Languish.org

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_health_taxes

QuoteWASHINGTON – Americans don't want to shoulder the cost of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul themselves. They think the rich should pay for it.

That's the finding from a new Associated Press poll, and it could be a boost for House Democrats, who have proposed taxing upper-income people to fund their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system. Their plan, which the House approved this month, would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The poll, conducted by Stanford University with the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, found survey participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress.

The options they don't like include taxing insurers on the high-value coverage packages derided by Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans." That tax approach, being weighed in the Senate, is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation's health expenditures. It has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.

Lawmakers also are looking at levying new taxes on insurance companies, drug companies and medical device makers. But the only approach that got majority support in the AP poll was a tax on upper-income Americans.

The House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.

The poll tested views on an even more punitive taxation scheme that was under consideration earlier, when the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.

"You know, I mean, why not? If they have that much money, it should be taxed," said Mary Pat Rondthaler, 60, of Menlo Park, Calif. "It isn't the same way that the guy making $21,000 is."

Shocking! :lol:

The American people fail again.

What's the problem with this?

QuoteThe House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households making more than $1 million.

Whew.

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 05:00:02 PM
Whew.

Quotewhen the tax would have hit people making more than $250,000 a year. Even at that level the poll showed majority support, with 57 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed.

:(

Now that part would suck.

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 04:58:20 PM
What's the problem with this?

Because then the narrative is really "Those insurance companies sure suck, let's get the rich to pay for everyone's healthcare." Not surprising but lame.

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 04:58:20 PM
What's the problem with this?

It's easy to be in favor of public free money when it's always someone else providing the free money.  Could lead to increased demand for free money.

Maximum sustainable yield.  A 5.4% surcharge is probably not enough to send every American making 500K fleeing to the Bahamas, but it does make a difference at the margin and if repeated a sufficient number of times it makes a noticeable difference.

The principle of shared sacrifice for the common good.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 05:13:04 PM

It's easy to be in favor of public free money when it's always someone else providing the free money.  Could lead to increased demand for free money.

Maximum sustainable yield.  A 5.4% surcharge is probably not enough to send every American making 500K fleeing to the Bahamas, but it does make a difference at the margin and if repeated a sufficient number of times it makes a noticeable difference.

The principle of shared sacrifice for the common good.

While that's true, I can't help but notice that taxes to seem to be at or near the lowest point in decades.

I can only dream of tax surcharges kicking in at 500,000.

Here in Canuckistan our highest tax rate kicks in somewhere under 100,000.

We dont here much about middle class tax breaks anymore since middle class kicks in at around the highest tax bracket.

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 05:11:34 PMBecause then the narrative is really "Those insurance companies sure suck, let's get the rich to pay for everyone's healthcare." Not surprising but lame.

I don't know any details about the healthcare debate, but it would certainly make sense to try to lower the costs first before covering them with higher taxes.

Doesn't the US have really low taxes on the rich right now?

Quote from: Faeelin on November 17, 2009, 05:16:11 PM
While that's true, I can't help but notice that taxes to seem to be at or near the lowest point in decades.

Ergo we should raise taxes on everyone to pay for it, progressively.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
I can only dream of tax surcharges kicking in at 500,000.

Here in Canuckistan our highest tax rate kicks in somewhere under 100,000.

We dont here much about middle class tax breaks anymore since middle class kicks in at around the highest tax bracket.

It's the same here. And as the tax brackets have to be adjusted for inflation by parliament (i.e. it's not in the formula itself), you have a slowly rising tax level for the middle class. Reforming that would be much more important to the productive mass of society than a debate about the marginal tax rate for the richest 1% or 2%.

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:26:52 PM
It's the same here. And as the tax brackets have to be adjusted for inflation by parliament (i.e. it's not in the formula itself), you have a slowly rising tax level for the middle class. Reforming that would be much more important to the productive mass of society than a debate about the marginal tax rate for the richest 1% or 2%.

I agree.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 05:25:04 PMErgo we should raise taxes on everyone to pay for it, progressively.

That would assume that the current level of progression is the best possible. Maybe a steeper or shallower progression would be better. In this case they opted for a steeper progression. But I don't think there is a conclusive logical argument for one or the other, it's just a matter of opinion and what you want to achieve.

Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2009, 05:23:21 PM
Doesn't the US have really low taxes on the rich right now?

Actually the US only taxes the rich.  The bottom 47% pay no taxes at all.  Since income for the rich tends to be highly volatile, so is our tax system.

I'm not saying a word.

;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
I can only dream of tax surcharges kicking in at 500,000.

Here in Canuckistan our highest tax rate kicks in somewhere under 100,000.

We dont here much about middle class tax breaks anymore since middle class kicks in at around the highest tax bracket.

What are the top rates in Canada?

In the US, they are 35% federal with another 10% in high tax jurisdictions such as California or New York City. The 35% federal is likely to go up to 39.5% soon.

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:29:28 PM
That would assume that the current level of progression is the best possible. Maybe a steeper or shallower progression would be better. In this case they opted for a steeper progression. But I don't think there is a conclusive logical argument for one or the other, it's just a matter of opinion and what you want to achieve.

Actually I didn't specify the level of progressivity I wanted.  I am defending the principle of shared sacrifice.

Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:30:08 PM
Actually the US only taxes the rich.  The bottom 47% pay no taxes at all.  Since income for the rich tends to be highly volatile, so is our tax system.

I've read that statistic before.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

QuoteThe options they don't like include taxing insurers on the high-value coverage packages derided by Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans." That tax approach, being weighed in the Senate, is one of the few proposals in any congressional legislation that analysts say would help reduce the nation's health expenditures. It has come under fire from organized labor and has little support in the House.

I think this is the best option. 

Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2009, 05:34:28 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:19:29 PM
I can only dream of tax surcharges kicking in at 500,000.

Here in Canuckistan our highest tax rate kicks in somewhere under 100,000.

We dont here much about middle class tax breaks anymore since middle class kicks in at around the highest tax bracket.

What are the top rates in Canada?

In the US, they are 35% federal with another 10% in high tax jurisdictions such as California or New York City. The 35% federal is likely to go up to 39.5% soon.

I will look up some stats for you but I can tell you that back when I took my remuneration as employment income my overall tax bill was about 44-46% of what I earned - from both Federal and Provincial taxes.  I forget the exact percentage as I am trying to repress* the memory and the laughing my accountant did when I first went to her to restructure things for me.

* I realize that Garbon used the word repression correctly in the other thread.

Hans statistic doesn't include payroll taxes.

In the US, there are social security and medicare taxes that are about 7.5% for individuals and the same amount for employers--effectively a 15% tax on earned income. While in theory these pay for "social insurance", a lot of the money also goes to the general budget. People with investment income don't pay these taxes, and most of them phase out after a certain threshold (I think it is around $105k).

So it is true that many people don't pay income taxes, but they still contribute through payroll taxes on any income they earn.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:30:08 PM
Actually the US only taxes the rich.  The bottom 47% pay no taxes at all.  Since income for the rich tends to be highly volatile, so is our tax system.

I've read that statistic before.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

I've read similar numbers for Germany.

The 10% highest income earners pay more than 50%.

The 25% highest income earners pay more than 80%.

The 50% lowest income earners pay 4.3%.

Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2009, 05:44:22 PM
So it is true that many people don't pay income taxes, but they still contribute through payroll taxes on any income they earn.

Isnt payroll tax the same thing as income tax - its just a prepayment on income tax isnt it.  If so, all Hans is saying is that a certain percentage dont have to pay anything more then what they have already paid at the end of the tax year.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:46:48 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2009, 05:44:22 PM
So it is true that many people don't pay income taxes, but they still contribute through payroll taxes on any income they earn.

