or are we?


id also be for a consumption tax...but i would think everyone would barter for things instead of buying them...craigs list would really be hot

Harold Mansfield
08-18-2012, 03:14 PM
Here's how I feel about taxes. Everyone plays by the same rules. Everyone pays the same rate.

I don't buy the argument that tax breaks for a few people at the top creates jobs, because it hasn't done that in the last 11 years. I see no reason to double down on something that was a flawed idealogy to begin with...has been since the 1920's, and has never worked to stimulate the economy. Ever. It's a total con job.

A few quick hits where a few people spend more accumulating stuff, is not the boost that creates a substantial demand for goods and services that causes companies to hire. 10 people out of 1000 buying a new car, is not enough to cause the local dealership to hire more people to meet the demand.

Everybody spending more, consistently and sustainably is what does that. Not gimmicks and taking from some people to give to others.

But before we even have that conversation, how about we balance the budget before we continue passing out tax breaks, so that we can see what we can even afford to give first?

This insane thing that we've been doing where we pass out the tax breaks first, and then scramble to find things to cut in order to pay for them is out of control. It is litterally just like me borrowing money, paying myself a higher salary and spending it, before I've streamlined my operating expenses.
And all it does is create more debt.

billbenson
08-18-2012, 05:31 PM
just thought id let you guys know that Paul Ryan is my Congressman

i see some discussion about tax cutting and job creation..

i have been remodeling my house yearly and have bought 3 new cars and 1 boat in the past 2 years.....at the end of the year i typically owe $40,000-$65,000 in taxes.....cut my taxes by $20,000 and i guarantee that $20,000 will be spent and add to the economy....if you cut taxes that money will be spent....ill buy a better car, Ill take more vacations, ill remodel my house MORE....take $20,000 MORE in taxes(like Obama wants) and I will spend LESS on these items and services.....

lowering taxes adds jobs.......rich people buy high end products which creates good paying/quality jobs

i love rich people...i love rich customers for my business....i want to be like them....i dont want to tax them more

im for a flat tax...fair for all

1/2 the people pay no federal taxes....i think thats where the problem is....even the poorest person should be taxed 10%....if you dont pay taxes you should lose your right to vote....voting is ultimately deciding where to spend tax money....if i didnt pay any taxes of course id love to spend all sorts of money on every thing....it costs me nothing right?....instead of raising taxes on the rich id love to see them raise it on the poor....why should the rich pay 40% when the poor pay 0%.......were all in this together....or are we?


id also be for a consumption tax...but i would think everyone would barter for things instead of buying them...craigs list would really be hot

This is a statistics and economics question, not an opinion question. What is the distribution of the tax revenue the government earned from rich to poor. By increasing the taxes of the very wealthy will it generate a significant income for the federal government or is it better to increase the taxes on the majority of Americans a small amount. In other words is it better to make your money selling the razor or the razor blades. There are business models for both.

Will tax cuts in our current economic condition create jobs? This is an economics question and there are a ton of factors involved including factoring in the statistical issues. I bet different economic environments have very different answers for this one. What may or may not have worked in the Reagan era isn't necessarily what will work in today's economic / housing crash. Also, I have never seen any decent statistics to show that the tax cuts the wealthy have received stimulated the economy or created jobs.

Evan pointed out that the flat tax may not be as clean and easy of a solution as most think. Warren Buffet and other rich people feel they should be taxed at a higher rate than they currently are.

I don't know the answer. I do know that opinions are just that opinions.

Harold Mansfield
08-18-2012, 06:12 PM
No one wants to tax the wealthy a higher percentage of income than anyone else. EVERYONE wants them to pay the same tax rate as everyone else. Yeah, your amount is more than mine and mine is more than someone elses. Welcome to the club.

It's the special treatment for supposed pay off later that infuriates everyone, because we all know it's a scam. Why does one person get to keep more of thier income than another? And when someone says "If you give me a tax break, I promise I'll buy more things for myself", everyone else in the country is supposed to be so grateful that they gladly pay a higher rate so that you can buy yourself more stuff?

Does anyone beside me see the lunacy in that?

How about we all just pay the same amount, instead of asking me to subsidize your next spending spree? How is that any different than "people waiting for the government to take care of them"? You both want other tax payers to pay extra for you.

50% of the people don't pay any INCOME tax. A stat that was misleading when (R) Sen. Jon Kyle said it last year and it's still wrong today. I'm really sick people holding on to that ONE THING as the truth in which to try and make an argument on a complicated subject like taxes. He took stats from 2009, at the height of the recessions when UE was 10.1%. That is not an accurate assessment of taxes in America most other times.

The amazing part of that argument is there are more people pissed that so many Americans didn't pay income tax, than they were concerned that so many Americans were doing so poorly. That's who we are now.

The other amazing part of that, is people who get a tax return EVERY YEAR ( by writing off their mortgage interest, children, tuition, home office, mileage, and every other deduction) repeat that stat....which is talking ABOUT THEM. If you get a tax return every year, you are one of those people Sen. Jon Kyle was talking about.

And by the way, why are my taxes subsidizing your children's care? Isn't what I kick in for thier free education enough?

The bulk of tax revenue comes from payroll, gas, communications, transportation and other add ons which EVERYBODY PAYS. Individual income taxes account for 40% and corporate income tax is only 9%, and they ain't even paying that. But let corporations tell it and they are being taxed to death.
What are the federal government's sources of revenue? (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm/)

billbenson
08-19-2012, 12:01 AM
Huggy, I'm going to be blunt again. I don't care which side of the political fence you are on, but if you take a position, be able to defend it. Sorry, but defending your position is not saying what you would do given tax cuts or increases. . Tell us why you are correct and state studies to support it. There are studies to support a variety of positions, but "I think" ain't one of them. You say decreasing the taxes for the rich works, give us some valid information other than your opinion to support this!

Harold Mansfield
08-19-2012, 04:03 PM
You say decreasing the taxes for the rich works, give us some valid information other than your opinion to support this!
I know you asked Huggy, but my only point on this is, "Then why isn't it working now? It's been 11 years.".

billbenson
08-20-2012, 12:05 AM
It may have worked. I don't know. It may be working now? Perhaps we would be in worse shape now without the tax cuts? I don't know. I doubt it, but then that's just opinion.

My problem with huggy's response is it's pure opinion without any research which I see as both very common and very dangerous. We are all guilty of it, but it's our job to elect the best people. How can we do that if we don't do the research.

billbenson
08-24-2012, 05:11 PM
I'll venture into dangerous grounds here. Here is an interview with Anderson Cooper and the DNC spokesperson where she is defending the use of misinformation and information taken out of context to promote the democratic candidates. This issue happens to be abortion. Please lets leave the subject matter off the table here and I would ask VG to delete any biased or argumentative posts.

She is being called on specific information which in the form they are sending it to registered voters creates an inaccurate opinion. The thing that got me is she is defending the use of misinformation. She got to sit on the hot seat today. Hopefully Anderson Cooper will call someone else out on the other side of the isle and do the same.That would at least give me some faith that some media is trying to report accuracy or at least state it's just my opinion when it is.

Anderson Cooper 'keeps DNC honest' – Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/23/anderson-cooper-keeps-dnc-honest/?hpt=hp_tvbx)

jbechtold
09-05-2012, 06:37 PM
This is a statistics and economics question, not an opinion question. What is the distribution of the tax revenue the government earned from rich to poor. By increasing the taxes of the very wealthy will it generate a significant income for the federal government or is it better to increase the taxes on the majority of Americans a small amount. In other words is it better to make your money selling the razor or the razor blades. There are business models for both.

Will tax cuts in our current economic condition create jobs? This is an economics question and there are a ton of factors involved including factoring in the statistical issues. I bet different economic environments have very different answers for this one. What may or may not have worked in the Reagan era isn't necessarily what will work in today's economic / housing crash. Also, I have never seen any decent statistics to show that the tax cuts the wealthy have received stimulated the economy or created jobs.

Evan pointed out that the flat tax may not be as clean and easy of a solution as most think. Warren Buffet and other rich people feel they should be taxed at a higher rate than they currently are.

I don't know the answer. I do know that opinions are just that opinions.

Oh look, a good and respectful political discussion (something I could never find on a political forum).

The more important question that needs to be asked is what exactly is the role of the government? I find the notion that its the government's responsibility to create jobs flawed (flawed in the sense that it cannot create anything without forcibly taking from another).

billbenson
09-05-2012, 08:29 PM
Oh look, a good and respectful political discussion (something I could never find on a political forum).

The more important question that needs to be asked is what exactly is the role of the government? I find the notion that its the government's responsibility to create jobs flawed (flawed in the sense that it cannot create anything without forcibly taking from another).

That's a tough one. In the short term, the government can move up projects such as road and dam repairs. Of course that is paid for by taxes, but it is stuff that needs to be done eventually.

As a long term solution, the government needs to help create jobs through the private sector. Many jobs have disappeared never to return because because of changes in technology, a world economy etc. The only thing I can think of to reverse this trend is education of both young people and those with displaced jobs. There is a resistance among many of those who lost their job because it doesn't exist anymore. They want their job back and don't want to be retrained into something else. Sorry, its a new world out there and changing rapidly.

I lost my career in 1998 in the dot com crash. I managed Latin America and the Caribbean for sales of Telecom Switches. Like a kid, I blew all my money thinking I could just come back to the US and get a well paying job. I came back and there were no well paying jobs for my skill set. Product demonstrations were being done by internet rather than putting me on an airplane to Argentina to do it. We were doing telephone central office switch upgrades - when all central offices are upgraded, you don't need to do more upgrades. Telecom technology changed from wireline to VoIP. I had zero skills other than "sales" to come back to. And in sales, you need to know your product.

I absolutely didn't know what to do. I got a job for a company selling consumer routers and antennas (a lot of rural areas out there that don't have internet so they use high power antennas to connect to a WiFi). They still owe me commission money and paid me a 20k base. The owner who ran the 40 person or so business was about the most arrogant ass I have ever met. Customers would email to buy or want information. He would collect our responses and come into your cubicle and berate you email by email screaming in front of your peers. You would come arrive in the morning and there would be holes punched in walls and doors. I was stuck as it was the best paying job I could find at that moment. I had dental insurance, but he wouldn't let you go during work hours. Hard to job hunt in that environment.

The thing is, he was smart. He had a really good processes in place for an internet based company to be sure all orders went out on time without errors. For the era, he had a very good sales website. He wasn't stupid, just an %^%&^*&. I learned a lot from him for selling online.

So I went away and studied web design and actually got a job as a web designer after just readiing a DreamWeaver Dummies book. That job didn't last long either, but I learned a lot. BTW I'm a lousy web designer.

From there I created a lot of debt, filed bankruptcy and built an online company that makes a fair amount of money. This has taken a long time and I still have quite a bit of debt.

Sorry for the long story, but I have very little sympathy for those that aren't willing to be retrained.

I think the trick for the long term is education. That's for both the trades and higher education for the new technologies. I think the government should play a part in this. Student loans cost way to much and education is to expensive. But I don't mind having my tax dollars going toward education, including higher education. If we don't we'll be a country full of useless idiots in 20 years.

A direct answer to your question is the government can have a short term impact on job creation, but I think they need to do things differently for a long term solution. That could be done by either the private sector or the government or both.

billbenson
09-05-2012, 09:17 PM
I saw an interview the other day on the stock market. The bottom line is in this market you need an investment advisory as opposed to commission paid stock brokers. An adviser is paid by you directly. A broker is paid commission by buying and selling your stocks.

Money can be made in the stock market whether its going up, down, or stagnant. There have been some posts here complaining about the stock market not making them any money. I think the real issue is to treat the stock market like a job. You become very knowledgeable in it and study it every day.

Here is a non partisan article on how Paul Ryan made his money in investments. He also married into money, but that was later. He also made his money when the market was in better shape for the most part, but not always.

I'd say quit bitching about the current market and learn how to make money in the existing market.

The 10 Investments That Made Paul Ryan a Millionaire - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-investments-that-made-paul-ryan-a-millionaire.html)

Harold Mansfield
09-06-2012, 09:01 AM
Why don't we just do what FDR, IKE and Clinton did? We know it worked. And we know how to do it. I don't understand why we keep trying to re-invent the wheel every 8 years and ignore what we know works, to do things over and over that we also know have never worked.

It's lunacy to me and I, for one, am sick of going around that circle and I'll never vote for anyone that wants to keep taking us there.

jbechtold
09-08-2012, 09:44 PM
To eborg:

FDR and Ike I assume you mean large public works projects.

Clinton did what exactly, deregulate and sign NAFTA or...?

Either way wasn't that what Obama's stimulus was all about (large government projects)? I would say that the return on investment for the stimulus was weak.

Besides that, do you think it reasonable that people be forced to provide money for projects that the government deems "for our best interest"? When I say forced I mean people who refuse to pay for it (ie taxes) are subject to lose their property and freedom for non-compliance. I don't think that's a very good business model (forcing people to buy your product) and no one in the private sector could ever get away with that.

To Bill:

I agree with you that the future of jobs in this country is predicated on the private sector. I believe the government's role is to minimize its involvement in all marketplaces and let supply and demand dictate where the jobs come from.

Education is a huge topic so let me hit on some highlights.

Education has become in this country just as much about the "college experience" as it has about job training/marketability. I think its every individual's responsibility to do a cost/benefit analysis on education to see if it will work for them. As you can see opinions are split on the subject:

Is a College Degree Still Worth It? | Debate Club | US News Opinion (http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-college-degree-still-worth-it)

At that federal student aid can be linked to increasing tuition costs. I provide the following for examples:

The Student Aid ‘Myth’ Myth | Cato @ Liberty (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-student-aid-myth-myth/)

The following article makes a good argument why the government should not be subsidizing student loans:

Student Loan Scam - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/16/student-loan-scam)

So to conclude, while education is important, its not so darn important that we should force people to subsidize another person's education (and we haven't even got into the topic of public schools).

Harold Mansfield
09-09-2012, 11:07 AM
No. Most of "Obama's" Stimulus was tax cuts to small business and the middle class, bailout money to the states, which every single one of them took to meet budget shortfalls and start a few public works projects. It's all online. You can see each dollar state by state. It was REQUIRED that each state have it's own website tracking what they did with the money and they are all still up.
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money (http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx)

I love the way people bad mouth it, but at the time EVERY Republican in the country was writing letters asking how soon the money would be released because it would "Stimulate Jobs" in their state. Now all of a sudden, no one remembers doing that. Or in the case of Paul Ryan, claims that it was his staff that asked for the money, not him. It was just his stationery with his picture on it and his signature.

Clinton invested in Communications infrastructure that allowed the Tech and the Web to thrive. Tax free. There were more millionaires created during this time than any other in American history.

NAFTA? Not the smoothest deal, but if you remember, American companies were moving to Mexico. GM was one of them. We gave Business what it asked for and what Congressional Republicans were pushing FOR business lobyist. I'm old enough to remember it.

But I don't have to time to address the perfect storm of Drug Cartels being ousted from Columbia into and corrupting Mexican authorities, at the same time that "Free trade" was taking place and the Coast Guard was upping thier game to stop air and sea trafficking. The border was the weak link and now it was open season. Mexico is corrupt, and the Cartels there now have the benefit of a free trade border.

And yes, I'm speaking of that (public works) . It's not a secret that our infrastructure needs repair. The things that WE own, that private industry has no responsibility to fix, but depends on to get goods to market. Do we need another bridge to collapse or another American city to be wiped out by a hurricane before we do anything about it? How about upgrading our power grids and securing our critical infrastructure? It's not 1950 anymore.

We have things that need to be done, and a workforce that is waiting and willing to do it. What's the problem? They aren't going to get fixed with more and more tax breaks.

billbenson
09-09-2012, 02:03 PM
So to conclude, while education is important, its not so darn important that we should force people to subsidize another person's education (and we haven't even got into the topic of public schools).

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I would agree that not everybody needs the same level of education. The skilled laborer's for example don't need a phd. However, they probably would make more money throughout their life if they had additional education to help them manage their money, or be prepared for an economic housing crash.

I have a bachelor degree in electronics engineering. I'm a salesman. I never had an engineering job. But I have mostly sold high tech products. I think the single best thing I got out of college was that I learned how to learn. For the first 22 years of my career I sold telecom switches. That industry died in the dot com crash in the late 90's. I couldn't find a job. I could see the power of the internet, bought some books on web design. I went on to build a web based company selling construction products. I doubt that would have happened without a college background in my case.

And of course, we live in a high tech world that is rapidly changing. We need some highly educated people if we want to compete in the high tech world as a country.

A lot of people that are out of work today, need to be retrained into a different career. Many of them don't have the skills to retrain themselves. A lot of them would have been helped by further education when they were younger.

Harold Mansfield
09-09-2012, 02:25 PM
I agree. Education is the most mportant investment we can make in ourselves as a country. We are falling far down the list of developed countries. There aren't enough high school diploma jobs to go around, and very few of them are well paying these days. It isn't the 1970's anymore.

Right now we have millions of people out of work, and millions of job openings that they don't know how to do. THAT'S A PROBLEM. We can't succeed as a nation if that keeps up. Sure , you may be able to accumulate personal wealth just for yourself, but for how long?

And everyone is not going to open a business. And what's the failure rate of those that do who have no basic management, business or accounting skills? And how many people are put out of work when they fail? And who has to chip in and give them aid when that happens? And who takes up the slack on the bankruptcies when creditors are screwed?

You don't want to subsidize the education of our country, but you'd rather pay for that lack of education on the back end? Social programs are far more expensive than Pell Grants, Student Loans and the G.I. Bill. Why do India and China understand that education leads to opportunity and a thriving economy for all, but for some reason we look at it with disdain?

You don't mind shoveling money at coporations who are already making record profits so that they can buy new boats, but you don't want to invest in a kid who could grow up to invent the next widget? Or at least give him the tools to take care of himself for life, rather than having us pay for it. Or at least keep him busy so that he's not knocking me in the head for my wallet when he get's frustrated because he's 30 and tired of flipping burgers. How much is that going to cost me?

An uneducated society CANNOT keep an economy thriving.

Who will buy your products and services if more and more people are unemployed, or under employed from lack of education or training? Every year that pool of possible customers shrinks on the path that we are on now.

Chinese 8th graders take manditory physics. All of them. Some of our high school seniors don't even have access to challenging enough math and science classes to even be considered by colleges. And you wonder why they are buying our debt, instead of us buying thiers?

That attitude of "why should we subsidize education" is why we are not first anymore. We preach "teach a man to fish", and personal responsibility, but when it comes time to actually DO IT, we have a bunch of excuses.

It's not inherit. You aren't born with business and finance skills. So it needs to be learned. And how do you suggest people pay for it, if the generation before them also isn't educated and therefore don't havee the money to finace it?

Can't you see how lack of education is costing us money?

billbenson
09-11-2012, 04:34 PM
I'll toss a concept in here that I have never seen before. Mandated ongoing education. Yes, mandated by the government, but not necessarily provided by the government. Probably tied to employment so the self employed would be off the hook. A requirement that everyone needs to keep studying through their entire life. It could be as loose as college education is today or select certain requirements i.e liberal arts v.s. economics or advanced math. A physical trainer could be required to take medical types of classes giving him / her more knowledge in their field or giving them the opportunity to go into the medical field. I might be required to study statistics, advanced math, business, computer science...

Any thoughts?

billbenson
09-11-2012, 07:50 PM
How Barack Obama Made His Fortune - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-barack-obama-made-his-fortune.html)

The 10 Investments That Made Paul Ryan a Millionaire - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-investments-that-made-paul-ryan-a-millionaire.html)

billbenson
09-13-2012, 09:39 PM
So now this is going to get interesting politically. Some idiot film maker in CA decides to make an anti Islam movie. It's in English and gets little attention. I believe it was made in Jul 2011. Just before 9/11 it appears on youtube translated into Arabic. A bunch of people in Egypt get pissed and behind the scenes a bunch of terrorists execute an organized terror plot and kill some people including diplomats. So we now have aircraft carriers on their way to the region. So, lets not take this into a what Obama said v.s. what Romney said discussion.

Rather, this could blow up into a real war and not one Obama wanted. From what I have read, the majority feel more secure with Obama as Commander in Chief than Romney. Something like 37% v.s 57% from something I read earlier. I don't remember the exact numbers.

The real issue is this changes the focus of the election from the economy to who can best manage the country in a time of war. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Any opinions?

jbechtold
09-15-2012, 07:53 PM
We have things that need to be done, and a workforce that is waiting and willing to do it. What's the problem? They aren't going to get fixed with more and more tax breaks.

Well correct me if I'm wrong but I thought money was already allocated for fixing highways and bridges. Just because politicians misappropriated it doesn't give them a blank check to keep taking more and more money.

Oh and what's the problem? Forcing people to give money to something they disagree with.

Harold Mansfield
09-15-2012, 07:58 PM
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I thought money was already allocated for fixing highways and bridges. Just because politicians misappropriated it doesn't give them a blank check to keep taking more and more money.

Oh and what's the problem? Forcing people to give money to something they disagree with.
Congress has to appropriate it. Of course there's money to keep the agencies running and basic upkeep, but there has to be an appropriation to fund a complete overhaul and upgrade, which is what we need in MANY areas. Especially considering the systematic cuts (every year it's 10% or more less) to infrastructure, and education over the last 12 years to pay for tax cuts and wars.

If you haven't been paying attention since the 90's , one would think that there's plenty of money for that. But if you've been reading the bills since then, you'll see that infrastructure and education are ALWAYS the first to get money taken away and military ALWAYS gets in increase.

jbechtold
09-15-2012, 08:05 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I would agree that not everybody needs the same level of education. The skilled laborer's for example don't need a phd. However, they probably would make more money throughout their life if they had additional education to help them manage their money, or be prepared for an economic housing crash.

I have a bachelor degree in electronics engineering. I'm a salesman. I never had an engineering job. But I have mostly sold high tech products. I think the single best thing I got out of college was that I learned how to learn. For the first 22 years of my career I sold telecom switches. That industry died in the dot com crash in the late 90's. I couldn't find a job. I could see the power of the internet, bought some books on web design. I went on to build a web based company selling construction products. I doubt that would have happened without a college background in my case.

And of course, we live in a high tech world that is rapidly changing. We need some highly educated people if we want to compete in the high tech world as a country.

A lot of people that are out of work today, need to be retrained into a different career. Many of them don't have the skills to retrain themselves. A lot of them would have been helped by further education when they were younger.

Education does not equal intelligence. So if after 12 years of education someone doesn't know how to manage their money or prepare themselves for a rainy day I don't think another 4 years is going to turn that around.

I still don't see a reason why someone else needs to subsidize by force another person's education. Sure, business and government need highly educated people. But why is it incumbent upon the taxpayer to get them educated? Why can't they as an individual or the potential employer educate them?

Harold Mansfield
09-15-2012, 08:09 PM
I still don't see a reason why someone else needs to subsidize by force another person's education. Sure, business and government need highly educated people. But why is it incumbent upon the taxpayer to get them educated? Why can't they as an individual or the potential employer educate them?
Because we'll end up with a society of dumb ass people because only the wealthy will be able to afford a basic education. And then who is going to work for you, or make enough money to buy your products? Think about it.

I have a better question for you. Why is it that the countries who make education a priority are kicking our economic ass? Why do we have to recruit doctors and engineers from China and India to run our own stuff? Because so many people feel exactly the way you do. That education should be a luxury and not an investment into the future of our society.

jbechtold
09-15-2012, 08:10 PM
Congress has to appropriate it. Of course there's money to keep the agencies running and basic upkeep, but there has to be an appropriation to fund a complete overhaul and upgrade, which is what we need in MANY areas. Especially considering the systematic cuts (every year it's 10% or more less) to infrastructure, and education over the last 12 years to pay for tax cuts and wars.

If you haven't been paying attention since the 90's , one would think that there's plenty of money for that. But if you've been reading the bills since then, you'll see that infrastructure and education are ALWAYS the first to get money taken away and military ALWAYS gets in increase.

So there has been no misuse of funds for roads, bridges, or education? Do you charge your customers more money when your business makes a mistake?

You're still ignoring the crux of the argument anyway, which is:

do you think it reasonable that people be forced to provide money for projects that the government deems "for our best interest"? When I say forced I mean people who refuse to pay for it (ie taxes) are subject to lose their property and freedom for non-compliance. I don't think that's a very good business model (forcing people to buy your product) and no one in the private sector could ever get away with that.

Harold Mansfield
09-15-2012, 08:11 PM
So there has been no misuse of funds for roads, bridges, or education? Do you charge your customers more money when your business makes a mistake?

You're still ignoring the crux of the argument anyway, which is:

do you think it reasonable that people be forced to provide money for projects that the government deems "for our best interest"? When I say forced I mean people who refuse to pay for it (ie taxes) are subject to lose their property and freedom for non-compliance. I don't think that's a very good business model (forcing people to buy your product) and no one in the private sector could ever get away with that.

Where in the word "cuts" do make the assumption "misuse"? And this nation isn't a business. It's a Republic. It's a "we". Not a "me". You can't succeed, if a good portion of the rest of us don't.

jbechtold
09-15-2012, 08:15 PM
I agree. Education is the most mportant investment we can make in ourselves as a country. We are falling far down the list of developed countries. There aren't enough high school diploma jobs to go around, and very few of them are well paying these days. It isn't the 1970's anymore.

Right now we have millions of people out of work, and millions of job openings that they don't know how to do. THAT'S A PROBLEM. We can't succeed as a nation if that keeps up. Sure , you may be able to accumulate personal wealth just for yourself, but for how long?

And everyone is not going to open a business. And what's the failure rate of those that do who have no basic management, business or accounting skills? And how many people are put out of work when they fail? And who has to chip in and give them aid when that happens? And who takes up the slack on the bankruptcies when creditors are screwed?

You don't want to subsidize the education of our country, but you'd rather pay for that lack of education on the back end? Social programs are far more expensive than Pell Grants, Student Loans and the G.I. Bill. Why do India and China understand that education leads to opportunity and a thriving economy for all, but for some reason we look at it with disdain?

You don't mind shoveling money at coporations who are already making record profits so that they can buy new boats, but you don't want to invest in a kid who could grow up to invent the next widget? Or at least give him the tools to take care of himself for life, rather than having us pay for it. Or at least keep him busy so that he's not knocking me in the head for my wallet when he get's frustrated because he's 30 and tired of flipping burgers. How much is that going to cost me?

An uneducated society CANNOT keep an economy thriving.

Who will buy your products and services if more and more people are unemployed, or under employed from lack of education or training? Every year that pool of possible customers shrinks on the path that we are on now.

Chinese 8th graders take manditory physics. All of them. Some of our high school seniors don't even have access to challenging enough math and science classes to even be considered by colleges. And you wonder why they are buying our debt, instead of us buying thiers?

That attitude of "why should we subsidize education" is why we are not first anymore. We preach "teach a man to fish", and personal responsibility, but when it comes time to actually DO IT, we have a bunch of excuses.

It's not inherit. You aren't born with business and finance skills. So it needs to be learned. And how do you suggest people pay for it, if the generation before them also isn't educated and therefore don't havee the money to finace it?

Can't you see how lack of education is costing us money?

You make so many ridiculous assumptions of my political philosophy its not even worth answering this. I get it, you think that without the government nothing of value would exist. Agree to disagree.

Harold Mansfield
09-15-2012, 08:23 PM
I'm only responding to what you are posting. And I disagree. How we live, is in great part to the Government which does things in our best interest, so that we don't have to. And we benefit as a society because of it. Don't think so?

Try running your business with no rules and commerce laws. Try keeping money with no banking protections. Try getting to your meetings on horseback. How much time would you waste everyday purifying water or disposing of waste? Aren't you glad that you don't have to wear an air purifier over your face just to leave the house? Aren't you glad that the people you hire have at least basic skills so that you don't have to spend the money to teach them? Do you plan on living past 55? They didn't in the 1700-1800's. Pollution, food poisoning, and disease killed you way before that, if you didn't catch a bullet because of an argument over a bad business deal or starved to death because unregulated finance people kept stealing your money and property.

Like that internet do ya? How do you think it got there?

This attitude that Government is the problem in your life is rediculous. In essence what you are doing is arguing that you keep voting for the wrong people. When done properly it does our bidding to take care of things that are best done cheaper and better as a collective, rather than individually. That's what it's for, "Provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare...". We are the government. It doesn't run in spite of us, it runs because of us. And everyone in it works for us. You don't like how they are running it on your behalf? Vote! Get invovled. Run for office. Support the people that you want in office.


Stop talking about Government as if it's some abstract organization that someone else owns and runs. I know that's how some in it act, but they don't exist without us. And of course some see Government as a place to get rich, or an easy target to get rich off of.

Every now and then we need to purge the ones that keep telling us what they are going to do, reguardless of what the majority wants and is tellng them to do. Too many people act as if they government tells them what to do, instead of remembering that we tell the government what to do. And when it's not working that way, we remove and replace.

billbenson
09-16-2012, 05:49 PM
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I thought money was already allocated for fixing highways and bridges. Just because politicians misappropriated it doesn't give them a blank check to keep taking more and more money.

Oh and what's the problem? Forcing people to give money to something they disagree with.

I know you pointed this at eborg, but the revenues taken in are less than the money going out. Which is why I'll probably retire or work out of Panama at some point. Both sides are babbling garbage which will never balance the budget. And few voters are going to suck it up and vote for a politician that say 'we gotta balance the budget and that means more taxes'. If Obama is reelected he could try to raise taxes. To use Arnold Schwarzenegger's words, he can say "I lied". Then he can try to push through "the right thing". If Romney is elected, his efforts will be concentrated on reelection.

I'm a proponent of longer presidential terms (6 or 8 year). Just about every promise every candidate makes would take more than 4 years. Anybody that thinks turning this economy around in 4 years is stupid. Improvements can be made but... But people believe in promises. STUPID. It ain't gonna happen, particularly with a congress and senate who can't agree on who's turn it is to go to the bathroom.

That's not to mention the idiot(s) in california that want to start WWIII. Just because you have freedom of speach, doesn't mean you you have to use it.


Oh and what's the problem? Forcing people to give money to something they disagree with

I think you may have misread Ebogs post. Yes, force people to pay for higher education. How it's executed is a different issue.

billbenson
09-18-2012, 03:14 AM
Education does not equal intelligence. So if after 12 years of education someone doesn't know how to manage their money or prepare themselves for a rainy day I don't think another 4 years is going to turn that around.

I still don't see a reason why someone else needs to subsidize by force another person's education. Sure, business and government need highly educated people. But why is it incumbent upon the taxpayer to get them educated? Why can't they as an individual or the potential employer educate them?

Education equals knowledge (what state is the Golden Gate Bridge in); education = skills (what direction do you turn a bolt to tighten it), education = advanced education (how do you calculate the mean vs the average for a group of numbers - pretty damn important for a stock broker); education = skill (do you really want Bob, the handyman next door calculating the stress on the support cables for the Golden Gate Bridge); Education means inventing new things. Why do you think there are so many mathematicians and physicist locked in small rooms at IBM and Google.

Yes, there is a big gap between which direction a bolt needs to be turned and the guy inventing microcircuitry for Google or Apple, but education helps both and moves our country forward.

billbenson
09-18-2012, 07:35 PM
Here's an interesting chart (sorry the chart didn't paste so good) on who pays no taxes. The source: Romney's 47%: Thank Washington's tax break addiction - Sep. 18, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/pf/taxes/romney-income-tax/index.html)

I have yet to find which grouping generates the most federal tax revenue.



Who pays no federal income tax?
INCOME GROUP # WHO OWE NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX % of TOTAL
Under $50K 71.1 million 93.4%
$50K-$100K 3.6 million 4.7%
$100K-$500K 415,000 0.6%
$500K-$1 million 14,000 0.02%
Over $1 million 4,000 0.005%
Total 76.1 million*

Freelancier
09-18-2012, 10:17 PM
Romney admitted during the debates that he paid no "income taxes" the past 2 years. He paid cap gains taxes only. So he's the deadbeat Obama voter he talks about.

billbenson
09-18-2012, 11:28 PM
So, China is looking like they are going to attack Japan. Japan has no army and we are now friends. The Korea's aren't acting very friendly, and some film maker in CA makes a movie that could start WWIII. Seems like this could be a big distraction on the economy focus. It's certainly going to be good entertainment.

Ok, and I forgot to mention Iran trying to make nukes.

billbenson
10-06-2012, 07:36 PM
I thought I'd bump this as time is getting close.

My opinion on the debate without taking sides is this: Obama put out more facts but was not as polished as people expected. Romney put out few facts but was better than most expected. From what I have read, both put out a lot of inaccurate information.

By not putting very many facts on how he will achieve his goals, Romney leaves me curious. Since he's not an idiot, he certainly has his plan in place. Perhaps he is a more liberal republican, but doesn't want to show his hand to put off the conservative right?

MostHeather
10-07-2012, 01:10 PM
Politics and religion are two subjects that I avoid like the plague. Just sayin'..

billbenson
10-07-2012, 04:27 PM
Politics and religion are two subjects that I avoid like the plague. Just sayin'..

If you read through this thread you will find that its been an analysis of politics and the issues at hand for this election, not a thread of opinions with little basis or research as most political or religious threads are.

Evan
10-07-2012, 10:27 PM
Romney admitted during the debates that he paid no "income taxes" the past 2 years. He paid cap gains taxes only. So he's the deadbeat Obama voter he talks about.

I must have missed that and I was listening intently.

There are no "capital gain taxes", it's just subject to income taxes which are at preferential rates.

He also did had consulting income of $190K and $260K of directors fees, which would have been subject to both self-employment and income taxes. With those rates, he would have paid 35% taxes on that income in addition to his self-employment taxes.

Of course when so much of your income is tilted towards investment income (mostly dividends, but some capital gains) then your effective tax rate drops significantly.

Evan
10-07-2012, 11:01 PM
I have yet to find which grouping generates the most federal tax revenue.

The Internal Revenue Service does publish statistics regarding taxpayers, for even corporate entities. This is often how, if you did your return with any of the "off the shelf" programs, when it tries to sell you on additional services regarding likelihood of being audited, or whether certain things look out of range (e.g. you work a $20,000/year job, but make $15,000 a year in dividends, or randomly made a $10K charitable contribution but make $75K a year) for someone in that bracket. Doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong, but it just isn't typically in the "ranges" from these charts.