Isnt payroll tax the same thing as income tax - its just a prepayment on income tax isnt it.  If so, all Hans is saying is that a certain percentage dont have to pay anything more then what they have already paid at the end of the tax year.

No--at least in the US the payroll tax is separate from the income tax.

Quote from: alfred russel on November 17, 2009, 05:44:22 PM
Hans statistic doesn't include payroll taxes.

In the US, there are social security and medicare taxes that are about 7.5% for individuals and the same amount for employers--effectively a 15% tax on earned income. While in theory these pay for "social insurance", a lot of the money also goes to the general budget. People with investment income don't pay these taxes, and most of them phase out after a certain threshold (I think it is around $105k).

So it is true that many people don't pay income taxes, but they still contribute through payroll taxes on any income they earn.

We have that too. But ours costs like 20% or so and the regression starts at about 50k Euro. So the middle class incomes pay the most of that too.

Here is the Canadian Federal Chart - it turns out for this tax year the top taxable income is now above 100,000.

Quote15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +
26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +
29% of taxable income over $126,264.

And here is the Chart for the additional tax I pay in BC.

Quote5.06% on the first $35,716 of taxable income, +
7.7% on the next $35,717, +
10.5% on the next $10,581, +
12.29% on the next $17,574, +
14.7% on the amount over $99,588

Here is the link for everyone else.  Alberta has a flat 10% tax...

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:46:48 PM
Isnt payroll tax the same thing as income tax - its just a prepayment on income tax isnt it.  If so, all Hans is saying is that a certain percentage dont have to pay anything more then what they have already paid at the end of the tax year.

You're thinking of withholding.  As Fredo said payroll taxes are the dedicated taxes for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:39:20 PM
I've read that statistic before.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

I agree, the income gap between rich and poor is absolutely obscene. We can cap the incomes of rich people so they're paying less as a percentage, but for some reason I believe Hans would object.  :lmfao:

I love how people act shocked over basic math.

Quote from: Tyr on November 17, 2009, 05:23:21 PM
Doesn't the US have really low taxes on the rich right now?

We have really low taxes on pretty much everybody right now.

Except in places like MS, where we have a very regressive sales tax.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 05:53:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:46:48 PM
Isnt payroll tax the same thing as income tax - its just a prepayment on income tax isnt it.  If so, all Hans is saying is that a certain percentage dont have to pay anything more then what they have already paid at the end of the tax year.

You're thinking of withholding.  As Fredo said payroll taxes are the dedicated taxes for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Ah, ok.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:53:15 PM
Here is the link for everyone else.  Alberta has a flat 10% tax...

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

The chart for Manitoba:

Quote10.8% on the first $31,000 of taxable income, +
12.75% on the next $36,000, +
17.4% on the amount over $67,000

Now I remember why I left the damn place... <_<

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:46:30 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:30:08 PM
Actually the US only taxes the rich.  The bottom 47% pay no taxes at all.  Since income for the rich tends to be highly volatile, so is our tax system.

I've read that statistic before.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

I've read similar numbers for Germany.

The 10% highest income earners pay more than 50%.

The 25% highest income earners pay more than 80%.

The 50% lowest income earners pay 4.3%.

I hate these types of statistics.  In US they're mostly used to make a point about how heavily taxed the rich are, even by "reputable" papers such as WSJ.  The problem is that these numbers by themselves actually say nothing about the progressivity of the tax system, it's a mathematical fact even before you consider the complications such as taxes other than federal income tax.  They do however make for a very dramatic reading.

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:46:30 PM
I've read similar numbers for Germany.

That's fine though.  What I have problems with is what the situation was in Ireland (I believe they're changing tack now) and possibly the US in which the personal allowance is so high that it effectively removes a large proportion of people from paying tax at all.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:57:27 PM

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:46:30 PM
I've read similar numbers for Germany.

That's fine though.  What I have problems with is what the situation was in Ireland (I believe they're changing tack now) and possibly the US in which the personal allowance is so high that it effectively removes a large proportion of people from paying tax at all.

What is the problem with that?

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 05:55:52 PM

Now I remember why I left the damn place... <_<

The UK has these numbers on top of your personal allowance of £6,475:

Quote0 - £2,440 (savings only)     10 per cent (starting rate for savings)
0 - £37,400    20 per cent (basic rate)
Over £37,400    40 per cent (higher rate)

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:58:47 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:57:27 PM

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:46:30 PM
I've read similar numbers for Germany.

That's fine though.  What I have problems with is what the situation was in Ireland (I believe they're changing tack now) and possibly the US in which the personal allowance is so high that it effectively removes a large proportion of people from paying tax at all.

What is the problem with that?

The 'problem' I've heard is that when you remove a significant number of people from paying any taxes whatsoever it encourages an "us against them" mentality, as opposed to "we're all in this together, paying our fair share".

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:58:47 PM
What is the problem with that?

I don't think the cost of society should fall on a narrow section.  Though I think our personal allowance is too small.

Quote from: Scipio on November 17, 2009, 05:54:34 PM
We have really low taxes on pretty much everybody right now.

Except in places like MS, where we have a very regressive sales tax.

Sales tax is not good here. It's 9.5 in SF proper. Over 10 in some cities. I believe Chicago is over 10 as well.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:00:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 05:55:52 PM

Now I remember why I left the damn place... <_<

The UK has these numbers on top of your personal allowance of £6,475:

Quote0 - £2,440 (savings only)     10 per cent (starting rate for savings)
0 - £37,400    20 per cent (basic rate)
Over £37,400    40 per cent (higher rate)

The 40% has to be taken as the combination of our combined Federal and Provincial rates.  You are still paying less then some poor sod in Manitoba.

edit: and you are paying less then me! :mad:

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 06:01:31 PM
I believe Chicago is over 10 as well.

10 and half I think.

Here is our federal income tax progression. We don't have state income taxes. It's actually not really brackets, but rather a formula that changes once you hit the next bracket. And it jumps to 45% for income over 250k Euro.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc6%2FGrenz-undDurchschnittsEStsatzD2008.svg%2F500px-Grenz-undDurchschnittsEStsatzD2008.svg.png&hash=cc3776cc08261d0d0cc0ea64ac318129732a797d)

EDIT: blue is marginal, green is average.

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 06:01:31 PM

Quote from: Scipio on November 17, 2009, 05:54:34 PM
We have really low taxes on pretty much everybody right now.

Except in places like MS, where we have a very regressive sales tax.

Sales tax is not good here. It's 9.5 in SF proper. Over 10 in some cities. I believe Chicago is over 10 as well.

Most of those exempt groceries.  Not MS.

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 06:01:13 PM
The 'problem' I've heard is that when you remove a significant number of people from paying any taxes whatsoever it encourages an "us against them" mentality, as opposed to "we're all in this together, paying our fair share".

I dont understand that.  Increasing the basic exemption lowers my tax bill also.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:00:07 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 05:55:52 PM

Now I remember why I left the damn place... <_<

The UK has these numbers on top of your personal allowance of £6,475:

Quote0 - £2,440 (savings only)     10 per cent (starting rate for savings)
0 - £37,400    20 per cent (basic rate)
Over £37,400    40 per cent (higher rate)

The numbers for Manitoba are on top of the federal income tax, which is:

Quote15% on the first $40,726 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $40,726 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $40,726 and $81,452), +
26% on the next $44,812 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $81,452 and $126,264), +
29% of taxable income over $126,264.

which would put my marginal rate at 43.4% if I lived in Manitoba.

As compared to 36% in Alberta, and 37.44% in Yukon.  Not to mention no provincial/territorial sales tax (7% in Manitoba).