As they do take awhile to publish, and usually all returns for a certain year aren't required to be filed (with extensions) until later in the year, there is a bit of "lag" here. 2009 is the most recent tax year, and keep in mind our 2011 tax year is still open (some people have until the 15th to file).

You could refer to Publication 1304, and to the tables of data here: SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) Statistics (http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Income-Tax-Return-(Form-1040)-Statistics)There is also this document as well: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inalcr.pdf

T (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inalcr.pdf)he above is pretty resourceful, as you can see all income reported by everyone for years, or all deductions (in totality). So for example, when you hear talk about eliminated the X deduction, or Y credit, you could see how much of that gets claimed here... (dollar wise). For deductions, you could probably use a rate of 15% to get the total dollar effect (for credits, it's usually a dollar for dollar...)

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 07:05 AM
I must have missed that and I was listening intently.

You watched all 1,064 Republican debates? He said it to Newt Gingrich who was advocating getting rid of cap gains taxes altogether. His response was that then he would have paid no taxes whatsoever (likely his small income would have been offset by his charitable deductions).

nealrm
10-08-2012, 09:31 AM
Romney admitted during the debates that he paid no "income taxes" the past 2 years. He paid cap gains taxes only. So he's the deadbeat Obama voter he talks about.
If he is what Obama is calling a deadbeat voter, we need more deadbeat voter. He paid over 3 million in taxes and 1.3 million in local and state income taxes. On top of that he gave 2.2 million to charity. I thinking that a more people posting numbers like that would really help the US out.

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 10:35 AM
f he is what Obama is calling a deadbeat voter

You need to re-process what I wrote.

He (Romney) is the deadbeat Obama voter HE (Romney) talked about. You know, the 47% who don't pay income taxes?

And I still don't understand why investors get a tax break compared to people who work for a living. Why are they so special... other than they have more money to buy politicians?

nealrm
10-08-2012, 11:18 AM
Sorry - mistook how the 'He' was. Either way, Romney would not fit into that 47%. He did pay income taxes, capital gains tax are income taxes.

The reason there is a capital gains tax is that it is in the US best interest to encourage investments in businesses. The more people invest in businesses, the more the businesses grow. The more businesses grow the more people are employed.


And I still don't understand why investors get a tax break compared to people who work for a living.
Don't work for a living - really???? Last time I checked, small business owners worked quite hard. When they sell their business any profits will be taxed under capital gains. Nor can you say the investors don't work. Instead of doing physical work, they are doing mental work. I have done a great deal of both, in truth mental work is a lot more wearing.

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 02:11 PM
Instead of doing physical work, they are doing mental work. I have done a great deal of both, in truth mental work is a lot more wearing.

And you still haven't answered the question: why should "mental work" as you call it get a tax break compared to physical labor?

And you're wrong. Do assembly-line work for 20 years and you'll see that sitting on your butt in a comfortable chair pondering life's imponderables is infinitely easier.

nealrm
10-08-2012, 03:19 PM
I answered that question in my second paragraph.

The reason there is a capital gains tax is that it is in the US best interest to encourage investments in businesses. The more people invest in businesses, the more the businesses grow. The more businesses grow the more people are employed.

As for assembly-line work, been there done that, also lawn crew work, mind number watch the machine work, and 100+ degree standing over boil oil work. Mental work wears on you in ways that physical work doesn't. Physical work stays at work, when you leave you're done for the day. Mental work follows you everywhere, even on vacation and into your dreams.

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 04:01 PM
The reason there is a capital gains tax is that it is in the US best interest to encourage investments in businesses. The more people invest in businesses, the more the businesses grow. The more businesses grow the more people are employed.

Except that's not quite how it works, does it? You can look around you at the low cap gains rate and the high unemployment rate and see that it's not working compared to other periods when cap gains were higher and unemployment was lower. No correlation. No causation. Just a lie repeated over and over.

From Low Capital Gains Taxes May Not Help the Economy - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-03/low-capital-gains-taxes-may-not-help-the-economy) :


Leonard Burman, who teaches economics at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, presented a graph at the joint hearing that plotted capital gains tax rates against economic growth from 1950 to 2011. He found no statistically significant correlation between the two. This was true even if Burman built in lag times of five years. After several economists took him up on an offer to share his data, none came back having discovered a historical relationship between the rates and growth over those six decades. “I certainly did throw the gauntlet down for the true believers,” says Burman. “If they found the relationship, they’re saving it for a special time.”

And you may have done physical work when you were young. But how about doing it for 20, 30, 40 years when you're long past your body's ability to heal easily after hurting it? And that's what a lot of people do... work like that until they retire in their early 60's. So why do you want to tell them that their work isn't as important as the incorrect information you repeated about business investments and unemployment?

billbenson
10-08-2012, 05:42 PM
And you may have done physical work when you were young. But how about doing it for 20, 30, 40 years when you're long past your body's ability to heal easily after hurting it? And that's what a lot of people do... work like that until they retire in their early 60's. So why do you want to tell them that their work isn't as important as the incorrect information you repeated about business investments and unemployment?

I've seen studies where people in high stress jobs tend to die younger. Most investment jobs are classified as high stress.

Also, while many labor jobs are hard on your body, many also keep you in reasonable physical shape. This isn't as black and white as you are painting.

@Neal. I've always thought that things like putting money back into the free market via things like the capital gains tax break was a good idea. I'm changing my view on that slightly. The economy has always been cyclical. I think the 4 year presedencial term is to short to accomplish much as the economy has much longer cycles.

It might be better to look at tax rates as something that matches the current economy. There may have been times where the capital gains tax break made sense and times that it didn't. I'm coming to the conclusion that at this particular moment we need to get people back to work. The tax break concept to create jobs is a longer cycle IMO, as opposed to a more equal tax rate to directly create jobs or reeducate workers. I'm referring to right now. I would suggest something like a more equal taxation plan for 5 years.

I'm not an economist, but it just seems that the taxation should fluctuate as the economy does.

nealrm
10-08-2012, 06:37 PM
Instead of reading second hand what Leonard Burman states, why not read it directly from his Blog. His conclusion was left out of the Businessweek report. Here is what he states.

Does this prove that capital gains taxes are unrelated to economic growth? Of course not. Many other things have changed at the same time as gains rates and many other factors affect economic growth. But the graph should dispel the silver bullet theory of capital gains taxes. Cutting capital gains taxes will not turbocharge the economy and raising them would not usher in a depression.

So Leonard clearly believes that capital gains taxes and economic growth are related, just not as strongly related as many state. I would agree with that. Things like taxes, tends to be influencing factors. Factors then tend to nudge an economy one why or the other.


No correlation. No causation. Just a lie repeated over and over. The lie is that taxes and the economy are unrelated.


And you may have done physical work when you were young. But how about doing it for 20, 30, 40 years when you're long past your body's ability to heal easily after hurting it? And that's what a lot of people do... work like that until they retire in their early 60's. So why do you want to tell them that their work isn't as important as the incorrect information you repeated about business investments and unemployment?
Those are your words and not mine. I never stated, implied, or in any way suggested that one persons work was more important than another. Nor do tax rates indicate that one persons work is more important than another. So mixing the two is an emotional argument and not a factual discussion. Do you believe that low capital gain taxes forces people to do physical work?? Or that a high capital gains rate would stop people from needs to do physical work??

nealrm
10-08-2012, 06:58 PM
@Bill, I also believe that things like putting money back into the free market via things like the capital gains tax break was a good idea. But I never believed it was a silver bullet. It is one of many items that nudge the economy one way or the other. I think we can also agree that getting people back to work is a good idea. However, taking money out of the economy via higher capital gain taxes is not going to accomplish that. No matter who says it, the government does not create jobs. Very much like a dam holding back water, the government can hold back employers from adding jobs. But as a dam does not create the water, neither does the government create the jobs.

I do agree with creating a more equal taxation plan. Right now most of the tax burden is on the higher incomes. In addition there is a huge segment of the economy that is not taxed. In this case I am referring to the black market. (Not just the criminal black market, but the black markets from unreported, unrecorded and other economies) To reach that market, I think we should replace some of the income tax with a sale tax. Because the tax base would be larger, the current taxes for all current tax payer should be lower.

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 08:25 PM
So Leonard clearly believes that capital gains taxes and economic growth are related, just not as strongly related as many state. They could also be inversely related. That's the thing about finding no causation or correlation. You just can't state the relationship at all based on those two dimensions. And that's a more reasonable position than stating that lower cap gains taxes is good for the economy. There's not enough of a relationship there to make that claim.


Nor do tax rates indicate that one persons work is more important than another. I call "bull". Why do you think we give tax breaks for owning a home? Why do we give tax breaks for having kids? We give tax breaks for things we value higher. Giving a cap gains tax break says that money has more value than their physical labor. And that's terrible for this country.


Most investment jobs are classified as high stress. No doubt it is. I'm related to several and I wouldn't want their job for anything in the world. But they are very well compensated for their job. Why should the tax code give them a tax break for doing their job that they're already very well-compensated for?

nealrm
10-08-2012, 10:06 PM
So Leonard clearly believes that capital gains taxes and economic growth are related, just not as strongly related as many state.

They could also be inversely related. That's the thing about finding no causation or correlation. You just can't state the relationship at all based on those two dimensions. And that's a more reasonable position than stating that lower cap gains taxes is good for the economy. There's not enough of a relationship there to make that claim.

The context of the blog clearly indicated that he believes that are are related with a positive correlation. Second the study did not deal with causation. However, many other studies have shown that investors migrate towards investment that produce higher profits given the risk are similar Simple logic would also show that if your goal it to make money you will go for the investment with the greatest rate of return.

I call "bull". Why do you think we give tax breaks for owning a home? Why do we give tax breaks for having kids? We give tax breaks for things we value higher. Giving a cap gains tax break says that money has more value than their physical labor. And that's terrible for this country.

WOW - Now I have to figure out how to respond to this without offending you. But that premise is wrong, and shows a poor understanding of taxes. First, there is not a tax break for owning a home. There is a tax break on the interest for the mortgage, not the home. Why, because the government wants to encourage people to buy homes and reducing the cost of borrowing money does that. If the tax break was because we valued homes, it would continue after you paid off the mortgage, but it doesn't.

The tax breaks for children is a little different. There is a income level below which income taxes are not assessed. The government believes that income below that level should be set aside to basic needs. The tax break for children reflects the reality that it cost money to raise children.

Tax breaks are given to encourage behaviors. We want people to save for retirement, education and medical expenses so tax breaks are given on retirement, education and medical saving accounts. We want people to use energy saving devices, so tax breaks are given to encourage the purchase of those devices. Likewise, taxes are sometimes used to discourage behaviors. We want people to smoke and drink less, so taxes on those items are increased.

If tax break were give on an items "value" we would have tax breaks for firemen, policemen, doctors ... and triple taxes would be charged on lawyers.

I'm sorry but your premise for the reason behind cap gains is wrong and has no basis in fact.

Dan Furman
10-08-2012, 10:06 PM
No doubt it is. I'm related to several and I wouldn't want their job for anything in the world. But they are very well compensated for their job. Why should the tax code give them a tax break for doing their job that they're already very well-compensated for?

I'm confused. Are you saying a "job" in investing is taxed at a lower rate?

nealrm
10-08-2012, 10:21 PM
I'm not sure what is mean there. The income from being paid to manage investment is the standard income tax rates. It is the profit off selling investments that is taxed under the capital gains rate.

billbenson
10-08-2012, 10:24 PM
I call "bull". Why do you think we give tax breaks for owning a home? Why do we give tax breaks for having kids? We give tax breaks for things we value higher. Giving a cap gains tax break says that money has more value than their physical labor. And that's terrible for this country.

Why are you directing your comments strictly at physical labor. Every person that has a regular job of some sort from secretaries to stock analysts working for Warren Buffett pays the standard tax on that income. The smart ones that learn how to make smart investments with that money can lower their tax rate. And that includes laborers.

You appear to feel that reinvesting money back into business does not help create jobs or improve the economy. I have not seen any evidence in the last few posts that prove a reduced tax rate for investment income does or does not help create jobs or improve the economy.

What is nonsensical is to dig your heels into the ground and not look at both sides of the issue with an open mind. This was one of my reasons for starting this thread. I wanted to point out that a lot of people are voting on opinion. In this case, there doesn't seem to be any real solid evidence to support any position.

However a lot of people vote because of strong bias, ads with incorrect information or information taken out of context etc., without researching whether the facts presented are accurate. Much of the information presented at the last debate by both candidates has been shown to be inaccurate. The TV ads are all biased. And people believe that and base their selection of a president on it.

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 10:52 PM
I have not seen any evidence in the last few posts that prove a reduced tax rate for investment income does or does not help create jobs or improve the economy. That's the point I was making in response to Neal's statement earlier that asserted that lowered tax rate for cap gains was indeed good for employment. The numbers do not support the assertion and he admits that the relationship is not firm. So we're good there.

He also asserted that taxing work at a higher rate was somehow not favoring investments. And I called bull on that.


The income from being paid to manage investment is the standard income tax rates. It is the profit off selling investments that is taxed under the capital gains rate.Except that's not how it works if you run a hedge fund and get to take advantage of the "Carried Interest" rate of 15% for any profits you take as compensation for managing the fund -- a job that's labor-intensive, to be sure, but taxed at only 15% even if you never put a dime of your own money at risk. And that's just a Congressional favor for the hedge fund managers who fund campaigns.

As for cap gains, think of those as deferred profits. When you make something, you make a profit (ok, hopefully you make a profit). When you take that profit as compensation, you get taxed on it at income tax rates. All good up to that point. But the business over time builds up "goodwill", excess profits that aren't distributed, and other asset value that's not able to be taken as immediate compensation. You get that when the business sells or you sell your piece of it. So that's just deferred profits, really, but it's taxed at a lower rate than the profits were taxed. Why?

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 10:56 PM
Why are you directing your comments strictly at physical labor.Because I'm a complete wuss and have a huge amount of respect for someone who straps it on every day, day in and day out for years on end... only to see their high-end tax rates set higher than those who move money around. As someone who is related to people who move money around, I can't see why what they do is valued higher than what anyone else does... and I want our tax code to reflect that. And I didn't get that from a TV ad.

EDIT: I live in a state where we don't get ads. I visited Florida and suddenly felt very sorry for them when I turned on the TV. OMG! Wall to wall political ads that specialized in "truthiness".

Freelancier
10-08-2012, 11:04 PM
Why, because the government wants to encourage people to buy homes and reducing the cost of borrowing money does that.I missed this as it flipped over a page break...

And, yes, you understood what I was saying: the tax break is on the interest, not on the house. So it favors people doing that with their money instead of renting an apartment... supposedly. Except it doesn't work that way either. In Canada, they don't have the mortgage deduction and yet the % of home ownership is similar to ours. All it might have done here is increase the price of homes by making bigger homes more affordable.


The context of the blog clearly indicated that he believes that are are related with a positive correlationAnd yet he says no correlation or causation that can be determined. I detect bias.

nealrm
10-08-2012, 11:27 PM
Here is a more in-depth study of capital gains tax rate and investment. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10945.pdf

I (http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10945.pdf)t seems to agree with the other study. There is a relation between decreasing the capital gains rate and increasing investment. But there is a great many other variables that also effect investments. While there may not be anyway of doing a controlled experiment on the effect we can to a logic experiment.

Premise 1) Investor want to maximize their profits and reduce their risks.
Premise 2) Higher risk = higher return potential
Premise 3) Investor have a choice of investment opportunities ranging from low risk bank accounts to high risk venture capital.

Combining premise 1 and 2, we see that risk and maximizing profits work against each other. So each investor would have a point where the want to increase profits is in balance with the need to keep risk down. This would be different for each investor. On the whole, this would mean that the number of investors would decrease as risks increase.

Decreasing capital gains taxes effectively increases the after-tax profit potential of an investment. This shifts the curve towards increasing the number of investors.

nealrm
10-09-2012, 12:17 AM
Nor do tax rates indicate that one persons work is more important than another.
I call "bull". Why do you think we give tax breaks for owning a home? Why do we give tax breaks for having kids? We give tax breaks for things we value higher. Giving a cap gains tax break says that money has more value than their physical labor. And that's terrible for this country.


He also asserted that taxing work at a higher rate was somehow not favoring investments. And I called bull on that.

I think we are working off different versions of this thread. This is what I see that you called me on. Just because tax break are used to encourage investments in the economy, doesn't mean the profits off investments are somehow morally better than a paycheck. It's money, and a d-m poor moral ruler.


Except that's not how it works if you run a hedge fund and get to take advantage of the "Carried Interest" rate of 15% for any profits you take as compensation for managing the fund -- a job that's labor-intensive, to be sure, but taxed at only 15% even if you never put a dime of your own money at risk. And that's just a Congressional favor for the hedge fund managers who fund campaigns.
How many is this compared to the number of people that claim capital gains?? .1% or less. Whoopee.


As for cap gains, think of those as deferred profits. When you make something, you make a profit (ok, hopefully you make a profit). When you take that profit as compensation, you get taxed on it at income tax rates. All good up to that point. But the business over time builds up "goodwill", excess profits that aren't distributed,..
Goodwill is the exact opposite of an asset. It is non-material, non-tangible in nature and has nothing to do with profits. It is the value placed on a company reputation, customer relations and other non-assets.


...and other asset value that's not able to be taken as immediate compensation. You get that when the business sells or you sell your piece of it. So that's just deferred profits, really, but it's taxed at a lower rate than the profits were taxed. Why?
Why - to encourage owners to reinvest the money into the business instead of taking it out.


And yet he says no correlation or causation that can be determined. I detect bias.
Yes he does state the study failed to find a correlation. He then proceeds to tell us why the study failed. His comments made it clear he believes more that the study failed than that there is not a correlation.

If you can make a logistical argument that a capital gains rate equal or higher then the income rate results in increased investment, I would be interest to see it.

Freelancier
10-09-2012, 06:36 AM
How many is this compared to the number of people that claim capital gains?? .1% or less.
Would you believe $10 billion in lost revenue? A lot more than Big Bird costs us.


Why - to encourage owners to reinvest the money into the business instead of taking it out.They already get enough "encouragement" by having the business stick around to spin off more profits that they can use to fund the world they want to live in. And, if you get a lower tax rate for cashing out your cap gains, then doesn't that encourage cashing out instead?


His comments made it clear he believes more that the study failed than that there is not a correlation.
And yet he couldn't find it with the data and he challenged other people to find it with the data and they couldn't find a correlation either.

Here's the thing: cap gains were higher during the crazy late '90's. People didn't slow their investing rate one bit, did they? Unemployment was lower. You can try to make a "logical" argument, just as one gets made for the mortgage interest deduction making it easier to own a home, but the data doesn't support it and we're not talking about a small data set here either. We have over 60 years of data to look at, through good times and bad. If you can't get the data to support your argument, you need to look for a better argument.

billbenson
10-09-2012, 08:28 PM
Here is a more in-depth study of capital gains tax rate and investment. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10945.pdf

I (http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10945.pdf)t seems to agree with the other study. There is a relation between decreasing the capital gains rate and increasing investment. But there is a great many other variables that also effect investments. While there may not be anyway of doing a controlled experiment on the effect we can to a logic experiment.

Premise 1) Investor want to maximize their profits and reduce their risks.
Premise 2) Higher risk = higher return potential
Premise 3) Investor have a choice of investment opportunities ranging from low risk bank accounts to high risk venture capital.

Combining premise 1 and 2, we see that risk and maximizing profits work against each other. So each investor would have a point where the want to increase profits is in balance with the need to keep risk down. This would be different for each investor. On the whole, this would mean that the number of investors would decrease as risks increase.

Decreasing capital gains taxes effectively increases the after-tax profit potential of an investment. This shifts the curve towards increasing the number of investors.

I think this is an incredibly smart way of looking at something for which there is no conclusive data!

billbenson
10-27-2012, 01:10 AM
I thought it was interesting today that Colin Powell announced today that he was voting for Obama. He's a republican from the Bush administration endorsing a democrat for president.

What I thought was interesting is he stated a number of facts that drew him to his conclusion. Not just voting the party line.

I'm not saying who to vote for. I'm just saying look at the facts, not the propaganda before deciding. In the last debate both sides put out inaccurate information.

I kind of looked at the facts this year. In 4 years I'm going to make a check list. I want to make a very educated decision on who I vote for.

Freelancier
10-27-2012, 07:29 AM
There are a bunch of recent sociological/psychological studies that are showing that people don't need facts to make their political decisions. They are looking for confirmation bias even if the facts entirely disprove their beliefs. If you press someone on their beliefs and the facts that disprove them, they'll just get angry with you for trying to take away the chemical surge they were getting from "being right".

It's also why so many people buy high and sell low in the stock market. Great investors have strong beliefs weakly held.

billbenson
10-27-2012, 06:33 PM
There are a bunch of recent sociological/psychological studies that are showing that people don't need facts to make their political decisions. They are looking for confirmation bias even if the facts entirely disprove their beliefs. If you press someone on their beliefs and the facts that disprove them, they'll just get angry with you for trying to take away the chemical surge they were getting from "being right".

It's also why so many people buy high and sell low in the stock market. Great investors have strong beliefs weakly held.

It's pretty obvious that people don't vote based on facts. There are many others that vote based on one special interest - say gas prices. The funny thing is the president has very little to do with gas prices. About the only thing he can do short term is release oil reserves. Hurricanes, wars, and Wall Street mostly control gas prices.

billbenson
11-06-2012, 04:55 PM
Probably my last post for this thread folks. Probably a sigh of relief to many :)

Bob Dylan just predicted a landslide for Obama. Now when I look for political knowledge I look to Hollywood. and in particular Bob Dylan :)

Freelancier
11-07-2012, 09:13 AM
Dick Morris predicted just a week or so ago a landslide for Romney.

When I look for political knowledge... I definitely don't go looking at pundits on FOX :)

billbenson
11-13-2012, 03:58 PM
Not really the direction that I wanted this thread to go. I was just wanting to thank some vet and express some humor.

Given how extremely close the popular vote was in this election, saying that there needs to be a shift towards center is premature. What is needed more is better PR. There are several media hosts that we really need to get to shut up, they express an extreme right view, don't represent the majority of the party and they make the rest of us look bad. Unfortunately, they are currently the main counterpoints to the huge amount of liberal media. I wish there were more sources that expresses views more typical of Conservatives.

Conservatives also need to figure out how to change the attitude of the US population towards success. Obama successfully played the class envy card and continues to force a wedge between the classes. So instead of believing that through hard work they can become successful, many believe that everyone that is successful somehow cheated, stole or did not contribute their fair share. The media reinforces this concept. (When was the last time you saw conservative businessman or someone with strong religious beliefs displayed as a positive role model on TV or in the movies)

Conservatives also need to figure out how get more of the US population to better understand the source of government funds. To many people, the government is just an endless supply of money. The money just comes out of thin air. But, every time someone gets a benefit they did not pay for, some one else loses money they worked for. When you take more out of social security than you put in, you are taking money from your children and grand children. On an emotional level many people do not understand that.

As it came out in this thread, next to nobody researches the facts in the ads, what is put out by the media, etc. I believe that is consistant with your post, except you were looking at it from a conservative viewpoint. My mother is 89 and she is going to vote for who her church pastor says to vote for which is republican down the line. She'd vote for Bugs Bunny if he was the republican candidate. The thing is, my mom's generation is dieing off. Replacing them are college kids who are more open to things like same sex marriage etc., and tired of war. And these kids are computer savvy, so they may do more research. Time will tell. But it's pretty much certain that a lot of this generation is going to have a more liberal view on a lot of republican issues. Combine that with the woman’s vote which favors pro choice from everything I've read, the immigrant vote, etc., etc...

I think over the next 10 years you are going to see significant changes in both parties. And I hope so because its the extremism on both sides that creates the gridlock. I mean think about it. Is gay marriage more important than the fiscal cliff, unemployment, terrorism etc.

I viewed both Romney and Obama far more to the center than their rhetoric. Romney in particular had to sell himself to the far right to get the nomination, then he had to sell himself as more in the center to get the popular vote. At least that is my opinion and the opinion of most of the analyists. There are those that feel if he had stayed to the far right he would have won. I don't buy that.

That's pretty much all I'm saying.

billbenson
11-14-2012, 06:26 PM
Buffett not worried about fiscal cliff....

Buffett not worried about fiscal cliff - Nov. 14, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/investing/buffett-fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

Freelancier
11-15-2012, 06:42 AM
I'm not worried about it either. In fact, I want us to go over it so they can start over and put something better in place. Instead of fighting over tweaking small, let them fight over something bigger.

And losing 5% of GDP -- which is what this "cliff" represents -- is like hitting an economic reset button hit. Yes, we get a recession, but within 6 quarters, we'll be going strong again and probably stronger than before, because the nation won't need to borrow as much to run the government, freeing up private capital for more risky ventures.

nealrm
11-15-2012, 09:45 AM
That article indicated that Buffett is loosing some steps with age. Comparing the corporate environment today to the 1950 and 60's is a joke. In the 50 and 60's Europe and Asia were still recovering from WWII. They were decades behind the US. The US was basically the manufacturing center in the world. In that type of environment the manufactures were making money as fast as they could pump out product. Since there was basically no foreign competition they could charge what ever they needed to overcome the high tax rate. That environment is 30+ years gone. The US now has one of the highest corporate tax rates and it is eliminating our competitive edge.

Have the liberals really thought the "Buffett Rule" through. At least beyond the it will tax the rich point. The media keeps printing false tax rate comparisons, and people do not catch on. Pull out your tax return from last year. Take your total income (not adjusted income, but every dollar brought in before withholding or deductions). Divide that by only the federal income taxes you paid (Do NOT include any state or local taxes). This is the calculation that being used by the media for comparisons. If you are a standard tax paying family, you will find you have a rate around 11%. Much lower than the "this rich person only payed" rates the media is complaining about. The "Buffett Rule" also ignores one of the main reason how the rich reduce there tax rate - that is HUGE, HUGE charitable contributions. It's not uncommon for those donations to be in the millions of dollars. Do we really want to put a rule in place that discourages people from donating to charity??

Having the taxes go up on everyone, would be the fairest approach. But the child deductions, marriage tax, and estate tax issue will need to be fixed.

billbenson
11-15-2012, 10:53 AM
That really takes us back to the flat tax which Evan and CB Creative discussed earlier in this thread. I doubt having the wealthy pay the same tax rate as everyone else would solve the problem, but it would be more money which can't hurt.

nealrm
11-15-2012, 02:37 PM
Bill,
I think you missed my argument. An across the board tax increase would still have income brackets. Just all the brackets would be higher.

Also, the wealthy generally do pay rates higher than the rest of us. This is true UNLESS they give away a large percentage of their income to charity. If some one want to give away all their income and pay zero taxes, I have no problem with that. The charities tend to handle their resources better than the government. Before you say it, yes the capital gains rate is lower then the higher income tax rate, but that is countered by amount limits and structures of other deductions.

billbenson
11-15-2012, 05:27 PM
Then Neal, you are going to run into the argument that the money given to charity could be better used to create jobs or other things more beneficial to the people of the US. Many charities, for example, are for such things as world hunger. And plenty is given to partizan domestic charities. Most would say that giving to world hunger is a good cause, but that's not investing in small business or other things that will get America back on its feet. Giving to cancer research would be another great charity. But it doesn't fix our fiscal, jobs, or economic problems.

At some point we need to prioritize expenditures. We need to get selfish and save our country before we save others. Allowing the wealthy to give to the charity of their choice is frequently a partition choice and may have zero effect on the 'short term' problems we have.

nealrm
11-15-2012, 07:07 PM
I did a little research, I was interested in the breakdown of giving by the wealthy. I was having a very hard time finding anything that included political charities. It then dawned on me, the reason I could not find that information is because donations to political causes are not tax deductible. So they don't count into this discussion.

I did find that the wealthy gave the most to Education, social organizations, health and world organization, followed by other programs in that order. The amount going to world organization was only about 8%, so it appears that most of the money is staying local. So all but 8% is going into thing that are beneficial to the people of the US. As for cancer research not fixing our fiscal, jobs or economic problems, I disagree. Money given to charities go to hire the scientists to do the research and goes to purchase their supplier and equipment. In general, such donation are much more efficient at providing an economic boost that money given to the government.

On fixing on short term problems, those social organization are what many people are depending on for food and shelter. Without those donations, many of those people would be starving or on the streets. Those social organization tend to have inefficiencies about 75%, many are in the 90's. That means for each dollar give more that 75 cents goes to help someone. The government in turn runs about 10%. Meaning it takes over 7 dollars in taxes to equal 1 dollar given to charity.

billbenson
11-15-2012, 11:29 PM
Interesting figures Neal, and you opinion of charities like cancer research makes sense. I try to keep my personal opinion out of this thread, but education is one of the most important keys IMO to improving the current jobs / economic situation as well to being an economic power in the future.

What I question is donations to .org's for volatile area's such as pro choice v.s. anti abortion. Now I have no idea if those types of organizations are tax deductible. I hope not. That would lead directly to people throwing money something that's not helping the US in any way.

Update: I just did a quick search for one of these organizations who stated they are 100% deductible from your federal tax's! I wonder how much the wealthy spend on these types of deductions?

nealrm
11-16-2012, 08:27 AM
I agree with your opinion on education. That is the key to long term economic power. But it not a short term solution, it will take years to see the result for improvements in education.

There are some things that can be done short term that would have a huge effect. I believe that the biggest bang for the buck would be in corporate income taxes. Those taxes are mostly pass though taxes. Increase a companies corporate income tax by $10 and the price on the goods or quality of the goods will change to match that $10. So those taxes are really just a way of taxing the people. From that stand point it is not any different than a sales tax, the bad part is that it effects the demand for the product here and abroad. Eliminating those taxes would dramatically increase the competitiveness of US manufactured goods in the world market. The increase in employment resulting from the increase in demand should make up for the loose in tax revenue.

I also believe that a better solution to the current tax issue is to generate addition tax revenue through a consumption tax. It would need to exclude groceries, housing, medical and basic utilities. This would have several advantages. First it would tax those that generate income through the black and gray markets. Those are areas that are completely missed by our current income tax. It would also generate tax income from all the illegal aliens currently in the country. Anytime they buy anything outside of the basics, the government would get a share. The same would go for tourism into the US. It would also tax the wealthy that currently don't pay tax because they do not have an income, but are living off accumulated wealth. (That should make the liberals happy) In general a combination of income and consumption taxes would provide a better and fairer means of taxation.

As for the donation to volatile areas. I suspect, but don't have proof, that those donate would fall into the same break down as the general public. And while I would not support volatile groups, allowing others the option to support them in one of the prices of have freedom.

billbenson
11-16-2012, 09:29 AM
Everything you said makes sense.




As for the donation to volatile areas. I suspect, but don't have proof, that those donate would fall into the same break down as the general public. And while I would not support volatile groups, allowing others the option to support them in one of the prices of have freedom.

I agree that people have the right to support the volatile groups. I just don't think they should be tax deductible. The one volatile charity I look at last night claimed they were 100% tax deductible. If you look at the money flow for these its charity -> Lobbying Washington, buying political ads etc. That isn't money that helps the country as a whole. In fact its probably money that is used by some of these superpac's to try to buy the election.

I suspect there are far to many people who vote for a president based on some special interest, rather than voting on things like who can best improve the economy or be commander in chief in a very turbulent time internationally. I am not saying that people should not put the volatile issue in their equation of who to vote for. It just shouldn't be priority 1.

nealrm
11-16-2012, 10:45 AM
I suspect there are far to many people who vote for a president based on some special interest, rather than voting on things like who can best improve the economy or be commander in chief in a very turbulent time internationally. I am not saying that people should not put the volatile issue in their equation of who to vote for. It just shouldn't be priority 1.
I would agree, voting for a candidate based solely on a single issue is usually a sign that a fool is voting. The good thing is that usually the fools on both sides of the equation balance things out. So we are left with those that are more moderate making the decision.


I agree that people have the right to support the volatile groups. I just don't think they should be tax deductible. I tend to agree, the question is how to separate the volatile groups from those that are animatedly expressing a view point. This is hard when the groups in questions express view point that are counter to our own. Right now I believe that the best separating line is that groups animatedly expressing view points use words, volatile groups use threats and violence. If someone has a better idea, I will listen.


If you look at the money flow for these its charity -> Lobbying Washington, buying political ads etc. That isn't money that helps the country as a whole. In fact its probably money that is used by some of these superpac's to try to buy the election. Lobbyist are something that everyone screams about the other group having. To the hunter the NRA lobbyist is there to express his views to the government, while the lobbyist for the Sierra club club is there to support a special interest group. The AARP lobbyist protects the rights of the elderly for those over 55, while to the young parents he is a there to steal their money and give it to those that should have saved more for retirement. In truth lobbyist preform a vital function in our political system. They allow groups of people with similar idea to express those ideas to their Representatives in an organized manner. It is an idea that dates back to the forming of our country and had a direct influence in the writing of the constitution. What we do need to watch out for is that lobbying are there to express views, not to pay bribes.

As for buy advertising. Advertising is a service and like all services do not generate wealth. They transfer money from one person to another, but do not create a durable product. That does not mean that are not an important part of an economy, it just means they do not increase the overall wealth of a country. But before you condemn advertising remember doctors, firemen, policemen, lawyers, dry-cleaners... are all services. In terms only of increasing the wealth of the country none of these contribute. However, they are of vital importance and I for one would not want to do without them.

billbenson
11-16-2012, 06:40 PM
Lobbyist are something that everyone screams about the other group having. To the hunter the NRA lobbyist is there to express his views to the government, while the lobbyist for the Sierra club club is there to support a special interest group. The AARP lobbyist protects the rights of the elderly for those over 55, while to the young parents he is a there to steal their money and give it to those that should have saved more for retirement. In truth lobbyist preform a vital function in our political system. They allow groups of people with similar idea to express those ideas to their Representatives in an organized manner. It is an idea that dates back to the forming of our country and had a direct influence in the writing of the constitution. What we do need to watch out for is that lobbying are there to express views, not to pay bribes.

As for buy advertising. Advertising is a service and like all services do not generate wealth. They transfer money from one person to another, but do not create a durable product. That does not mean that are not an important part of an economy, it just means they do not increase the overall wealth of a country. But before you condemn advertising remember doctors, firemen, policemen, lawyers, dry-cleaners... are all services. In terms only of increasing the wealth of the country none of these contribute. However, they are of vital importance and I for one would not want to do without them.