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:42:15 PM
I will look up some stats for you but I can tell you that back when I took my remuneration as employment income my overall tax bill was about 44-46% of what I earned - from both Federal and Provincial taxes.  I forget the exact percentage as I am trying to repress* the memory and the laughing my accountant did when I first went to her to restructure things for me.

Does that include sales taxes?

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 06:03:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 06:01:13 PM
The 'problem' I've heard is that when you remove a significant number of people from paying any taxes whatsoever it encourages an "us against them" mentality, as opposed to "we're all in this together, paying our fair share".

I dont understand that.  Increasing the basic exemption lowers my tax bill also.

Increasing the basic exemption will lead to increases in marginal rates to keep the changes revenue-neutral (unless the changes were meant to be a tax cut).

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 06:01:46 PM
edit: and you are paying less then me! :mad:

Maybe, but he has to work for civil servant peanuts.  Then again, he also gets a gold-plated pension.

Quote from: Neil on November 17, 2009, 06:14:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 06:01:46 PM
edit: and you are paying less then me! :mad:

Maybe, but he has to work for civil servant peanuts.  Then again, he also gets a gold-plated pension.

I also get all kinds of crazy northern tax deductions... :yeah:

Quote from: Neil on November 17, 2009, 06:12:43 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:42:15 PM
I will look up some stats for you but I can tell you that back when I took my remuneration as employment income my overall tax bill was about 44-46% of what I earned - from both Federal and Provincial taxes.  I forget the exact percentage as I am trying to repress* the memory and the laughing my accountant did when I first went to her to restructure things for me.

Does that include sales taxes?

No, there is some kind of odd surcharge or something that I didnt quite understand.

Quote from: DGuller on November 17, 2009, 06:13:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 06:03:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 06:01:13 PM
The 'problem' I've heard is that when you remove a significant number of people from paying any taxes whatsoever it encourages an "us against them" mentality, as opposed to "we're all in this together, paying our fair share".

I dont understand that.  Increasing the basic exemption lowers my tax bill also.

Increasing the basic exemption will lead to increases in marginal rates to keep the changes revenue-neutral (unless the changes were meant to be a tax cut).

That is traditionally what occurs in Canada.  Its has reduced my taxes each time it has been increased.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:54:51 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2009, 05:53:31 PMYou're thinking of withholding.  As Fredo said payroll taxes are the dedicated taxes for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Ah, ok.

So I'm guessing that would be the equivalent of the CPP and EI that's deducted from our paycheques up here.

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 06:19:54 PM

Quote from: Neil on November 17, 2009, 06:14:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 06:01:46 PM
edit: and you are paying less then me! :mad:

Maybe, but he has to work for civil servant peanuts.  Then again, he also gets a gold-plated pension.

I also get all kinds of crazy northern tax deductions... :yeah:

I used to get some northern deductions back in my home town.

Quote from: Neil on November 17, 2009, 06:23:08 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 06:19:54 PM

Quote from: Neil on November 17, 2009, 06:14:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 06:01:46 PM
edit: and you are paying less then me! :mad:

Maybe, but he has to work for civil servant peanuts.  Then again, he also gets a gold-plated pension.

I also get all kinds of crazy northern tax deductions... :yeah:

I used to get some northern deductions back in my home town.

I used to get them in Peace River as well.  But both of those places are Zone B, whereas Yukon is Zone A, and gets twice as much.

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 06:26:18 PM
I used to get them in Peace River as well.  But both of those places are Zone B, whereas Yukon is Zone A, and gets twice as much.

When I was young, and doing my first tax returns, I thought about moving into Zone A.  Then I realized:  What would I do with myself?

Quote from: Fate on November 17, 2009, 05:53:54 PM
I agree, the income gap between rich and poor is absolutely obscene. We can cap the incomes of rich people so they're paying less as a percentage, but for some reason I believe Hans would object.  :lmfao:

I love how people act shocked over basic math.

Like the basic mathematical difference between the percentage of taxes paid by the poorest and the percentage of people who pay no taxes?

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 06:21:10 PM
That is traditionally what occurs in Canada.  Its has reduced my taxes each time it has been increased.

Then technically it's two separate actions.  The first ones affects the distribution, and the second one affects the total outcome.

Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 06:01:13 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:58:47 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:57:27 PM

Quote from: Zanza on November 17, 2009, 05:46:30 PM
I've read similar numbers for Germany.

That's fine though.  What I have problems with is what the situation was in Ireland (I believe they're changing tack now) and possibly the US in which the personal allowance is so high that it effectively removes a large proportion of people from paying tax at all.

What is the problem with that?

The 'problem' I've heard is that when you remove a significant number of people from paying any taxes whatsoever it encourages an "us against them" mentality, as opposed to "we're all in this together, paying our fair share".

:huh:
Unless you eliminate  sales tax and the aforementioned payroll taxes, the poor are also paying taxes. What changes is simply the composition of taxes different brackets are subjected to. Rich will pay most in income and investment taxes, poor in sales tax or gas tax and so on.

Quote from: Iormlund on November 17, 2009, 11:18:36 PM
What changes is simply the composition of taxes different brackets are subjected to. Rich will pay most in income and investment taxes, poor in sales tax or gas tax and so on.

Putting it this way is misleading. The rich pay a higher percentage in income tax than the poor and then they still have to pay things like sales taxes (surprise, rich people still buy goods...and they tend to buy more expensive ones!).  End of the day, the rich are getting hosed for a much greater percentage of their income than the poor. And that's the situation already. Now its going to increase in order to pay for the healthcare plan...

Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 12:55:18 AM
Putting it this way is misleading. The rich pay a higher percentage in income tax than the poor and then they still have to pay things like sales taxes (surprise, rich people still buy goods...and they tend to buy more expensive ones!).  End of the day, the rich are getting hosed for a rather large percentage of their income.

They don't have to buy the more expensive goods.  You're just never going to be able to please all the people, particularly the middle bracket, who get screwed either way.  You use a flat tax, the poor pay a higher percentage.  You use a progressive tax, the rich pay a higher percentage.

A better question of how to pay for things would be how to drop the level of zero-tax-liability filers; approximately 38% in 2009: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1973&DocTypeID=7

Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 18, 2009, 01:01:31 AM
They don't have to buy the more expensive goods.  You're just never going to be able to please all the people, particularly the middle bracket, who get screwed either way.  You use a flat tax, the poor pay a higher percentage.  You use a progressive tax, the rich pay a higher percentage.

So increasing the inequality is good because?

The rich will have much, much more money left after paying gas, buying food and paying rent. So there is a lot more room to tax their incomes. It's common sense.
It is also convenient. It is much better to "spread the wealth around" than needing armed men to watch over your family or having to bribe half the country to get a permit for your business or lacking access to educated workforce, a strong market or roads, ports or trains to make your factory work. It's a trade off.
You guys want to know what a capitalist paradise where the rich are rich and the poor are poor looks like? Take a peek at your neighbors down South.


On the original topic, though, the US pays more than enough for healthcare as it is. The rest of the developed world manages with a lot less. What US healthcare needs is not more money, but a complete revamp of the system.

Sigh.  Once again, you miss the point.  I'm not arguing in favor of increasing the inequality.  I'm suggesting that Congress would be barking up the wrong tree by taxing the rich further.  This past year, over 60,000 tax filers reporting income of over 200,000 dollars paid no income taxes.  That kind of lost tax revenue, combined with the massive amount of zero-liability reporting between incomes of 30,000 and 75,000 dollars, would certainly go some way toward paying off some of our debts.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 18, 2009, 01:14:30 AM
Sigh.  Once again, you miss the point.  I'm not arguing in favor of increasing the inequality.  I'm suggesting that Congress would be barking up the wrong tree by taxing the rich further.  This past year, over 60,000 tax filers reporting income of over 200,000 dollars paid no income taxes.  That kind of lost tax revenue, combined with the massive amount of zero-liability reporting between incomes of 30,000 and 75,000 dollars, would certainly go some way toward paying off some of our debts.