I guess what really annoyed me about money going to the lobbyists were the super PAC's in the last election. It seems that if the candidates should have a level playing field financially in running their elections which they didn't have. The other thing is the misinformation that was put out on both sides by taking information out of context, omitting information and some that was very close to making up information. There should be some accountability for inaccurate information in these ads. I don't think that will happen, but... It would be interesting to see who had the most accurate information in the ads, the super PAC's or the candidates ads.

Harold Mansfield
11-17-2012, 03:06 PM
....The other thing is the misinformation that was put out on both sides by taking information out of context, omitting information and some that was very close to making up information. There should be some accountability for inaccurate information in these ads. I don't think that will happen, but... It would be interesting to see who had the most accurate information in the ads, the super PAC's or the candidates ads.

The FCC really needs to crack down on this. If you misrepresent a pharmaceutical or food product on TV there is all kinds of hell to pay. But political ads and news networks don't have to be truthful? That's rediculous.

In other civilized, western nations you can't do that on TV. In Canada, for instance, a certain American "news" network can't get a broadcasting license because of their tendency to...for lack of a better term...lie. They are considered propghanda.

We need to demand that kind of accountability here as well. If you call yourself a news station, there needs to be a higher standard than that of any old tabloid show.

You know when news networks go to court to protect their freedom to tell misleading stories, and embellish facts, AND THEY WIN, that we have a problem with what people think is information in this country. And it's seriously dumbing down our society. Too many people believe the most rediculous things to the bottom of their core, because what is called a news network told them it was true.

Whether or not people are smart enough, or even care enough to actually read any actual facts shouldn't be the issue. If you are called "News" you need to be held accountable for what you broadcast to the public as truth. Period. And if you keep intentionally misleading the public, you should have your license to broadcast revoked.

I'm not talking about opinion shows, editorials, and talk shows.

I'm talking strictly anyone who calls themselves "News".

nealrm
11-17-2012, 04:43 PM
In Canada, for instance, a certain American "news" network can't get a broadcasting license because of their tendency to...for lack of a better term...lie. They are considered propghanda. This is a story that keeps being passed around, but it is completely false. Here is a link that explains more: snopes.com: Fox News Banned in Canada (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp). Here is another link to Canadian cable company showing Fox in the lineup: Access Communications Co-operative Limited > Home > Communities > AC6 > At Home > TV > Channel Lineup > View Our Lineup (http://www.myaccess.ca/Home/Communities/AC6/AtHome/TV/ChannelLineup/ViewOurLineup/tabid/1906/ABZone/AC6AHA/Default.aspx)
It is one of those falsehoods that keep getting passed around by those that are too willing to accept it.


If you misrepresent a pharmaceutical or food product on TV there is all kinds of hell to pay. But political ads and news networks don't have to be truthful? Statements about pharmaceuticals and food product are easy to prove or disprove. But most of politics are opinions, points of view or projected outcomes of proposed plans, these are almost impossible to prove or disprove. Which statement is correct "Obama's policies failed and prevented a better recovery" or "Obama's policies saved us from a worse recession". Unless you have the ability to step over to a different timeline, then there is no real way to determine.

There was a lot of cases this past election where candidates made statements that depending on your point of view could be taken more than one way. How do you determine what is the truth in a non-biases way. People on both sides believe they were correct and everyone else was allow bias to effect there opinion.

While I don't necessary like the ads that many candidates used and felt many of them were misleading, I much prefer that over some government agency telling me what I can hear and what is right or wrong.


Right now I can't say that any of the main new sources in US don't bend story to fit their point of view. I have read a lot of stories that expressed opinions presented as facts and others where the headline is the complete opposite of data in the article. I do wish they would go back to reporting on the news and stop trying to make the news. Reports on both sides of the issue, not just the side the matches you point of view. Better yet, have different reporters present different sides.

Harold Mansfield
11-17-2012, 04:57 PM
I'll give you half of it.
Fox is carried by 3rd party syndication, but is not broadcasting from Canadian soil nor use Canadian airwaves directly. The last time I checked, they are not a licensed Canadian broadcaster.



Statements about pharmaceuticals and food product are easy to prove or disprove. But most of politics are opinions, points of view or projected outcomes of proposed plans, these are almost impossible to prove or disprove. Which statement is correct "Obama's policies failed and prevented a better recovery" or "Obama's policies saved us from a worse recession". Unless you have the ability to step over to a different timeline, then there is no real way to determine.


It's pretty easy to determine whether or not it's true that Jeep is moving jobs to China, or if Obama signed legislation removing the work requirement from welfare. Those were blatant lies and the kind of things I'm talking about.

I have no problem with opinions, or even bias. What I do have a problem with is being caught in a lie ( or corrected with the facts), and continuing to broadcast it anyway. Or editing images to make a crowd appear larger than it actually is, or editing audio out of context and not posting a clear disclaimer that this is not in context.

I also have a problem with paid campaign employees being presented as independent analyst or contributors. Reputable news programs will tell you, "We should acknowledge that this company is owned by our parent company", or "This person works for the Obama campaign". Fox doesn't do any of that. They just present them as independents with no agenda to promote or ties to any corporation or campaign.

Employees of an organization sitting in the anchor chair delivering thier organization's information, memos and press releases that promote their company and act as if it is national news. Those are called commercials. And that is deliberately dishonest with people.

Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about. It's not the opinion I want to squash, it's the deliberate manipulation or downright indifference of what is true in order to create a fake reality and then calling it news.

Altering an image so that the crowd appears larger, and then leading with the story "50k show up at rally" (when you KNOW there were only 5k people there) is not news. It's propaganda. Doing it multiple times in the course of a year, should be grounds for losing your license to call yourself "news".

People expect the designation "News" to be a presentation of facts. If you add some spin or throw opinion on top of it, that's not the best situation unless you make it clear that its that kind of show. And when you are stating opinion or conspiracies, own up to it. You can't just go around broadcasting "War or the Worlds" everyday and not be held accountable to tell the public that it's fiction or that you have nothing to back that up. Or at the very least, you shouldn't be able to call that "News".

There used to be a time in America, not too long ago, where you couldn't do that. And we weren't as dumb as we are now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

nealrm
11-17-2012, 06:55 PM
FOX news was approved for broadcast in 2004. Here is a link. CRTC approves Fox News for Canada - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/11/18/fox_crtc041118.html).
It is true that FOX is not broadcasting from a station located in Canada, but the heavily populated area of Canada are already covered by stations already in place on the border. Given the trend away from broadcast TV, it really not surprising that they would focus on cable companies and not broadcast stations. Also, contrary to the rumor, FOX way never banned due to content but due to potential competition to local new sources.


It's pretty easy to determine whether or not it's true that Jeep is moving jobs to China, or if Obama signed legislation removing the work requirement from welfare. Those where blatant lies and the kind of things I'm talking about.
These are good example proving my point. The Romney ad in question does not state that jobs are moving to China but that Jeeps will be made in China. There are plans to make Jeeps in China to meet local demand. But the content can be interpreted as saying production is moving to China. So is that a lie or not???? Obama did give the states more flexibility on wavers and the definition of work in relation to welfare. Does that constitute removing the work requirement or gutting the program?? Both of these are matters of opinion.


editing audio out of context and not posting a clear disclaimer that this is not in contextAgain another good example. Was the audio quote out of context or did it represent the context around it. Again a matter of opinion. There were several highly disputed audio quotes that depending on your point of view were either out of context or a good representation of that area of the speech.

I am assuming you are referring to the photo in Nevada posted on the Instagram site and that made the rounds on various liberal sites. The photo was clearly edited. In fact, the work was so extremely poor that it is clear it was done by an amateur. I suspect it was a submitted photo that didn't get reviewed properly before posting.

Harold Mansfield
11-17-2012, 07:10 PM
No it's not a matter of opinion. He ran a commercial that had the clip of him saying point blank, "I saw a story today that said Jeep was thinking of moving all it's productions to China". How is that a matter of opinion? That was a lie. And he couldn't present the actual story, yet continued to run the commercial EVEN after the CEO of Jeep point said point blank, "This is not true. There was never any such consideration".

He ran an add that said point blank, "President Obama removed the work requirement from welfare". That was a blatant lie. And they knew it was a lie when they made the commercial because he was the one that asked for the conditional waiver as Governor. There was no mistake there. It was deliberate.

"You didn't build that". They KNEW what the context was and repeatedly reported a different, edited context. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead people into believing something completely different. It was no mistake. It wasn't presented as opinion. It was presented as fact.

We aren't talking about statements like "Obama is a bad President", we are talking about definitive statements claiming actual events that have happened. That never did.

Playing semantics is how we are where we are. You know as well as I do that the intent to deceive was deliberate and I don't care what side it's on, no one should be able to get away with that , either in commercials, or on a station that calls itself "News".

Showing kids a commercial of flying hot wheels, when in fact they do not fly, is the same thing. You shouldn't be able to do that. And when it comes to EVERY other kind of commercial, you can't. You have to represent the product truthfully. You can't lie about competitors to sell your product.

You can't run a commercial that says Coke is made from gasoline. So why don't we demand the same thing from news and political commercials?

nealrm
11-17-2012, 07:22 PM
You just made my point. I disagree with every statement you made (except the Coke and hot wheels). You are seeing things from your point of view, I am seeing things from my point of view. Based on our viewpoints we reached different conclusions.

Harold Mansfield
11-17-2012, 07:25 PM
Ok back up. Are you saying that my examples are just opinion and those things were never said and none of that happened? That those commercials don't exist? I imagined it?

Probably not. So then you must be saying that making a statement of fact, even though you know it to be false , should be allowed. And you should be allowed to continue repeating it even when you are aware of the truth? And it's OK to call that news?

Can you imagine the oproar if MSNBC had edited the 47% video to make it seem as if Romney said those things, when in fact he really didn't? People would lose thier minds and call for people's death.

So how are you making the case that it should be OK?

Or are you just saying as long as you agree with it, then it's no big deal?




Again another good example. Was the audio quote out of context or did it represent the context around it. Again a matter of opinion. There were several highly disputed audio quotes that depending on your point of view were either out of context or a good representation of that area of the speech.

I'm being as plain as I can here. He said this. They took the tape, cut out the words before and after it, and slectively used a portion of the entire statement and then reported that it had an entirely different meaning.

There is no way around that. That is what they did. And they ran it that way for weeks, even though every other news station in the world ran the clip in it's entirety and reported it as it was. You can't spin that. It happened. And it was deliberate. You shouldn't be able to call that "News".

nealrm
11-17-2012, 08:13 PM
No - I do not agree with your opinion that the above examples are lies. For example, I both listened and read Obama speech were he stated "you did not build that". You heard and/or read the same speech, yet we disagree on the meaning of "you did not build that". I think it is safe to say that we both believe ourselves to be correct. The only real fact here is that he did say it, the meaning of what he said is open to opinion.

Back to the original, political truth in media question. It's clear that two people can take the same set of events and interpret them differently. So do we want some government committee deciding which version we hear? I am willing to guess that Harold would not like me to be making those decisions, nor would I want him making them. It's not that either of us are dishonest, its just that we have different ways of looking at things. In fact, I can see a very similar conversation taking place about 237 years ago.

Harold Mansfield
11-18-2012, 09:24 AM
No - I do not agree with your opinion that the above examples are lies. For example, I both listened and read Obama speech were he stated "you did not build that". You heard and/or read the same speech, yet we disagree on the meaning of "you did not build that". I think it is safe to say that we both believe ourselves to be correct. The only real fact here is that he did say it, the meaning of what he said is open to opinion.

See, that's where we are. Different versions of reality. And that's where the whole country is and I blame skewed news and media that don't report things as they happen, but instead carefully ommit details (or make stuff up that never happened) to support opinion.

I don't want to rehash that whole episode because the election is over, but how you can watch the speech unedited and hear and see him say "If you got a business, the roads, the bridges, the infrastructure....you didn't build that. Someone else made that happen" and then revert to an alternate reality where he only said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that", is so frustratingly selective. How do you ignore ALL of the words to satisfy your own version of reality? It's NOT open to interpretation because that's NOT what he said! IT"S ON TAPE!

And this is what is so frustrating. No one is using logic anymore. No matter what you want to believe, we've lost the ability to take a step back and determine if it makes any sense. Or even on the most basic level, just watch it for ourselves. Because if we do that, then it breaks our reality that lets us believe that he said it and continue our fake outrage. So we do everything we can not to even watch the unedited, full statement. And even if we see it with our own eyes, we still refuse to believe it and talk ourselves into believing that actual words spoken, are open to interpretation if it suits our reality. So we block out the " the roads, the bridges, the infrastructure.." part . That's in your own head. But it's not what actually happened.

We'd rather live in our own world where Obama was born in Kenya, and therefore illegitimate, and completely ignore the reality that even if he was born in Kenya, it was to an American citizen ( just like John McCain who was born in Panama), therefore he's still born an American citizen.

To make that whole BS conspiracy make any sense, you have to refute the citizenship of his mother. Which none of the tin foil hat crowd ever did. Everyone agrees that she was an American citizen. So then why would her child not be? The rules were the same then as they are now. So it would make no sense to cover that up because there's nothing to hide.

There's a whole population of people in this country that believe what ever they hear, as long as it comes from who they want to hear it from. And that's whyI say that anyone that calls themselves "News" should be held accountable to present things factually before they add an opinion. Not create facts to support an opinion.


So going back to "You didn't build that", even though you heard the statement in its entirety, you want to believe that Obama is a socialist and has no respect for business, and that allows you to completely ignore everything except what you want to hear. And even when faced with the full statement over and over again, you continue to come up with all kinds of ways not to acknowledge that you heard it. Even if I play it a million times. Or you play semantics with it like a 5th grader talking back to thier parent's:

Parent to kid: "You can have Ice Cream after you clean your room"
Kid goes to the kitchen, makes himself a bowl of Ice Cream and starts eating.
Parent: "What are you doing?"
Kid: "You said I could have Ice Cream"
Parent: "I also said 'After you clean your room'".

That's the game you are playing with it. It's only open to interpretation when you selectively omit the entire statement. You're doing that. You're the one rewriting history in your head.

So to you, it sounds perfectly sane that The President of the United States completely meant to tell business people, in the middle of a campaign, that they had nothing to do with building their business. And there is just no way possible to entertain any benefit of the doubt for the guy that has passed and protected multiple small business tax cuts and investment over the last 4 years. None at all.

But I'm sure the unedited tape of Mitt Romney calling 47% of Americans victims and freeloaders, that didn't really happen, or you can come up with some kind of internal reasoning that lets you believe that he didn't mean it that way. But your brain doesn't let you do that for Obama. For him, no benefit of the doubt is possible.

Do you see what I'm saying? We've lost all ability to reason outside of our own reality. Whatever we want to believe, is now our reality. And as long as we live in a bubble, we will continue to be manipulated.




Back to the original, political truth in media question. It's clear that two people can take the same set of events and interpret them differently. So do we want some government committee deciding which version we hear? I am willing to guess that Harold would not like me to be making those decisions, nor would I want him making them. It's not that either of us are dishonest, its just that we have different ways of looking at things. In fact, I can see a very similar conversation taking place about 237 years ago.

If you deliberately make a false statement, that's not open to interpretation. You can't make a public statement telling employees, suppliers, and investors that their company is moving jobs to China when it isn't true, anymore than you can tell Coke drinkers that Coke changed their recipe to include gasoline.

A lie is a lie. It only has one version. The only variable is in your own brain. If I say "boo", there is no possibility that I may have said "Red Car". And if that's what you heard, even though you have the tape and can listen to it over and over and your brain still tells you that I said "red car" then I don't know that there is a way to bring you back to reality.

Just like in business, people who want to beleive are the easiest ones to sucker. Just ask anyone who's made a fortune selling "Make money online" products. They are successful, because that's what some people want to hear.

nealrm
11-18-2012, 10:57 AM
"If you got a business, the roads, the bridges, the infrastructure....you didn't build that. Someone else made that happen" this is incorrect, the actual phrase was "..Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen..." or the whole paragraph - "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

I'm sorry but the content of the paragraph is extremely clear to me, Obama believes that society (government) should get more credit for creating a business than the Entrepreneur. When you add in the paragraph before, it becomes even more damning. There he down played the hard work and intelligence of Entrepreneurs. He also implies that Entrepreneurs don't give anything back. Taken as a whole, he said that successful Entrepreneurs take from society, don't give anything back, did not work harder or smarter than anyone else and have little responsibility for the success of their companies.

I find it interesting that you excuse others of ignoring words, while your own phrasing removes words and adds others in.

Back to the topic of truth in media. I find your argument disturbing. I can understand that you disagree we me on various events. You are welcome to those opinions, if you want to call the viewpoints of others lies that is your right. However, it is disturbing that you believe that viewpoints other than your own should be censored. Crossing the line to allow only one interpretation of events is not where we want to go.

billbenson
11-18-2012, 11:00 AM
In responding to one of your posts way above Neal. I get my news mainly online and mainly from CNN. I personally feel that they are the least biased or at least try to be.

I always have a browser instance open that has CNN. It also has a Yahoo tab open and I read the news there as well. Frequently the Yahoo links will take you to another site such as Time Magazine. So I do get a mixture of the news from different sources.

I know people who watch Fox News and nothing else. That is a dangerous thing.