No, the rich are not taxed sufficiently. On the whole they have too much cash and with nothing substantive to do with it. The government has better uses for that money such as funding two wars, social programs, and paying down our debt. The rich will do just fine with a 45% income tax bracket at $1,000,000 or greater and a 35% capital gains tax.

Seems to me that higher taxes is an acceptable trade off for higher income. You still end up with more stuff.

You crazy Canadian with your upper tier at around 15%

Quebec chart :

0  38 385 $  16 % 
38 385 $  76 770 $  20 % 
76 770 $  +   24 %

Quote from: Iormlund on November 18, 2009, 01:12:07 AM
The rich will have much, much more money left after paying gas, buying food and paying rent. So there is a lot more room to tax their incomes. It's common sense.
It is also convenient. It is much better to "spread the wealth around"

Well of course the rich end up with more money. That's what it means to be rich. :huh:

Indeed, individuals should always be forced to give up money they worked for to those who did not earn it. And they should be forced to give a lot of money.

In Hong Kong, nobody pays more than 15%  :bowler:

Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 12:55:18 AM


Putting it this way is misleading. The rich pay a higher percentage in income tax than the poor and then they still have to pay things like sales taxes (surprise, rich people still buy goods...and they tend to buy more expensive ones!).  End of the day, the rich are getting hosed for a much greater percentage of their income than the poor. And that's the situation already. Now its going to increase in order to pay for the healthcare plan...

Maybe. If you are a middle class individual making $80k a year, I wouldn't be surprised if you pay 40% or so in taxes depending on the state you live (inclusive of sales tax, property tax, payroll tax (especially if you include your employer's portion), federal income tax, state income tax, ad valorem taxes, and any other taxes I'm leaving out.

If you have $100 million or so and are living off investment income, you will pay 15% on much of your income, nothing on some of it, and you don't have to pay payroll taxes.For those people, their average tax rate is almost certainly going to be less than many in the middle class.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:30:08 PM
Actually the US only taxes the rich.  The bottom 47% pay no taxes at all.  Since income for the rich tends to be highly volatile, so is our tax system.

I've read that statistic before.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

83% of the statistics cited on internet discussion boards are made up. :cool:

Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2009, 10:29:52 AM

QuoteI've read that statistic before.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

83% of the statistics cited on internet discussion boards are made up. :cool:

And 16% of the remaining statistics are highly misleading.

Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2009, 01:46:41 AM
The rich will do just fine with a 45% income tax bracket at $1,000,000 or greater and a 35% capital gains tax.

:lmfao:

Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2009, 10:29:52 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: Hansmeister on November 17, 2009, 05:30:08 PM
Actually the US only taxes the rich.  The bottom 47% pay no taxes at all.  Since income for the rich tends to be highly volatile, so is our tax system.

I've read that statistic before.  It's absolutely ridiculous.

83% of the statistics cited on internet discussion boards are made up. :cool:

:D

Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 12:55:18 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on November 17, 2009, 11:18:36 PM
What changes is simply the composition of taxes different brackets are subjected to. Rich will pay most in income and investment taxes, poor in sales tax or gas tax and so on.

Putting it this way is misleading. The rich pay a higher percentage in income tax than the poor and then they still have to pay things like sales taxes (surprise, rich people still buy goods...and they tend to buy more expensive ones!).  End of the day, the rich are getting hosed for a much greater percentage of their income than the poor. And that's the situation already. Now its going to increase in order to pay for the healthcare plan...

Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:08:45 PM
Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

I am not so concerned about capturing more via sales tax.  I am more concerned with simply letting the poor keep what they earn so that they have a greater likelihood of no longer being poor.

I actually think cutting taxes (what little there actually are, anyways) on the poor rather than the rich is likely to have a more immediate economic benefit, since the poor are less likely to save and more likely to immediately blow any cash they have on consumer goods.  Obviously not all poor people behave that way, but I'm sure the majority do.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2009, 12:10:44 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:08:45 PM
Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

I am not so concerned about capturing more via sales tax.  I am more concerned with simply letting the poor keep what they earn so that they have a greater likelihood of no longer being poor.

I'm in agreement with you on that. It was Garbon I was having a go at, who was bitching that the rich are getting hosed because they buy a lot of things.

Quote from: Iormlund on November 18, 2009, 01:12:07 AM
You guys want to know what a capitalist paradise where the rich are rich and the poor are poor looks like? Take a peek at your neighbors down South.

Where the middle class is growing?

Agreed Cal.  An extra few hundred wont effect my spending behaviour at all.  An extra few hundred will mean a lot to someone who is rationing their groceries because they cant afford more food.

Having experienced both sides of the economic divide I have no problem with giving the poor as many tax breaks as possible.

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:08:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 12:55:18 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on November 17, 2009, 11:18:36 PM
What changes is simply the composition of taxes different brackets are subjected to. Rich will pay most in income and investment taxes, poor in sales tax or gas tax and so on.

Putting it this way is misleading. The rich pay a higher percentage in income tax than the poor and then they still have to pay things like sales taxes (surprise, rich people still buy goods...and they tend to buy more expensive ones!).  End of the day, the rich are getting hosed for a much greater percentage of their income than the poor. And that's the situation already. Now its going to increase in order to pay for the healthcare plan...

Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

Indeed, the US has followed this strategy, which is why the poor don't pay income taxes anymore. In fact, we send them cash every year instead, so they can spend it on stuff and we can collect more sales tax from them.

It is working out great!

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:19:04 PM
It is working out great!

That's good to hear
;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2009, 12:18:38 PM
Agreed Cal.  An extra few hundred wont effect my spending behaviour at all.  An extra few hundred will mean a lot to someone who is rationing their groceries because they cant afford more food.

Having experienced both sides of the economic divide I have no problem with giving the poor as many tax breaks as possible.

As many as possible? So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Oh wait, I forget - nobody is port because of their own actions, all poor are deserving poor, who are only poor because they never had any chance to be anything else, right?

Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
I actually think cutting taxes (what little there actually are, anyways) on the poor rather than the rich is likely to have a more immediate economic benefit, since the poor are less likely to save and more likely to immediately blow any cash they have on consumer goods.  Obviously not all poor people behave that way, but I'm sure the majority do.

Where does this end though? We've been doing this for a rather long time, to the extent that the poor in the US don't pay taxes really at all anymore. In fact, most of them receive tax credits and actually get "refunds" on the taxes they do not pay to begin with. Should we do even more of this?

Of course, we did not do this in some effort to stimulate consumer spending - we did it because the poor needed the money.

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:20:51 PM
So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Don't most poor people work?  Just saying...

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:20:51 PM

As many as possible? So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Oh wait, I forget - nobody is port because of their own actions, all poor are deserving poor, who are only poor because they never had any chance to be anything else, right?

Well, it's kind of silly to tax those, whom, as you say, are "collecting funds from the government" isn't it? Seems awfully beauracratic. "Here's 50 bucks. Now give me back $30."

And here ,I thought I was going to stay out of this debate.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2009, 12:18:38 PM
Agreed Cal.  An extra few hundred wont effect my spending behaviour at all.  An extra few hundred will mean a lot to someone who is rationing their groceries because they cant afford more food.

The number one health problem of the poor in America is obesity. This isn't 18th century London, where poor Oliver would like a little more please.

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:24:38 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:20:51 PM

As many as possible? So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Oh wait, I forget - nobody is port because of their own actions, all poor are deserving poor, who are only poor because they never had any chance to be anything else, right?