One thing your discussion above demonstrates that you both research the facts, even if you come to different conclusions. That's a good thing.

Harold Mansfield
11-18-2012, 05:07 PM
The bottom line is that you know exactly what he meant by what he said. You can play games with it all you want, but I refuse to believe that you didn't understand it before Fox decided to edit the tape and broadcast for months that it meant something different. Because every other news agency in THE WORLD was clear on it and never gave it a second thought.

The only people that refused to listen to simple logic (once again) , was the right. And right wing media. No one else. Just you. So I guess it's all just another Liberal conspiracy against Fox News and the whole world is in on it and we are all brainwashed because we can comprehend English and complete sentences.

It wasn't a thing, until Fox News made it a thing. And now that's your reality.

nealrm
11-18-2012, 07:40 PM
Bill, I also like to get my information online. With the links and a little searching, I end up seeing both conservative and liberal viewpoints on an event or subject. I can't recall the last time that I listened to an analysis on either Fox, CBS, NBC or ABC. In fact, I generally avoid TV analysis, they tend to be very superficial.

Harold - If you want to discuss the subject that is welcome, you can disagree with me all you wish. I won't take it personally. But if you are going to start making insulting statements and accusing me of being dishonest don't bother. But if you are willing to take a step back. How do you propose that we determine which ads are truthful and what should we do to enforce truthful advertising.

Harold Mansfield
11-19-2012, 10:40 AM
I'm sorry that you think I'm being insulting. It's not my intention. Sometimes my sarcasm can go too far so accept my appology if you feel I have insulted you.

I think it's really simple.
If you run a commercial saying that your opponent signed a bill that that did something that it clearly did not do, it's a lie. I'm not talking about insinuations, editorials, opinion, trickery and subliminal imagery, I'm talking plain and simple facts.

Barack Obama did not sign a bill that removed the work requirement from Welfare. There is no alternate interpretation or "It depends on how you look at it". It didn't do that. Period. You can connect 7 Degrees of Kevin bacon on just about anything and finally come to an alternate conclusion, eventually. However, that's not what the bill did. So that was a lie.

And it was even more appalling because the actual bill was signed by request of Mitt Romney and other governors...so he knew exactly what the bill was for, because he asked for it. So there was no confusion or misunderstanding. It was a deliberate lie to mislead the public.

And ads and statements like that on "News" stations shouldn't be allowed. Because unfortunately the public thinks everything on TV and expecially on
News Stations, has to be truthful. That's what they EXPECT. If a reasonable person would believe that it is truthful, then it's in violation. At least that's how I've seen rulings on simular cases in the past.

(R) Tom Coburn with the help of The Young Turks, makes my point about intentionally misleading the public (lying) when it comes to "Obamacare":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WKH5rLVhxK4#!


But good luck finding "reasonable people" in this political climate. So that may just be a bust anyway.

nealrm
11-19-2012, 11:52 AM
The work requirement is a good example of how both sides viewed the facts. Neither side lied, but neither side told the full truth. Reasonable people on both side can find support for their arguments.

In 2005 many governors signed a petition supporting the extension of the 1996 welfare reform law. That was not a request for a wavier, but support for an extension of an existing bill.

Obama did use an executive order to start a program for the states to submit welfare waivers to the work requirement in the 1996 welfare reform law. There was a group of states that did request waivers, but Massachusetts was not one of those states. But some Republican states were in the mix. However, they did not request waivers to the work requirements.

If that program would have gutted the work requirements is open for debate. The program faded once it became a hot topic issue. Obama stated that only wavers that showed the potential of putting more people back to work would be approved. But, since the program faded, there is nothing to support that statement.

So the waiver where there. They had the potential to either gut the program or put more people to work, depending on how they were implemented.

Harold Mansfield
11-19-2012, 11:59 AM
If the work requirement would have been removed, that would have been the fault of the Governors that lowered the guildlines.
The President did what they asked for. More freedom to implement thier own work programs. He did not remove the requirement. He did not give them the choice of removing the work requirement. He left it up to the states to use their own work programs.

I don't see how that is open for discussion. If you play semantics that he gave a waiver of the FEDERAL work requirement guidelines, then tell the whole story. You still have to abide by the state work requirement guidelines. So the work requirement wasn't removed.

Again, this is what I mean by intentionally misleading people to believe something different. And I don't see how you repeatedly keep giving it a pass as if you don't understand what their intention was with the ad. They said what they meant to say. To tell you that the requirement had been removed to make their fake "Welfare President" point. IOW, making up the news.

That's what people believe. They still believe it. And now you can't talk them out of it. The are going to believe that forever.

billbenson
11-19-2012, 12:14 PM
A suggestion guys: Why don't we keep this conversation in the third person. It will stay a lot friendlier that way!

Harold Mansfield
11-19-2012, 12:19 PM
A suggestion guys: Why don't we keep this conversation in the third person. It will stay a lot friendlier that way!

And I really shouldn't discuss politics. I'm used to doing this with my friends where we are sarcastic to each other, buy no one takes it personally and 5 minutes later we are talking about football. I have a hard time keeping it calm around people who don't know that I don't mean any harm. I'm just passionate about it. And I don't give the "left" any special passes either. I hold MSNBC to the same standard. Don't treat me like an idiot and try to pass off lies as fact. That's all I ask.

billbenson
11-19-2012, 12:30 PM
And I really shouldn't discuss politics. I'm used to doing this with my friends where we are sarcastic to each other, buy no one takes it personally and 5 minutes later we are talking about football. I have a hard time keeping it calm around people who don't know that I don't mean any harm. I'm just passionate about it. And I don't give the "left" any special passes either. I hold MSNBC to the same standard. Don't treat me like an idiot and try to pass off lies as fact. That's all I ask.

I think the discussion has brought out a lot of facts and good points. I see no reason to end the discussion. Just surf football if that's what you are into for 5 minutes before hitting the submit button.

nealrm
11-19-2012, 01:34 PM
If the work requirement would have been removed, that would have been the fault of the Governors that lowered the guildlines.
The President did what they asked for. More freedom to implement their own work programs. He did not remove the requirement. He did not give them the choice of removing the work requirement. He left it up to the states to use their own work programs. So the administration that set up the waiver program and that approved the waiver shouldn't be held accountable for what they approved??? IMO they both share the responsibility.

Back to the last point. There are many statements and ads out there that fall into the gray area between complete truth and complete lie. Most depend greatly on your point of view. Reasonable people can easily come to different conclusions based on their viewpoints. If you have a Conservative view point these statements are completely true:

Obama failed as president and leader
Obama's economic policies prevented the US from recovery quickly or completely from the last recession.
Obama promotes class envy
Obama promoted partisanship and refused to work with Conservatives on important items.
However, those with a liberal viewpoint may find these to be lies and untruthful.

In truth, both side can find facts that support their arguments. The problem with using the "reasonable person" guidelines for political ads is that it still depends on the viewpoint of the reasonable person. Even using a jury to determine the facts would not work. The juries would tend to approve those idea that are currently popular. It would be more of a popularity contest than any real search for the truth. The big danger is that unpopular but truthful ideas would be prohibited while popular ideas, even if false, would be promoted. That is a lot more dangerous than allowing all sides to speak their viewpoints and allowing each person to make their own decision.

billbenson
11-19-2012, 02:14 PM
In truth, both side can find facts that support their arguments. The problem with using the "reasonable person" guidelines for political ads is that it still depends on the viewpoint of the reasonable person. Even using a jury to determine the facts would not work. The juries would tend to approve those idea that are currently popular. It would be more of a popularity contest than any real search for the truth. The big danger is that unpopular but truthful ideas would be prohibited while popular ideas, even if false, would be promoted. That is a lot more dangerous than allowing all sides to speak their viewpoints and allowing each person to make their own decision.

I would agree with that if most people search out the facts or falsehoods from the ads ( even if they come to different conclusions). The upcoming generation is projected to be more liberal, but they are going to have the skills to verify facts. But today, people vote on the ads. And some people are just going to watch one network. My mom is pinned to Fox. That's not a good thing. Plus her church tells her to vote for.

On the news there was a video of a small county in I believe Texas. They had close to 100% for Romney. I think it was 8 votes for Obama and the Obama voters wouldn't go on camera. The Romney voters said they didn't think Obama was born here, they didn't trust him, etc. They had no valid basis for their votes. That's pretty scary.

Harold Mansfield
11-19-2012, 02:24 PM
OK, I can see that the work requirement thing is something that you see as open to interpretation, and I don't . To me, laws are usually clear. And there was nothing in it that lifted, did not require, or removed the work requirement. I don't seen any room for reinterpretation. It didn't do it. That wasn't the intent and that is not what he signed.

Even if your argument is that the governors could then lift it, that still proves my point that if that were to happen ( which it couldn't because they have no authority to do it), that it wasn't Obama that did it, not was it intended to be used that way. And the people who made that commercial knew that.

See you're arguing the semantics and I'm arguing that the intent to deceive was plain as day. Had they put as much complete information in the commercial, then the public would have gotten the complete story. They didn't want them to . They wanted to make you think that. And to me that is the whole point. Lying by omission is still lying.

How do you feel about supposed journalist on Fox news telling people that if they don't buy Obamacare insurance that they are going to jail? Is there some kind of interpretation there that I'm missing? I'm not seeing any wiggle room on that one. Is that still OK with you?

nealrm
11-19-2012, 02:38 PM
On the news there was a video of a small county in I believe Texas. They had close to 100% for Romney. I think it was 8 votes for Obama and the Obama voters wouldn't go on camera. The Romney voters said they didn't think Obama was born here, they didn't trust him, etc. They had no valid basis for their votes. That's pretty scary.
These type of reports are scary, we want people to have valid basis for their votes. I didn't see this story, but I have seen others very similar. My big questions is why they didn't do a similar report on areas that went almost 100% Obama. Give how the vote broke down, there are areas that were mirror images of those counties. I suspect that you will find as many (if not more) people that voted for Obama that also did not have any valid reason.

Harold Mansfield
11-19-2012, 02:55 PM
I'm just going to come out and say it. The right is notorious for baseless conspiracy theories. It's been in their DNA for the last 4 years. It's far more entertaining watching a bunch of red necks telling you how they voted for Romney because Obama's a Kenyan born Muslim, than it is listening to Democrats list the actual issues.

Even if you want to go down the road that some people only voted for Obama because he was black, I've never seen anyone have a problem saying it. But then you have to explain why those same "Only voted for him because he's black" people, don't also support people like Herman Cain, or Alan West? Because there's more to it. That's why.

And all of that noise about lazy, lifetime welfare people showing up in droves to vote for their free handouts.....I'll be the first to tell you since I grew up around people like that in Detroit.....they don't vote. The true freeloaders in society that refuse to do anything for themselves and just hustle the system for all they can get? Those people don't vote. Have never voted. And they certainly aren't going to stand in line to vote. Don't even know where to go to do it.

They don't watch the news. Don't read the paper. The only thing they know about politics is what some other dumb ass told them and they put that on top of rediculous crap that someone else told them 20 years ago.

These are the people who have a lifetime excuse that "It doesn't matter because they are all the same" to absolve themselves of having to be bothered to understand anything or inconvenience themselves one day every 4 years with voting. Many of them can't vote anyways.

As a matter of fact, the only time those kinds of people take care of ANY business is if they are in danger of loosing their benefits. Then they are going to show up on the last possible day at the last possible minute to save their checks. They are living in a bubble of econoimic depression and lack of education and seriously have no idea what goes on in the real world. They are convinced that the deck is still stacked against them because they never leave the bubble. It's actually pretty sad.

Yeah, I just said all of that and I mean every bit of it. I grew up on the west side of Detroit throughout the 70's-80's at the height of its economic depression and drug infiltration, so I feel I have some insight here and I'm not letting anyone off of the hook. Even if they are "my own people". Actually, "my people" don't act like that. Those are someone elses people.

billbenson
11-19-2012, 03:34 PM
These type of reports are scary, we want people to have valid basis for their votes. I didn't see this story, but I have seen others very similar. My big questions is why they didn't do a similar report on areas that went almost 100% Obama. Give how the vote broke down, there are areas that were mirror images of those counties. I suspect that you will find as many (if not more) people that voted for Obama that also did not have any valid reason.

I'm sure that is true as well. If we continue with decent education I think that will change over time, but as we agreed on in a prior post that will take time.

__________________________________________________ _______-

Changing the topic a little, I think both candidates were fairly close to the center. But their rhetoric wasn't. Romney had a tough job. He had to please the far right in the debates but change his stance in the general election. He already had a political tag as a flip flopper. After the fact even Newt is saying that his blame game is hurting the party. I'm hoping this will move the republican party more to the center.

I also think the democratic party is way to far to the left. Maybe the next election they will get a kick in the ass to move more to the center. I don't see Obama as taking far left positions with the exception of Obamacare.

The reason nothing is getting done is because of the gridlock. The extremest are killing us. You may be anti abortion and I may be pro choice, but the problem at hand is the economy and national security when selecting a president (oh and this fiscal cliff thing).

nealrm
11-19-2012, 10:38 PM
http://www.small-business-forum.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by nealrmhttp://www.small-business-forum.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.small-business-forum.net/water-cooler/6832-politics-post69184.html#post69184)These type of reports are scary, we want people to have valid basis for their votes. I didn't see this story, but I have seen others very similar. My big questions is why they didn't do a similar report on areas that went almost 100% Obama. Give how the vote broke down, there are areas that were mirror images of those counties. I suspect that you will find as many (if not more) people that voted for Obama that also did not have any valid reason.


I'm sure that is true as well. If we continue with decent education I think that will change over time, but as we agreed on in a prior post that will take time. Education will help. But it help because those in the center will make more intelligent decisions. Maybe education will help some people to see that there is more than one way to look at issue. Unfortunately, there will still be those that look at things as a us versus them.

I do agree that extremest are killing us. Bills are put forward with intentionally included kill clauses. Then when the other party refusing to support the bill, it is used as an example of how the other part refusing to compromise. The irony of this is that talking about working with the other party is a good way to win votes, however actually working with the other party is a good way to loose votes. Of course the media loves this, they can play on the drama to boost their ratings.

The really worse thing that has happened, is that news has stopped being about fair, accurate and balanced report and instead has become entertainment.

We do need to get the economy moving again and get some jobs created. To do that we need to get money in the hands of business so they can hire people and increase demand for products. The best way I can think of doing that is dramatically reducing or even eliminating corporate taxes. This would dramatically increase the competitive of US products. The increase in demand would spur hiring. (FYI corporate tax account for about 10% of US tax revenue) Unfortunately, the current political environment makes this a none started.

We also need to get public debt under control. I actually believe that is more important than the government debt. Education will help, but we need a major attitude change.

If you want to see some scary number, visit U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (http://www.usdebtclock.org/).

Harold Mansfield
11-20-2012, 10:32 AM
I don't care how much money you put in the hands of business owners, corporate CEO's don't hire using their personal income, so all the personal income tax breaks in the world will NEVER equate to employee payroll. EVER. This is the most flawed economic philosophy of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

You could dump $100k on me right now. If there is no demand for more websites than I can handle at my current manpower levels, I'm still not going to hire. Period. But thanks for the extra cash.

And even as we currently are living it (and going further into debt because of it), with going on 12 years of the Bush Tax cuts and WE CAN SEE that it has done nothing to stimulate the economy or pay down the debt as was promised. It has done the EXACT OPPOSITE. So why are still trying to double down on it?

People hire when there is an increase in demand for goods and services. In other words, putting money in the hands of the people at the top, does nothing to make their customers buy products.

Money to the top, stays at the top. It's been proven over and over again since the late 1800's and around the world. 1% of the people can't spend enough to carry an entire economy. And they aren't going to expand if there is no increase in demand from the other 99% who buy their products.

It's really simple math.

Government has a role here and we have things that need to be fixed that we are directly responsible for, that can put people to work. Those people start paying taxes, buying products and it becomes an economic round robin. And we get our stuff fixed so that the infrastructure is more efficient and saves businesses money. It's a perfect economic storm of prosperity. We've done it before and it works. Why do we keep ignoring it?

nealrm
11-20-2012, 11:23 AM
Harold - Please reread my post. I did not suggest anything to do with personnel income taxes, I suggested reducing corporate income taxes. There is a difference.

Corporate income taxes pass through to the price of the final product on a almost one for one basis. From that basis, they are really nothing more than a tax on the people buying the product. But they do have distinct disadvantages, they direct demand for a product away from US made products and toward those made in countries with lower corporate taxes. For those products that are made and used in the US, the additional price generally reduces demand. A reduction in corporate tax would be reflected in lower prices. That would spur demand both domestically and overseas.


As for your statement on the government creating jobs, it is wrong on both facts and logic. The government cannot create wealth, it's not going to ride in on some white horse and just make jobs appear. Manufacturing and business that create products are the sole creators of wealth. Here is simplified example of what happens when the government spends money on infrastructure.
The government remove $100 from the economy through taxes.
The government uses that $100 to build, repair or improve infrastructure.
The worker get $100 in payment.
The worker pays $10 back to the government in taxes, leaving him with $90.
The end result,

The economy is down $10 (the $100 remove through taxes - the $90 return in wages after taxes)
The government is down $90 (the $100 in wages - $10 in worker taxes)
So in terms of spurring the economy, that method is a bust. The example above is the BEST that can happen, in real life due to waste and overhead, the government must remove about $200 from the economy through taxes to do that $100 in work.



And even as we currently are living it (and going further into debt because of it), with going on 12 years of the Bush Tax cuts and WE CAN SEE that it has done nothing to stimulate the economy or pay down the debt as was promised. It has done the EXACT OPPOSITE. So why are still trying to double down on it? Stating that one item was the cause of a change in something as complex as the economy, is an extremely poor argument. Your statement completely disregards factors that had a much larger impact on the debt and economy than an across the board tax reduction.


1% of the people can't spend enough to carry an entire economy. Yet many people believe that the money collected by taxing that same 1% can be using to carry an entire economy. That is the contradiction in the tax the wealthy argument. If they can't spend enough to significantly improve the economy, then they can't be taxed enough to significantly improve the economy.


Money to the top, stays at the top. It's been proven over and over again since the late 1800's and around the world. That is a false statement.


You could dump $100k on me right now. If there is no demand for more websites than I can handle at my current manpower levels, I'm still not going to hire. Period. But thanks for the extra cash. So what would you do with that extra $100. Put it in your mattress?? No, you will take that $100 and buy something, or put it in savings or invest it. Any of those would help the economy grow.

Harold Mansfield
11-20-2012, 11:25 AM
That would be a decent argument if coporations where actually paying income tax. Most of the top corps don't pay anything. Some even got a refund. So I would agree with the corporate tax structure if in fact there weren't so many profitable corporations raking in billions and skating through loopholes or hiding profits offshore.

nealrm
11-20-2012, 11:52 AM
Corporate taxes accounted for $235,397,516,000 in incomes taxes so far this year.

That doesn't include the $847,000,000,000 in taxes for the employers share of medicare and social security.


Also, we can only tax INCOME made in the US. The corporate tax rates are such that it is to corporation advantage to keep income made overseas out of the US. Changing the rates would encourage that money to return to the US.

billbenson
11-20-2012, 12:45 PM
Neal, I agree with your assessment of the private sector is the best solution. I think it will be to slow to react though. Building infrastructure and increasing taxes right now can give instant jobs. If Bush can have a temporary tax reduction, Obama can have a temporary tax increase, say 4 years and create temporary jobs. At least that will get people working. I am opposed to that as a long term solution.

I'm going to digress a bit. Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare. They are all socialized concepts. Specifically medical insurance. Everybody throws money into a pot and its doled out to those that need it. If it is privatized the insurance company is motivated to do everything they can to keep from paying the insured. They want to show profits to wall street, I had trouble getting insurance for years because of a medical condition. I was just recently able to get insurance through a substandard company. Obamacare may not be a perfect solution, but I would much rather see socialized things that we need in government control.

Harold Mansfield
11-20-2012, 12:48 PM
Corporate taxes accounted for $235,397,516,000 in incomes taxes so far this year. [/QUOTE
Don't get mesmerized by the number and focus on HOW MANY corporations don't pay any income tax or a tax rate that is significantly lower. If that number only accounts for 40% of all corporations, then it means squat. I don't subscribe to the "that should be enough for you" method of economics where you throw out a big number so that I pay no attention to the 60% of corporations that are making billions in profits and who are paying nothing.

[QUOTE=nealrm;69231]
That doesn't include the $847,000,000,000 in taxes for the employers share of medicare and social security.
Again, just because I've been paid by 3 clients, doesn't mean I'm just going to forget about the 2 that stiffed me.



Also, we can only tax INCOME made in the US. The corporate tax rates are such that it is to corporation advantage to keep income made overseas out of the US. Changing the rates would encourage that money to return to the US.
Even when we had amnesty, it didn't bring in the big windfall that they predicted it would.

Face it. Dodging taxes is a game. Your arguments are based on what is on the books, but it doesn't take the game into account. If we were actually getting the money that the book says we are supposed to get, I'd be open to discussing lowering the rates.

But you aren't going to beat the system for years, and then tell me how we should make it easier for you to do so. And whatever you do, please don't try that tired "job creators" "it will increase jobs" flag that they've been waving for decades. The same one that they waved in 1920, 1980, 1988, and 2000. None of that has ever worked.

If you can find me a time in history when it has, I'm all ears.

Harold Mansfield
11-20-2012, 12:51 PM
If we had privatized Social Security like Bush and Paul Ryan wanted to do in 2005, it would be gone already. Destroyed. Don't take my money that I give for certain things to run and turn it over to individual people who work on commission. That's what I elected a Congress for. If they can't do the job, leave.

I'm sick of the people that we hire to run the Government, constantly talk about outsourcing it to someone else to make a profit on. So then what are we paying you for?

This isn't a business for personal profit. It's a Society of people and a Republic. They work for us. That's our money and they do what we tell them to do. Not the other way around.

billbenson
11-20-2012, 07:26 PM
But you aren't going to beat the system for years, and then tell me how we should make it easier for you to do so. And whatever you do, please don't try that tired "job creators" "it will increase jobs" flag that they've been waving for decades. The same one that they waved in 1920, 1980, 1988, and 2000. None of that has ever worked.

I don't have any data Harold, but I can tell you this. The economy is a fluctuating entity. Every new war, every error made on wall street, every idiot that inflates the value of homes changes the economy. Not to mention congressional gridlock. To say that ideas past present or future have worked or failed is lunacy. During strong economic times I think that republican platform makes more sense. If the economy is strong and growing I support the tax cuts to grow business.

During a poor economy, I think government subsidization for jobs and keeping companies alive is appropriate. Even if that means a raise in taxes for everybody TEMPORARILY.

We are treating the economy (mind you wars and the likes affect the economy) as a predictable linear entity. Sorry, economic policy should change with the times. This is why economists can't agree. The data is constantly changing.

nealrm
11-20-2012, 08:58 PM
Don't get mesmerized by the number and focus on HOW MANY corporations don't pay any income tax or a tax rate that is significantly lower. If that number only accounts for 40% of all corporations, then it means squat. I don't subscribe to the "that should be enough for you" method of economics where you throw out a big number so that I pay no attention to the 60% of corporations that are making billions in profits and who are paying nothing.

It was stated that corporations paid no income taxed, I was proving that they did. I also need to remind everyone that the US government can only collect on profits earned in the US. It doesn't matter if the company makes a trillion dollars, the US in only allowed to tax that portion that is earned in the US. You may also want to note this quote from QE's financial report.


Our consolidated income tax rate is lower than the U.S. statutory rate primarily because of benefits from lower-taxed global operations, including the use of global funding structures, and our 2009 and 2008 decisions to indefinitely reinvest prior-year earnings outside the U.S. There is a benefit from global operations as non-U.S. income is subject to local country tax rates that are significantly below the 35% U.S. statutory rate. These non-U.S. earnings have been indefinitely reinvested outside the U.S. and are not subject to current U.S. income tax. The rate of tax on our indefinitely reinvested non-U.S. earnings is below the 35% U.S. statutory rate because we have significant business operations subject to tax in countries where the tax on that income is lower than the U.S. statutory rate and because GE funds the majority of its non-U.S. operations through foreign companies that are subject to low foreign taxes.

For those that need a summary it states the all the money that GE earned outside the US is staying outside the US because of our high tax tax rate. That means that GE is investing less in the US for manufacturing which means less jobs for US worker and less wealth for the US economy. By the way, you can find similar paragraphs in almost all international companies.


Even when we had amnesty, it didn't bring in the big windfall that they predicted it would. Amnesty?? This has zero to do with amnesty. What they are doing is legal. The profit was not made in the US so the US government has no right to tax it. Again, I will state that the US government has no legal claim to tax money made outside the United States.


The same one that they waved in 1920, 1980, 1988, and 2000. None of that has ever worked. If you are going to use dates, at least make sure they support your argument, you are making this too easy. 1920 - unemployment 5.2%, 1980 - 1988, corporate small profit rate dropped from 40% to 25% and the main rate dropped from 52% to 33%, during that period unemployment dropped from 10.8% to 5.2%. However, as Bill and I have stated many factors effect an economy, give credit or blame to one item does not work.


Face it. Dodging taxes is a game. It is a game that is played equally across both the private and corporate sectors and across all income brackets. So stating that one group is cheating is not a justification.

nealrm
11-20-2012, 09:44 PM
During strong economic times I think that republican platform makes more sense. If the economy is strong and growing I support the tax cuts to grow business.

During a poor economy, I think government subsidization for jobs and keeping companies alive is appropriate. Even if that means a raise in taxes for everybody TEMPORARILY.

I can understand your point and the logic. But I would much prefer a system where the government builds a surplus during good times and uses that surplus during downturns to maintain or increase service levels.

billbenson
11-21-2012, 09:41 AM
I can understand your point and the logic. But I would much prefer a system where the government builds a surplus during good times and uses that surplus during downturns to maintain or increase service levels.

I agree Neal, but we are at the bottom of a pretty big economic swing right now. The time to implement the free market, lower taxes is at the top or at least at a stable position. My fear is that if we have a tax increase, we will never have a decrease at an appropriate time.

From different articles I've read the average income per family is about 60k. If I remember correctly, if we go over the fiscal cliff their taxable income is going to be about 8k instead of 6k. That was for (I believe) a couple with two kids. I don't see how that is going to change their lifestyle much.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2012, 09:58 AM
The Fiscal Cliff is not the end of the world. Yeah, it will make it that much longer before we get an AAA credit rating again, but there is a plan in place in case a deal can't be reached.

The obvious problem is that one side is insistent that the temporary Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy never expire. Even though they haven't produced what was promised 12 years ago. Cross that with the Grover Norquist pledge that they signed to NEVER increase taxes, for fear that Grover would run a candidate against them, and it makes one side pretty obstinate. Plus they all make over $250k, so they are protecting their own tax cut.

The plan on the other side is not to cave on the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts for incomes over $250k. Period. And if that means we past the deadline, we just go off the proverbial cliff.
But, right after the first of the year, they are going to propose a bill that reinstates the tax cuts for incomes under $250k a year and force the other side to fight against it, which is against both their pledge not to raise taxes, and they'll have to explain to the people why.

So personally, I think a deal will be reached because the GOP knows that this is the plan and they do not want to have that fight in public of fighting for just the people who are already doing well. They pulled that card already when we needed Unemployment Insurance Extensions back at the height of the recession and we were still bleeding jobs.

I'm pretty sure that at this point, you can't keep snow balling people with "Tax cuts for the Job Creators" nonsense anymore. Too bad it took 12 years for people to see it. But at least we are finally there. Consumers are the job creators. End of story.

That's the "off the cliff plan". Democrats are ready to go off of it. They're actually not even nervous about it. Neither am I. I say step on the gas.

Maybe one day we'll start electing people who hold their pledge to do the business of the American people, whatever it takes, over some arbitrarty promise to special interest lobbying groups who contribute to their re-election campaigns.

billbenson
11-21-2012, 10:50 AM
I don't agree Harold.None of us are economists, and even honest economists can't agree. During the time of the reduced taxes, we have had 911, two wars, banks making stupid loans, people buying houses they can't afford. And in the middle of all of that, you want to blame reducing taxes as something that doesn't work. The fact is you don't know because of all thee other factors that created the recession.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2012, 10:57 AM
Can you name my any time in history where a lower tax rate only for the wealthy ( lower than everyone else), and deregulation model worked to usher in prosperity, reduce the deficit and balance the budget?

Of the administrations that applied this strategy (that I can think of) , Cleveland, Hoover, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Which one was the economic success that proves this works?

In comparison, we know the model that FDR, Ike, Lincoln and Clinton used works. Because it worked. All were times of either massive recovery or the highest economic prosperity in our history.

nealrm
11-21-2012, 12:51 PM
Can you name my any time in history where a lower tax rate only for the wealthy ( lower than everyone else) , and deregulation model worked to usher in prosperity, reduce the deficit and balance the budget?Since there has never been a time in US history where the tax rate for the wealthy is less than everyone else, the question is pointless.

You also keep mixing point my point of lowering CORPORATE income tax and personnel income tax. The two are different and have different effects on the economy.

Harold, you really need to check your facts, try Google them before posting.

Cleveland - no income tax. The income tax use to pay for the civil war expire in 1872, twenty years before he took office. The current income tax took effect in 1913, sixteen years after he left office.
Lincoln - had the first income tax. It was used to pay for the civil war. It expired in 1872. The rate was a full 3%. So it was less that a third of today's lowest rate.
FDR - Was the president during the great depression. His policies failed to resolve the depression. It wasn't until the US entered WWII that the economy rebounded. Many historical economist believe that many of his programs extended the depression.
Clinton - Was handed an economy that was in full swing.
Ike - Served as president while the rest of the world was still recovering from WWII. The US was the undisputed leader of manufacturing. Of course the Europe and Asia were still building factories and infrastructure.
Reagan - Started an economic boom that lasted twenty years and setup the positive economic base for the Bush I and Clinton presidencies.

nealrm
11-21-2012, 12:57 PM
Bill - during a recession or slow period, I don't think removing money from the economy is a good idea. That is what taxes do, even if the taxes are used to fund public works. Yes, it does give people jobs and that makes them feel good. But the overall result is that money is removed from the economy and that means a longer recovery. What we need is manufacturing jobs and other jobs that create sale-able goods. This will increase general wealth and move the economy out of the recession.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2012, 01:11 PM
Since there has never been a time in US history where the tax rate for the wealthy is less than everyone else, the question is pointless.

You also keep mixing point my point of lowering CORPORATE income tax and personnel income tax. The two are different and have different effects on the economy.

Harold, you really need to check your facts, try Google them before posting.

Cleveland - no income tax. The income tax use to pay for the civil war expire in 1872, twenty years before he took office. The current income tax took effect in 1913, sixteen years after he left office.
Lincoln - had the first income tax. It was used to pay for the civil war. It expired in 1872. The rate was a full 3%. So it was less that a third of today's lowest rate.
FDR - Was the president during the great depression. His policies failed to resolve the depression. It wasn't until the US entered WWII that the economy rebounded. Many historical economist believe that many of his programs extended the depression.
Clinton - Was handed an economy that was in full swing.
Ike - Served as president while the rest of the world was still recovering from WWII. The US was the undisputed leader of manufacturing. Of course the Europe and Asia were still building factories and infrastructure.
Reagan - Started an economic boom that lasted twenty years and setup the positive economic base for the Bush I and Clinton presidencies.

I would really appreciate it if you would stop playing semantics with me. You know that I'm talking about lower taxes and deregulation. When I say Lower than everyone else, I mean this insane notion that people at a certain income level should be rewarded by paying a lower percentage of taxes from thier personal income ( not coporate income. PERSONAL) than everyone else and that somehome that will equate to jobs for the minions. THAT has never worked. EVER! NEVER!

All that is, is the King telling the minions that if they give more to the kingdom, the better favor they'll be in with the King who might one day take care of them.


Ask rapper Little John how many jobs he's created with his tax break of the last 12 years? How many people has he hired? Exactly. If it was specific to people who had employees and it was a coporate tax break FOR NEW HIRES, I'd be all for it. But personal income tax breaks across the board for every basketball player, rapper and lottery winner. Screw that. It's a con job. Everyone who is wealthy IS NOT a "job creator". And beides, small business (thousandaires) leads the way in hiring. Not rich 2nd basemen.

And to have the people that it benefits, be the ones that vote on it, is even more of a con job. 435 millionaires in Congress are telling you that they need a personal income tax break to stimulate the economy. Well...how many jobs have they created with theirs? How many people has Boehner hired? Cantor? McConnell? That aren't on the goverment payroll?

During Cleveland's time they had tariffs. Cleveland was proposed to lower the tariffs and his economic policies resulted in the Panic and economic collapse of 1893.

Clinton was handed an economy in full swing? Really? Cause from where I was sitting in Detroit Michigan, the auto industry had all but collapsed, unemployment was high, homelessness exploded and middle calls incomes started dropping as corporate profits were up. (Sound familiar?) crack was taking over the nation, and people were getting laid off left and right. . (Small Government Conservative) Regan had grown the debt from 26% of GDP to 41% and increased the debt to over $2 trillion.

Sure, some people made money during the Regan years, but most people didn't. And don't even get me started on the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry where deregulation and lack of oversight cost millions of Americans thier life savings (Which also should sound familiar because the same thing just happened for the same reasons, but worse).

After G.H. Bush basically made it worse in one term, Clinton was handed a huge debt and structurally flimsy economy where all of the prosperity was funneled to the top. I lived through it. Middle class people did not prosper during the Reagan years and he left Bush I with a staggering deficit, 7.8% UE, and 14% of all Americans living in poverty.

I noticed you conveniently left out G.H.W. Bush.

Funny how you post up a reality that was completely different from the one I remember living. But I'm glad that's the way you remember it, because I saw a lot of peopel get screwed during the Reagan years. Expecially seniors. And then I watched the same thing happen during the Bush years from 2001-2008. The Exact same thing.

Thier polcies suck for the average American. They claim less government, but end up spending more than anyone. They are always crying less regulations, and then as soon as the lift them, disaster happens showing that there were there for a reason. But for some reason, every other decade we get amnesia and think that THIS TIME, it will be different.

nealrm
11-21-2012, 02:15 PM
I would really appreciate it if you would stop playing semantics with me. You know that I'm talking about lower taxes and deregulation. Trickle down economics. During Cleveland's time they had tariffs. Cleveland was proposed to lower the tariffs and his economic policies resulted in the Panic and economic collapse of 1893.I'm not "playing semantics" tariffs and income tax are completely different in form, function and effect on the economy. In addition that was about 130 years ago, the US and the world are not the same today.