Well, it's kind of silly to tax those, whom, as you say, are "collecting funds from the government" isn't it? Seems awfully beauracratic. "Here's 50 bucks. Now give me back $30."

And here ,I thought I was going to stay out of this debate.

Of course that would be silly, good thing it isn't done.

You can certainly send them more money though, in the rather bizarre hope that they will spend it, which will somehow increase tax revenues via sales tax!

That is an order of magnitude more ridiculously than Reagans trickle down economics.

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:24:43 PM

The number one health problem of the poor in America is obesity. This isn't 18th century London, where poor Oliver would like a little more please.

That would actually be 19th century London, that Oliver lived in.

But yeah, you made a good point about obesity. I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores, to curb their obesity, which is going to cost the health care system lots in the future.

Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2009, 12:24:13 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:20:51 PM
So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Don't most poor people work?  Just saying...

I am sure they do - but we are not talking about MOST poor people, we are talking about ALL poor people. And plenty of them do not work, or work very little, or are lazy, or incompetent, or even criminal.

I am MUCH more interested in helping people who actually want to work and succeed, and for whatever reason cannot - but while that stereotype is the one trotted out to justify ever tax credit, they are never targeted at those people, they are targeted at everyone under some income level. Which just incents even more people to not bother with all that work bullshit, since they can make an appreciable portion of their starting salary sucking at the government tit - hell, it can even COST them money to go get an entry level job, since they may not qualify for as much mana from Washington if they actually had an income.

If we want to help the truly disadvantaged, then I am all for programs to spend money on training, education, work programs, etc., etc., etc. I am all for helping people who really want help, rather than just a handout. But we don't do anyone any favors by just spewing out money to subsidize the lazy.

Being poor SHOULD SUCK! it should be a crappy choice. To the extent that it is not a choice (and frankly, I think this is grossly exaggerated, since I come from a rather poor backgrounsd myself), then I am all for giving them that choice through targeted assistance for those who are actually disadvantaged.

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:27:59 PM
I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores,

You don't need a voucher to live a healthy lifestyle.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:27:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:24:43 PM

The number one health problem of the poor in America is obesity. This isn't 18th century London, where poor Oliver would like a little more please.

That would actually be 19th century London, that Oliver lived in.

But yeah, you made a good point about obesity. I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores, to curb their obesity, which is going to cost the health care system lots in the future.

You don't need a gym membership and a big budget for groceries to be healthy. There are lots of cheap healthy foods, and you can have a great exercise routine just with running, push ups, and other free exercises.

I'm all for access to health care and health education for poor people, but if someone is obese, it isn't because they can't afford to go to the gym. If you can afford a big mac and a coke, you can afford a lot of bananas and tap water.

Quote from: citizen k on November 18, 2009, 12:34:04 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:27:59 PM
I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores,

You don't need a voucher to live a healthy lifestyle.  :rolleyes:

No kidding.

This is a funny comment, because it illustrates the basic divide on the question of the role of government.

The idea that for every problem, there is some government solution that involves taking money from one group and shoveling it to another. Poor people are too fat? Send them vouchers to health clubs!

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:26:19 PM
Of course that would be silly, good thing it isn't done.

You can certainly send them more money though, in the rather bizarre hope that they will spend it, which will somehow increase tax revenues via sales tax!

That is an order of magnitude more ridiculously than Reagans trickle down economics.

Who said anything about increasing revenues via sales tax?  :huh:

Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 12:35:42 PM
You don't need a gym membership and a big budget for groceries to be healthy. There are lots of cheap healthy foods, and you can have a great exercise routine just with running, push ups, and other free exercises.

I'm not so sure.  I spend more per week on fruit and veg than I do on anything else.  I think it's extortionate.

Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 12:35:42 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:27:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:24:43 PM

The number one health problem of the poor in America is obesity. This isn't 18th century London, where poor Oliver would like a little more please.

That would actually be 19th century London, that Oliver lived in.

But yeah, you made a good point about obesity. I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores, to curb their obesity, which is going to cost the health care system lots in the future.

You don't need a gym membership and a big budget for groceries to be healthy. There are lots of cheap healthy foods, and you can have a great exercise routine just with running, push ups, and other free exercises.

I'm all for access to health care and health education for poor people, but if someone is obese, it isn't because they can't afford to go to the gym. If you can afford a big mac and a coke, you can afford a lot of bananas and tap water.

Big Mac is not the cheapest food there is.  When my family was really poor, McDonalds food was too expensive for us.  The cheapest food you can find is packaged preservatives with an artificial taste of food added, like Ramen noodles.

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 12:58:00 PM

Big Mac is not the cheapest food there is.  When my family was really poor, McDonalds food was too expensive for us.  The cheapest food you can find is packaged conservatives with an artificial taste of food added, like Ramen noodles.

Okay, but ramen noodles aren't responsible for the obesity epidemic.

I think that's the point.  These people are able to afford McDonalds and so could also afford other decent, healthier meals.

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 12:58:00 PM
Big Mac is not the cheapest food there is.  When my family was really poor, McDonalds food was too expensive for us.  The cheapest food you can find is packaged conservatives with an artificial taste of food added, like Ramen noodles.

My family lived on stuff just like that. And you can get mighty fat off of it too.

But even when we were well below the poverty line poor, we were never in danger of not having enough food. Food stamps, school lunches, etc., etc. We didn't eat steak every night by any means, but we never went hungry.

Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 01:00:33 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 12:58:00 PM

Big Mac is not the cheapest food there is.  When my family was really poor, McDonalds food was too expensive for us.  The cheapest food you can find is packaged conservatives with an artificial taste of food added, like Ramen noodles.

Okay, but ramen noodles aren't responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Oh yes they are. Those fucking things are terrible for you.

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 01:01:12 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 12:58:00 PM
Big Mac is not the cheapest food there is.  When my family was really poor, McDonalds food was too expensive for us.  The cheapest food you can find is packaged conservatives with an artificial taste of food added, like Ramen noodles.

My family lived on stuff just like that. And you can get mighty fat off of it too.

But even when we were well below the poverty line poor, we were never in danger of not having enough food. Food stamps, school lunches, etc., etc. We didn't eat steak every night by any means, but we never went hungry.

I agree with that.  Ramen noodles are dirt cheap, and more nutritious than dirt (which is its only clear advantage).

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 01:06:17 PM
I agree with that.  Ramen noodles are dirt cheap, and more nutritious than dirt (which is its only clear advantage).

I dunno - I think you're probably get more nutrients from dirt than you would from ramen noodles.

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 01:06:17 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 01:01:12 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 12:58:00 PM
Big Mac is not the cheapest food there is.  When my family was really poor, McDonalds food was too expensive for us.  The cheapest food you can find is packaged conservatives with an artificial taste of food added, like Ramen noodles.

My family lived on stuff just like that. And you can get mighty fat off of it too.

But even when we were well below the poverty line poor, we were never in danger of not having enough food. Food stamps, school lunches, etc., etc. We didn't eat steak every night by any means, but we never went hungry.

I agree with that.  Ramen noodles are dirt cheap, and more nutritious than dirt (which is its only clear advantage).

Back when I ate things like Ramen noodles, I made some very, very good ones. Add in your own spices, some vegetables, and a scrambled egg, maybe even some leftover roast pork or something. You can use some basic Ramen noodles to make up a great noodle soup.

Quote from: citizen k on November 18, 2009, 12:34:04 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:27:59 PM
I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores,

You don't need a voucher to live a healthy lifestyle.  :rolleyes:

We really need a sarcasm smiley. Honeslty....I was exaggerating about the health clubs and organic food stores. Sheesh. You guys need to lighten up a bit. I know it's tough with Obama being in power.