If you were in Detroit during the 80's and 90's I can understand why you have a tarnish view of that period. The automotive section did have a hard time. Years of poor quality and failure to listen to market demand drove the demand for US car down. At the same time foreign makers with newer factories, better quality and cheaper labor took advantage of that to bring their brands to the US. If was a tough time for those manufacturing cars.

Even with the issues in the automotive sector, unemployment for a majority of the US dropped. That rate continued until Iran invaded Kuwait. The rising oil prices triggered another period of increasing unemployment. Once those rates dropped, we saw a return to decreasing unemployment.

It's hard to determine what Bush W's policies did. There were too many world events that had more effect on the economy then anything that Bush could have done. The attack on 911, the collapse of the housing bubble, the failure too correct problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last 20 years, the US public's acceptance of increasing amounts of personnel dept, and issues with the European economy completely overwhelmed any policies he put into effect.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2012, 02:24 PM
Can you explain to me how personal income tax cuts for a very few, equate into jobs? Do corporate CEO's use their personal income for payroll? Do you really subscribe to the notion that every millionaire rapper and lottery winner will miraculously start hiring people to do something if they are allowed to pay 15% on their personal income as opposed to the 20% and up that the rest of us pay?

Then why isn't it happening? Why didn't it happen BEFORE the collapse? We started loosing jobs in 2001. And if the wars and all are the excuse, then why have we kept doubling down on it?

Why would anyone hire if there is no increase in demand? How do you create an increase in demand by only giving 30,000 people a tax cut? Are they going to buy all of the products and services all by themselves? What about the other 170 million people? Don't you need them to spend so that you can make more money at the top?

This whole notion is based on a fantasy that someone will take thier savings in personal income taxes, and invest it into thier business to expand, even though the people that they need as customers to support that expansion are getting squeezed.

We are the job creators. As a whole and as a country. We don't spend, the top can't make more money. Period. Giving them tax breaks is not going to have some magic effect that changes that. It just lets them bank more money.

This is where I have a problem with this policy. Millionaires in Congress voting for their own tax break and refusing to let it go. This is just another excuse to keep selling this failed policy. They are out of ideas and it's been 12 years now. "Stay the course" already burned us once.
Am I the only one that sees this?

billbenson
11-21-2012, 02:30 PM
Can you name my any time in history where a lower tax rate only for the wealthy ( lower than everyone else), and deregulation model worked to usher in prosperity, reduce the deficit and balance the budget?

Of the administrations that applied this strategy (that I can think of) , Cleveland, Hoover, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Which one was the economic success that proves this works?

In comparison, we know the model that FDR, Ike, Lincoln and Clinton used works. Because it worked. All were times of either massive recovery or the highest economic prosperity in our history.

You have done research on the subject and I haven't so the answerer to your question is no to your first question.

However, the extreme of your point of view you are expressing is complete socialism (I'm not saying you are proposing that). The government takes all your wages and gives what it thinks is appropriate for you to live. Workers have no motivation to work and the economy fails or becomes a dictatorship.

So we have two extremes here. A complete capitalistic environment could possibility as well. But that doesn't work because people need protection (police, military), protection against financial disaster i.e. social security, medical protections. All of these except the police and military are socialistic concepts.

Neither of these will work in their idealistic extremes. So the US looks at these being a free capitalistic society. They need to provide the services above but some or all of it needs to be provided by the government. Not to mention other things like infrastructure.

So it's not really a case of raising and lowering taxes. It's a case of lowering expenses and taxing at a rate that balances the budget. More or less taxes is an emotional thing. The real issue is how much money in taxes do we need to take in to be stable.

Then the problem arises. There are more than one way to achieve this stable economy. Compounded by wars plopping up here and there and other factors.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2012, 02:32 PM
How is the fact that I expect everyone to play by the same rules, and pay the same tax rate Socialism?
We are getting conned. They are selling us a bill of goods about things that we don't have.

Most Americans don't get 100% of their income from capitol gains, or have offshore accounts. So how are you so sure that what they are telling you about their money is true? And why would 98% of us, support a tax policy that is catered to 2% of us?

Why shouldn't everyone be treated the same? Why is your money (for instance) more important than mine simply because you have more of it?
(for example) I own a small business and employ 5 people. I make maybe $100k a year. Why does Derrick Jeeter (an employee), or some guy that hit the lottery, get the lower personal income tax break? How is that helping job growth?

nealrm
11-21-2012, 02:43 PM
Can you explain to me how personal income tax cuts for a very few, equate into jobs? Do corporate CEO's use their personal income for payroll? Do you really subscribe to the notion that every millionaire rapper and lottery winner will miraculously start hiring people to do something if they are allowed to pay 15% on their personal income as opposed to the 20% and up that the rest of us pay?

Why would anyone hire if there is no increase in demand? How do you create an increase in demand by only giving 30,000 people a tax cut? Are they going to buy all of the products and services all by themselves? What about the other 170 million people? Don't you need them to spend so that you can make more money at the top?

This whole notion is based on a fantasy that someone will take thier savings in personal income taxes, and invest it into thier business to expand, even though the people that they need as customers to support that expansion are getting squeezed.

We are the job creators. As a whole and as a country. We don't spend, the top can't make more money. Period. Giving them tax breaks is not going to have some magic effect that changes that. It just lets them bank more money.

This is where I have a problem with this policy. Millionaires in Congress voting for their own tax break and refusing to let it go.
Am I the only one that sees this?

Again you have completely and absolutely missed the point. I keep talking about CORPORATE income tax rates and you keep trying to refute the argument by talking PERSONAL income tax rates. If you go back a few post there is a very complete description of how reducing CORPORATE tax rates will increase both demands and jobs. I even include a quote from QE stating that they are not investing in manufacturing in the US specifically due to the high US CORPORATE tax rate.

Harold Mansfield
11-21-2012, 02:45 PM
I agree with corporate tax rate reform. As long as they are actually paying them. I don't agree with changing the corporate rate until we have everyone actually paying taxes. If GE (a government contractor by the way) keeps loopholing their way out of paying anything on 2 billion in profit, why change the rate? Not only are they making 100's of millions from the tax payer, but they are stiffing us on the taxes.


But the Bush tax cuts are NOT corporate. They are personal income tax cuts. There is no qualification that you have to have a company or employees. It's strictly based on personal income. And that is the con job.

CEO's don't use their personal accounts to hire people.
Middle class people however, use their tax saving to buy more stuff. Or pay down debt. And there are 170 million of us that spend that money creating an increase in demand so that the CEO's need to hire.

It rises from us, up. We are the job creators. Especially us. Here on this forum. Becaue we aren't looking for anyone to hire us. I need middle class people with more money to open, expand or invest in thier businesses. And they get it from other middle class people spending with them.

The CEO of GE is not my cleint. His employees are.

nealrm
11-21-2012, 04:29 PM
I agree with corporate tax rate reform. As long as they are actually paying them. I don't agree with changing the corporate rate until we have everyone actually paying taxes. If GE (a government contractor by the way) keeps loopholing their way out of paying anything on 2 billion in profit, why change the rate? Not only are they making 100's of millions from the tax payer, but they are stiffing us on the taxes.

I'm glad to see that we agree on that reform. In 2010 GE had 10.4 billion in profit. 10.8 billion in profits overseas and a reported loss in the US of 400 million. If we lower the rates so that companies pay less corporate taxes here than overseas, that would remove incentives to use that "loophole" and return jobs and money to the US. We can be mad that companies chose to manufacture products overseas, if we want. But we are only hurting ourselves.

As for the personnel income tax. I don't believe that either side has a good solution. I favor the Republican view a more because it keeps the tax reduction in place for everyone, thus leaving more money in the economy. I also don't believe that it is a good long term solution to finance the government mostly on the backs of 25% of the population. A better solution would be to determine how to bring in more tax sources. A big part would be to bring job back to the US. We also need to look at a consumption tax. This would expand the tax base to include many potential tax sources that are not addressed by the current income tax.

FYI - After I read that you and I agreed on something, I had a little scare. There were 4 horsemen ride down the street. A motley looking crew. One was anorexic, one looked sick, I swear one had flies buzzing around his head, and the last was dressed for war. Not sure what was going on, but I just let them ride away.

billbenson
11-21-2012, 04:34 PM
However, the extreme of your point of view you are expressing is complete socialism (I'm not saying you are proposing that). The government takes all your wages and gives what it thinks is appropriate for you to live. Workers have no motivation to work and the economy fails or becomes a dictatorship.


How is the fact that I expect everyone to play by the same rules, and pay the same tax rate Socialism?

Harold, you are getting to wound up and not reading the posts. Higher taxes when they reach a tax rate of 100% is socialism. I did not say that is what you are proposing.


Why shouldn't everyone be treated the same? Why is your money (for instance) more important than mine simply because you have more of it?
(for example) I own a small business and employ 5 people. I make maybe $100k a year. Why does Derrick Jeeter (an employee), or some guy that hit the lottery, get the lower personal income tax break? How is that helping job growth?

Well if we go over the fiscal cliff that issue goes away. But you give examples of rappers making millions leaving out the percentage of millionaires that do put their money back into the economy.

billbenson
10-22-2013, 12:47 AM
I just thought I would revive this thread a little bit. It was started as an intellectual discussion before the last presidential election. About politics. Baseless opinions aren't welcome and I will ask that they be deleted should they occur. However, factual or thoughtful posts are always welcome.

The only thing I'm going to mention in this post is I finally started an excel sheet that I am putting down things I like and don't like about each politician that comes out on the news. That way, I have a record of what good and bad IMO politicians have done come election time.

Frequently, when elections come around, I have an opinion that I can't back up with facts. I want to have a score card of sorts when the next elections come around. Hopefully I follow through.

I'll end this with a summary of a discussion I had recently with my 89 y/o mother. She is very far to the right and a devout Christian. She told me something that scares the heck out of me. She would vote for anybody as long as they were Christians. She couldn't in the last election because Romney wasn't Christian and I'm really not sure if Obama is or not. She voted for the person her church told her to vote for. Scary as well. The point being, she would vote for a lobotomized 12 y/o over someone with military, economics and political knowledge.

That sort of behavior scares me. And it extends outside of religion. People vote based on special interests. As an example, I am a gun owner and am against most legislation I have seen recently on gun control. That subject would not be part of my decision on electing a president. I think the deciding factors should be can he / she get people working, fix the economy, and manage the military in a time of war.

I'll leave it at that.

Freelancier
10-22-2013, 06:07 AM
I think the deciding factors should be can he / she get people working, fix the economy, and manage the military in a time of war.

So your Mom has one set of special interests in an election and you have another. I'm sure she thinks her interests are more rational than your interests as well.

BTW, the President can't "fix" a $16 trillion economy on his own. It just doesn't work that way. At best, he (or she!) can nibble around the edges and jawbone to give people confidence in the economy (and confidence is often key to a growing economy... fear causes people to stop spending). But "fix"? Nah. Too big to directly affect. Same with "get people working"... short of directly hiring them (and the money for that comes from Congressional appropriations), there's not much a president can do except jawbone and ask Congress to redeploy capital in a way that will create jobs in particular industries.

billbenson
10-22-2013, 04:46 PM
Well he is called commander in chief for a reason. And I see that as particularly important with all the stuff that is happening around the world.

Freelancier
10-22-2013, 04:52 PM
Well he is called commander in chief for a reason.

Exactly. He is Commander in Chief of the military. That's the title and that's the reason. And you'll notice I didn't take exception with that part of your description. Just the concept of economic control over a $16 trillion economy is ridiculous. The Fed has more power than the President... but it's mostly indirect.

billbenson
10-22-2013, 11:47 PM
And I didn't say take economic control either. I want someone who is knowledgeable in economics, various aspects of how to create jobs (that's a national problem and really falls under the heading of economics), how to deal with Washington politics, and be commander in chief. Without those skills, he / she isn't qualified to run a country.

Freelancier
10-23-2013, 07:54 AM
Without those skills, he / she isn't qualified to run a country.

You're back to that same spot: the president doesn't "run a country". He or she runs the executive branch of the government. Expecting any more than that is, well, extra-Constitutional (although I hate to bring up the "Constitution", because there are too many people who think they know what that means) and not at all the way our country's government was designed. It's like expecting a Senator to pass a lot of laws or repeal a lot of laws... they're just one cog in a much bigger machine and don't have that kind of power. What they all have is the power to talk and convey and convince. Sometimes they even believe what they're saying.

billbenson
10-23-2013, 05:57 PM
When did I say the president runs the country?

Brian Altenhofel
10-23-2013, 07:04 PM
When did I say the president runs the country?


...he / she isn't qualified to run a country.

Pretty sure it was your previous post.

billbenson
10-23-2013, 07:20 PM
Well, if you seem to be intent of taking my posts out of context or distorting what I had to say, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

huggytree
10-23-2013, 07:56 PM
Well, if you seem to be intent of taking my posts out of context or distorting what I had to say, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

that's what politics is!! that's what political people do!...both sides....its a game




ive given up talking politics with anyone.....there are 2 different realities....maybe 1 is right and 1 is wrong....or maybe there's some grey there.....but its impossible to argue politics with anyone who see's something in a different reality than you....people see what they want to see and ignore what they want to ignore...people justify whatever they want to justify.........no one thinks they are wrong or a bad person or are at fault for their bad decisions....everyone thinks they are right and a good person and will defend their decisions with whatever reason they feel is justified.....were all too self centered

Brian Altenhofel
10-23-2013, 10:05 PM
Well, if you seem to be intent of taking my posts out of context or distorting what I had to say, I see no point in continuing this conversation.

I'm not. I'm reading exactly what was said.

The only reason I haven't responded to the bump post earlier is because of the inherent contradictions between the fourth and fifth sentences and what followed.

billbenson
10-24-2013, 08:13 PM
Well I was hoping that people could present factual information rather than perceived errors in my post. I would love to see factual information on the pro's and cons of Obamacare for example. Almost 200 posts in this thread without that happening prior to the election. I guess I was to optimistic in thinking this could continue.

cbscreative
10-25-2013, 01:00 AM
I would love to see factual information on the pro's and cons of Obamacare for example.

The pros and cons are mostly irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. They're assuming that everyone wants to participate in traditional health care. Not everyone does. The freedom to choose alternative methods is being made a lot more expensive. Regardless of whether you think those alternative methods are right or wrong doesn't matter. Obamacare is pushing one method and forcing everyone to fund it whether or not they will use it or seek alternative medicine. My point is not to argue one or the other, only that the freedom of choice is being manipulated. Everyone is being forced to contribute to mainstream medicine even if they never intend to use it. That alone is favors a single system and takes pros and cons out of the equation, making it anti-freedom.

I'm not so much trying to make a case for any particular method of medical treatment, everyone has to decide that for themselves. Obamacare though forces everyone to participate in the established system, therefore taking away the right to choose. I've stayed away from commenting in this thread like several others, but that one is not as much of a political issue as it is preserving basic freedoms. For all the other opinions on Obamacare, the arguments could be endless, but for those just wanting to retain their freedom to not be required to buy a product they don't want, it's a matter of liberty.

billbenson
10-25-2013, 01:46 AM
The pros and cons are mostly irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. They're assuming that everyone wants to participate in traditional health care. Not everyone does. The freedom to choose alternative methods is being made a lot more expensive. Regardless of whether you think those alternative methods are right or wrong doesn't matter. Obamacare is pushing one method and forcing everyone to fund it whether or not they will use it or seek alternative medicine. My point is not to argue one or the other, only that the freedom of choice is being manipulated. Everyone is being forced to contribute to mainstream medicine even if they never intend to use it. That alone is favors a single system and takes pros and cons out of the equation, making it anti-freedom.

I'm not so much trying to make a case for any particular method of medical treatment, everyone has to decide that for themselves. Obamacare though forces everyone to participate in the established system, therefore taking away the right to choose. I've stayed away from commenting in this thread like several others, but that one is not as much of a political issue as it is preserving basic freedoms. For all the other opinions on Obamacare, the arguments could be endless, but for those just wanting to retain their freedom to not be required to buy a product they don't want, it's a matter of liberty.

I view Obamacare in a different light. For one, it helps soome people and hurts others. From what I have read, younger people don't like it as a group. They are young and healthy. They aren't planning for when they get older. I never did future planning when I was that age...

My insurance guy has been studying it, and giving seminars. He came to this conclusion:



Most people that currently have insurance will pay more

People like me who have a preexisting condition or elderly people can't be canceled because of that.

My insurance agent says that under the right circumstances, someone could actually have an accident, call to subscribe to Obamacare in the ambulance and be covered. If this is correct, a lot of people won't subscribe until the need it. Since any insurance requires constant funding, this would be a big problem.



There are many problems with Obamacare. But if you look at other countries with free healthcare, it work to have a government run health care system.

Actually, health care is a socialized concept. Everybody puts a bunch of money into a fund and it's dolled out to those that need it. The problem with the health care industry as it has existed is if you need the care, they try to cancel you or cap payments. I have a preexisting condition and I wasn't able to get insurance until about 2 years ago. It's a subpar insurance that I was able to get.