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:20:51 PM
As many as possible? So there is no limit to the amount that ought to be transferred from those who actually do things to those who sit around collecting funds from  the government? That is a bold statement.

Oh wait, I forget - nobody is port because of their own actions, all poor are deserving poor, who are only poor because they never had any chance to be anything else, right?

I am not sure where this angst is coming from.  What does the causes of poverty have to do with letting people who are working have more money in their pockets so that they can have a higher standard of living?

Its a question of diminishing returns.  As I said, a few hundred more dollars in my pocket every year is nice but is hardly noticeable.  I grew up knowing people for whom that would be a big deal.

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 01:34:21 PM

Quote from: citizen k on November 18, 2009, 12:34:04 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:27:59 PM
I think the poor should be given free vouchers at health clubs and organic food stores,

You don't need a voucher to live a healthy lifestyle.  :rolleyes:

We really need a sarcasm smiley. Honeslty....I was exaggerating about the health clubs and organic food stores. Sheesh. You guys need to lighten up a bit. I know it's tough with Obama being in power.

Your suggestion did not seem anymore fruity lefty liberal than any number of other suggestions made for how the government can fix all of societies problems if only we throw enough money at them. How was anyone to know?

From now on I will use this  ;) to indicate that I was being sarcasticl and not fruity lefty liberal for which I will use this:  :berkut:

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:23:03 PM
Where does this end though? We've been doing this for a rather long time, to the extent that the poor in the US don't pay taxes really at all anymore. In fact, most of them receive tax credits and actually get "refunds" on the taxes they do not pay to begin with. Should we do even more of this?

Of course, we did not do this in some effort to stimulate consumer spending - we did it because the poor needed the money.

I'm not saying it is generally a good policy, but from an economic standpoint we do not live in 'typical' times.

But maybe it is a good policy, I dunno.  Bread and circuses :)

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 12:08:45 PM
Give the poor more tax breaks, and they'll be able to spend more, thus contributing more via sales taxes.

Hmm..that's odd. I don't remember asking for taxes to be raised on the poor.

Oh and what Berkut said later on.

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:26:19 PM
You can certainly send them more money though, in the rather bizarre hope that they will spend it, which will somehow increase tax revenues via sales tax!

That is an order of magnitude more ridiculously than Reagans trickle down economics.

I put my stimulus check into my savings account. I hate America! :(

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2009, 12:57:19 PM
I'm not so sure.  I spend more per week on fruit and veg than I do on anything else.  I think it's extortionate.

Yeah fruits are expensive. We tried to have more healthy breakfast choices at our weekly department meetings but with our small budget, we can really only afford less healthy things like bagels or donuts.

Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 12:35:42 PM
You don't need a gym membership to be healthy.

That's definitely true. I supposedly lost a good deal of weight walking around in European capitals the past two weeks.

Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 04:01:15 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2009, 12:35:42 PM
You don't need a gym membership to be healthy.

That's definitely true. I supposedly lost a good deal of weight walking around in European capitals the past two weeks.

I think you took a wrong turn somewhere.

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 04:03:38 PM
I think you took a wrong turn somewhere.

Oh I certainly did. I didn't even have a map while walking around London and Berlin. And in Madrid, I lost my map a few minutes after leaving the hotel.

Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 03:58:05 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 12:26:19 PM
You can certainly send them more money though, in the rather bizarre hope that they will spend it, which will somehow increase tax revenues via sales tax!

That is an order of magnitude more ridiculously than Reagans trickle down economics.

I put my stimulus check into my savings account. I hate America! :(

I used mine to buy some shares of stock in a Spanish bank.  :P

USA!

NOTE WHAT FOLLOWS IS SARCASM. CAUTION. WARNING. ETC ETC.

And all the lazy poor people used their stimulus cheques to buy Big Macs.


NOTE WHAT I JUST WROTE WAS SARCASM.

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 05:57:03 PM
And all the lazy poor people used their stimulus cheques to buy Big Macs.

If they made the effort to go to McDonalds, and could afford the Big Macs, should they really be considered lazy or poor?

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 06:10:25 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 05:57:03 PM
And all the lazy poor people used their stimulus cheques to buy Big Macs.

If they made the effort to go to McDonalds, and could afford the Big Macs, should they really be considered lazy or poor?

Isn't there a McDonalds on every intersection in America? Thus it's not much of an effort. Even fat, poor people can walk a block. And they can only afford the Big Mac, thanks to their benevolent kind-hearted government that taxes the rich and gives them back nice stimulus cheques.

{do I need to put the sarcasm warning...or can we get beyond that now? :)]

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 06:12:55 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2009, 06:10:25 PM

Quote from: Josephus on November 18, 2009, 05:57:03 PM
And all the lazy poor people used their stimulus cheques to buy Big Macs.

If they made the effort to go to McDonalds, and could afford the Big Macs, should they really be considered lazy or poor?

Isn't there a McDonalds on every intersection in America? Thus it's not much of an effort. Even fat, poor people can walk a block. And they can only afford the Big Mac, thanks to their benevolent kind-hearted government that taxes the rich and gives them back nice stimulus cheques.

{do I need to put the sarcasm warning...or can we get beyond that now? :)]

Big Macs are too damn expensive anyways.   <_<  What is it, $5+ for the meal?  That gets you 3 pieces of tasty chicken and 2 ribs at the Crown Fried Chicken.  At MickeyD's you have to go for the new non-Dollar menu Double Cheesburger for $1.19.

The Economist uses the Big Mac Index to determine whether a currency's currency is over or under valued.

http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 18, 2009, 06:16:48 PM
Big Macs are too damn expensive anyways.   <_<  What is it, $5+ for the meal?  That gets you 3 pieces of tasty chicken and 2 ribs at the Crown Fried Chicken.  At MickeyD's you have to go for the new non-Dollar menu Double Cheesburger for $1.19.

Absolutely.  Double cheeseburger (stand alone or combo) is the best deal at Mickey's.

I wish I were rich enough to know whether taxes on the rich actually stung or not.

They've released financing details of the Senate version.  There were four things mentioned, unfortunately I can only remember two.  Decrease in Medicare payments and an increase in Medicare taxes for people $250K +.

And apparently the Senate version *decreases* the deficit by somthing like 132 billion over 10 years.

Oh yeah, and it includes public option with state opt-out.

Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
I actually think cutting taxes (what little there actually are, anyways) on the poor rather than the rich is likely to have a more immediate economic benefit, since the poor are less likely to save and more likely to immediately blow any cash they have on consumer goods.  Obviously not all poor people behave that way, but I'm sure the majority do.

I agree with this, particularly the short-term part. But the flip side of that is that that kind of money is not growth money. It's keep us afloat money. It's all that "extra" money that rich people have that creates jobs and growth.

:yes: I know, but the Dems either don't know that or don't care.  It's too bad poor people have the same number of votes in elections as the middle and upper classes.  :(

Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 08:10:45 AM
It's too bad poor people have the same number of votes in elections as the middle and upper classes.  :(

The Tribune of the Plebs is out of control.

Some Slovakian libertarian has the best idea: he wants that when you go to vote in an election, you are presented with the choice: the ballot, or 7 euros cash right there.

If you ask me, it's an excellent idea. The dumbest and most irresponsible segments of society would not be voting, while they would not be de facto banned from voting.

Hey, that's a great idea.  :D

Quote from: Tamas on November 19, 2009, 10:04:28 AMThe dumbest and most irresponsible segments of society would not be voting, while they would not be de facto banned from voting.

I wouldn't think the Wall Street crowd can be bought off so easily.

I remember reading once that in Australia (or New Zealand?) it is actually ILLEGAL to not vote in elections if you are a registered voter.  WORST.  IDEA.  EVER. :blink:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 18, 2009, 09:10:43 PM
I agree with this, particularly the short-term part. But the flip side of that is that that kind of money is not growth money. It's keep us afloat money. It's all that "extra" money that rich people have that creates jobs and growth.

I'm not so sure that's clear. What disposable income among the poor isn't playing a role in our consumer-domintaed economy?

Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 11:01:28 AM
I remember reading once that in Australia (or New Zealand?) it is actually ILLEGAL to not vote in elections if you are a registered voter.  WORST.  IDEA.  EVER. :blink:

I have to admit, I lost a bit of faith in democracy when I found out that the majority of Americans thought the USSR was in NATO in the 60s.

Quote from: Faeelin on November 19, 2009, 11:02:25 AM

Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 11:01:28 AM
I remember reading once that in Australia (or New Zealand?) it is actually ILLEGAL to not vote in elections if you are a registered voter.  WORST.  IDEA.  EVER. :blink:

I have to admit, I lost a bit of faith in democracy when I found out that the majority of Americans thought the USSR was in NATO in the 60s.

Never heard that. But I believe it. I was watching Amazing Race a few weeks ago and the contestants, young Americans, were shown a picture of Jackie O. and they had no idea who it was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swz3px7cRVc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swz3px7cRVc)

Not everyone is a geeky history nerd tho.

To be honest, what relevance does Jackie have to young Americans?

Quote from: Josephus on November 19, 2009, 11:18:35 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on November 19, 2009, 11:02:25 AM

Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 11:01:28 AM
I remember reading once that in Australia (or New Zealand?) it is actually ILLEGAL to not vote in elections if you are a registered voter.  WORST.  IDEA.  EVER. :blink:

I have to admit, I lost a bit of faith in democracy when I found out that the majority of Americans thought the USSR was in NATO in the 60s.

Never heard that. But I believe it. I was watching Amazing Race a few weeks ago and the contestants, young Americans, were shown a picture of Jackie O. and they had no idea who it was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swz3px7cRVc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swz3px7cRVc)

I know who she is, but I may not recognize a picture of her. Why would I?

Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 11:28:58 AM

I know who she is, but I may not recognize a picture of her. Why would I?

Yea, same here.

Not caring about celebrities is not a particularly heinous form of ignorance IMO.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 08:02:39 PM
And apparently the Senate version *decreases* the deficit by somthing like 132 billion over 10 years.

Interesting.  Did that come from the CBO?

Quote from: Faeelin on November 19, 2009, 11:02:01 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 18, 2009, 09:10:43 PM
I agree with this, particularly the short-term part. But the flip side of that is that that kind of money is not growth money. It's keep us afloat money. It's all that "extra" money that rich people have that creates jobs and growth.

I'm not so sure that's clear. What disposable income among the poor isn't playing a role in our consumer-domintaed economy?

It absolutely is playing a role. It's crucial. I was pointing out the difference between consumer spending and investment capital.

Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2009, 11:37:47 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 08:02:39 PM
And apparently the Senate version *decreases* the deficit by somthing like 132 billion over 10 years.

Interesting.  Did that come from the CBO?

Smoke and mirrors accounting. The CBO can only analyze what the Congress sends on these bills, regardless of realities, or the actual lack of ability of Congress to do what the bill says in the real world. Such as Congress claiming they'll cut billions in fraud from Medicare - never have done so, and don't likely have any real idea for doing so. But they put it in the bill anyway, as a way to claim they can make ends meet.

Quote from: Faeelin on November 19, 2009, 11:02:25 AM

Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 11:01:28 AM
I remember reading once that in Australia (or New Zealand?) it is actually ILLEGAL to not vote in elections if you are a registered voter.  WORST.  IDEA.  EVER. :blink:

I have to admit, I lost a bit of faith in democracy when I found out that the majority of Americans thought the USSR was in NATO in the 60s.

Lack of education. People also got confused when Jay Leno asked if jet planes or just prop planes were used in the Revolution or Civil War. At least they didn't think jets had been invented yet, so it must have been propeller planes.   :huh:

Same old shell game with numbers by Congress. Most of the article below is by Repubs, but Dems will be speaking out and saying about the same. Just a reminder of the reasons why Democrats have been unable to agree among themselves at all, and they have the votes to ram anything through, regardless of GOP votes.

See the last paragraph - Medicare already has $40 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities!!   :huh:   What? You have got to be kidding me.... if valid, and I've heard that stated a number of times before, how can I have any confidence in the government taking on a much larger slice of health care!? 

Quote[size]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/gop-leaders-denounce-medicare-doc-fix/

GOP Leaders Denounce Democrats' Medicare 'Doc Fix'

The "doctor fix" would be paid by more federal borrowing for Medicare, a program already steep in debt. The plan would also add to the federal deficit, which hit an all-time high of $1.42 trillion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

Republican leaders on Thursday denounced the House Democrats' version of the so-called "doc fix," a $210 billion plan to keep doctors who treat Medicare patients from experiencing severe cuts in their annual federal reimbursements.

The "doctor fix" would be paid by more federal borrowing for Medicare, a program already steep in debt. The plan would also add to the federal deficit, which hit an all-time high of $1.42 trillion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
The House is expected to vote on the measure Thursday.
"Bringing an unpaid 'doc fix' to the floor is the height of irresponsibility," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a news conference ahead of the vote.
"We'll be offering the alternative when we get to the floor today," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., added.
Medicare physicians are facing a 21 percent cut in reimbursements next year and another roughly 5 percent cut for each of the next several years, according to the 2009 Medicare Trustees report.

Supporters of the "doc fix" say that a long-term fix is needed to provide certainty to doctors, and their patients, many who fear the cuts and therefore refuse to treat Medicare patients.

But Senate Democratic leaders failed last month to garner enough support for their $247 billion version of the "doc fix." The Senate blocked the plan by a vote of 47-52, with 13 Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued a direct warning to President Obama about the "doc fix."
"Mr. President, we have news for you," the Indiana Republican said. "People are looking at the deficit and this is adding to a lack of confidence in this economy."
Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., issued a statement to doctors.

"The message to doctors is this is not going to fix your problem," he said. "You should know that doctors are going to have a tough time seeing you if this bill is passed into law."

The proposal would replace a formula from the 1997 Balanced Budget Act designed to hold down Medicare costs by setting yearly and cumulative spending targets. If actual spending exceeds the target for a given year, reimbursement rates for doctors are lowered the next year. Expenditures have exceeded projections for the past seven years and Congress has passed legislation to override the fix all seven years.

The measure originally was expected to be part of Obama's sweeping health care reform legislation. But separating it will allow Democrats to prevent the measure from pushing health reform legislation over the $900 billion ceiling set by Obama. The president asserts that the 10-year plan will be paid in large part through savings in Medicare.

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee sent a letter to the president of the American Medical Association, which supports the "doc fix," expressing support for tackling the looming cuts but voicing concerns over the Democrats' plan.

"I support the intent of the legislation to stop the physician payment cut, but not only does the Democrats' bill not permanently solve the problem as some have claimed, it massively increases the deficit," Rep. Dave Camp, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a written statement.
"Republicans have a fully paid for policy that will ensure doctors receive fair compensation without adding to our already oversized national debt."

Rep. Wally Herger, the top Republican on the House Health Subcommittee, added, "The Democrats' proposed 'fix' is really a shell game designed to mask the true cost of their proposed government takeover of health care, and it would add, by one estimate, nearly $2 trillion to Medicare's long-term unfunded liabilities -- which are already nearly $40 trillion."

Quote from: KRonn on November 19, 2009, 02:21:14 PM


See the last paragraph - Medicare already has $40 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities!!   :huh:   What? You have got to be kidding me.... if valid, and I've heard that stated a number of times before, how can I have any confidence in the government taking on a much larger slice of health care!? 

Because that is the way social security and medicare were set up. The liabilities for those programs are going to include all the money that you, and I and Tim are going to be entitled to under those programs. We are going to be paid out of the payroll taxes collected when we are actually receiving social security and medicare--hence they are currently unfunded.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 18, 2009, 09:10:43 PM

Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 12:11:18 PM
I actually think cutting taxes (what little there actually are, anyways) on the poor rather than the rich is likely to have a more immediate economic benefit, since the poor are less likely to save and more likely to immediately blow any cash they have on consumer goods.  Obviously not all poor people behave that way, but I'm sure the majority do.

I agree with this, particularly the short-term part. But the flip side of that is that that kind of money is not growth money. It's keep us afloat money. It's all that "extra" money that rich people have that creates jobs and growth.

The problem is not a lack of people rich people. It's that they are not investing their money. Those struggling don't have that choice and that's why they are great when it comes to put the money into circulation.

Quote from: KRonn on November 19, 2009, 01:06:48 PM
Such as Congress claiming they'll cut billions in fraud from Medicare - never have done so, and don't likely have any real idea for doing so. But they put it in the bill anyway, as a way to claim they can make ends meet.

Yeah, that one always cracks me up.  Apparently something magical will happen to catch all the fraud that is not yet being caught. 

Quote from: Iormlund on November 19, 2009, 02:54:21 PM

The problem is not a lack of people rich people. It's that they are not investing their money. Those struggling don't have that choice and that's why they are great when it comes to put the money into circulation.

Oh? How are they not investing it? Keeping it in the bank (which then lends it out to entrepreneurs and consumers of cars and homes), or buying government bonds and sitting on them (which provides funds for us to build bridges and roads) or are you suggesting that too many rich people are buying gold bars and putting them in deposit boxes?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 19, 2009, 03:18:02 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on November 19, 2009, 02:54:21 PM

The problem is not a lack of people rich people. It's that they are not investing their money. Those struggling don't have that choice and that's why they are great when it comes to put the money into circulation.

Oh? How are they not investing it? Keeping it in the bank (which then lends it out to entrepreneurs and consumers of cars and homes), or buying government bonds and sitting on them (which provides funds for us to build bridges and roads) or are you suggesting that too many rich people are buying gold bars and putting them in deposit boxes?

Deposit boxes are a consumer good, and hence we collect sales tax on that, so this should be encouraged.

Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 03:20:15 PM

Deposit boxes are a consumer good, and hence we collect sales tax on that, so this should be encouraged.

We should tax Ed Anger's money bin.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj141%2FECKoolAid%2Fdtopen5.jpg&hash=cd86ec6ab9121fca36b9e83dea827f2922d770db)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 19, 2009, 03:25:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 03:20:15 PM

Deposit boxes are a consumer good, and hence we collect sales tax on that, so this should be encouraged.

We should tax Ed Anger's money bin.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj141%2FECKoolAid%2Fdtopen5.jpg&hash=cd86ec6ab9121fca36b9e83dea827f2922d770db)

I'm investing a portion of my capital into businesses. They can tax somebody else.

Also, overtax me and no more 73" televisions will be bought by me. I can make a penny scream when I pinch them.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 19, 2009, 03:25:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 03:20:15 PM

Deposit boxes are a consumer good, and hence we collect sales tax on that, so this should be encouraged.

We should tax Ed Anger's money bin.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj141%2FECKoolAid%2Fdtopen5.jpg&hash=cd86ec6ab9121fca36b9e83dea827f2922d770db)

Heh, I'd hate to see what a man-sized duck would look like after it took a 20' head first dive into a pile of coins.  :D

He wouldn't look like a duck anymore, for one.

Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 05:38:29 PM
Heh, I'd hate to see what a man-sized duck would look like after it took a 20' head first dive into a pile of coins.  :D

Do you ruin your son's night time stories this way? :D

Quote from: Josephus on November 19, 2009, 05:47:38 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 05:38:29 PM
Heh, I'd hate to see what a man-sized duck would look like after it took a 20' head first dive into a pile of coins.  :D

Do you ruin your son's night time stories this way? :D

Did you read my re-imagining of Thomas the Tank Engine?  ;)

Quote from: derspiess on November 19, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
Interesting.  Did that come from the CBO?

Yup.  I had the number wrong.  It should be 125.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2009, 08:02:39 PM
They've released financing details of the Senate version.  There were four things mentioned, unfortunately I can only remember two.  Decrease in Medicare payments and an increase in Medicare taxes for people $250K +.

And apparently the Senate version *decreases* the deficit by somthing like 132 billion over 10 years.

The Senate Bill can also cut through a tin can, and then still cut a tomato paper thin.

I saw it was something like 800 billion in spending but only 370 billion in tax increases.

Louisiana gets $100 million in Medicare funds to buy Mary Landreau's vote.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2009, 06:56:26 PM
Louisiana gets $100 million in Medicare funds to buy Mary Landreau's vote.

I'm actually surprised more Senators didn't pretend to be "undecided" so they could get handouts for their peeps like she did.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2009, 06:56:26 PM
Louisiana gets $100 million in Medicare funds to buy Mary Landreau's vote.

I know, Louisiana purchase number two! It would be funny if this kind of thing weren't so expensive for taxpayers, and as far as I'm concerned, a corruption of the system. Dems or Repubs.

Quote from: KRonn on November 23, 2009, 02:37:29 PM
I know, Louisiana purchase number two!

:lol: Good one.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 19, 2009, 03:25:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 03:20:15 PM

Deposit boxes are a consumer good, and hence we collect sales tax on that, so this should be encouraged.

We should tax Ed Anger's money bin.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj141%2FECKoolAid%2Fdtopen5.jpg&hash=cd86ec6ab9121fca36b9e83dea827f2922d770db)

We really need to figure out where he keeps his #1 Dime too.  :shifty:

Quote from: KRonn on November 23, 2009, 02:37:29 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2009, 06:56:26 PM
Louisiana gets $100 million in Medicare funds to buy Mary Landreau's vote.

I know, Louisiana purchase number two! It would be funny if this kind of thing weren't so expensive for taxpayers, and as far as I'm concerned, a corruption of the system. Dems or Repubs.

Yeah, it's not like money directed specifically at New Orleans has any useful purpose. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Quote from: Vince on November 23, 2009, 05:05:26 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 19, 2009, 03:25:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2009, 03:20:15 PM

Deposit boxes are a consumer good, and hence we collect sales tax on that, so this should be encouraged.

We should tax Ed Anger's money bin.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj141%2FECKoolAid%2Fdtopen5.jpg&hash=cd86ec6ab9121fca36b9e83dea827f2922d770db)

We really need to figure out where he keeps his #1 Dime too.  :shifty:

Buried in the backyard.

Quote from: Fate on November 23, 2009, 05:31:46 PM

Quote from: KRonn on November 23, 2009, 02:37:29 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2009, 06:56:26 PM
Louisiana gets $100 million in Medicare funds to buy Mary Landreau's vote.

I know, Louisiana purchase number two! It would be funny if this kind of thing weren't so expensive for taxpayers, and as far as I'm concerned, a corruption of the system. Dems or Repubs.

Yeah, it's not like money directed specifically at New Orleans has any useful purpose. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Putting it in the freezer is pretty useful, IMO.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.compliancebuilding.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Fjefferson-cash-freezer.jpg&hash=c5b3bb368a22f86c947146d4cd4eb1082d9be666)

Back on topic: fuck yeah, tax the rich.  They've got the money.  That's why they're RICH.