What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

collegehcky2 said:
The oncoming recession in 2014 and actual rate of economic recovery is going to expose economic policy in both parties. It's going to come down to not "class warfare" but "tax warfare"; Should the US government ever raise taxes again, or should entire tax policy be reformed? I'm hoping a fair-tax is proposed as even though people say it's a regressive tax, we're already paying the brunt of the tax in what the actual price of a consumer good is.
Click to expand...
Ever raise taxes again? You mean put it back where it's supposed to be if Obama hadn't stupidly extended the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire? Yes they were supposed to expire, funny that.

They don't just say, they correctly point out that a flat tax is regressive. Sales tax or consumption tax or whatever you want to call it are inherently regressive because they place a larger burden on the people who spend larger percentages of their income. Why don't you explain why it isn't or why we should just try it and see if it works out?

Fact check article on it some of the misleading terms they use. Might not work, they seem to be having trouble but google has a cached version of it. Do a search for Unspinning the fairtax to get at it.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Foxton said:
Ever raise taxes again? You mean put it back where it's supposed to be if Obama hadn't stupidly extended the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire? Yes they were supposed to expire, funny that.

They don't just say, they correctly point out that a flat tax is regressive. Sales tax or consumption tax or whatever you want to call it are inherently regressive because they place a larger burden on the people who spend larger percentages of their income. Why don't you explain why it isn't or why we should just try it and see if it works out?
Click to expand...

I think you're right about the phrase "raise taxes". We see it every time someone wants to let tax cuts expire or close tax loopholes. They say it's "raising taxes" when in fact it's not at all. Obama did a really dumb thing by using the Bush tax cuts as leverage for something else. He should have let them expire.

The fair-tax or consumption tax is technically is a regressive tax. It does disproportionately tax individuals who use a larger portion of their income to pay for consumer goods. What's not mentioned but pundits is the fact that through all forms of other taxes (corporate, income, import, etc) items are already taxed. On an average consumer durable good has a set price for the end consumer. This price takes into account what it costs the producer to make the product: materials, labor costs, marketing, shipping, etc.. In theory (because I refuse to use France's fair tax as an example), getting rid of almost all taxes (corporate, excise, income) and leveling a flat tax on all consumer goods which (in theory remember) wouldn't change the price structure to the consumer at all. While the tax structure is seemingly regressive, the current price levels are no different. The family of four with a $70,000 yearly income consumes the same basic goods as a family of four earning $200,000 a year, therefore the price structure takes a larger percentage of income from the $70,000 family than the $200,000.

Also in theory, a "fair tax" would remove some of the inhibitions for businesses to hire workers. Although I'm not sure how many business leaders are out there saying "Oh man, they're lowering my taxes? Let's go hire some workers!1!!!!@!1121!!". The fair tax would also allow the IRS to be drastically reduced, I don't remember the actual figure, but it's in the billions of $ per year. I'm not saying this is the ideal, I just think it's something to seriously be considered as the current tax structure is broken.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

collegehcky2 said:
The fair-tax or consumption tax is technically is a regressive tax. It does disproportionately tax individuals who use a larger portion of their income to pay for consumer goods. What's not mentioned but pundits is the fact that through all forms of other taxes (corporate, income, import, etc) items are already taxed. On an average consumer durable good has a set price for the end consumer. This price takes into account what it costs the producer to make the product: materials, labor costs, marketing, shipping, etc.. In theory (because I refuse to use France's fair tax as an example), getting rid of almost all taxes (corporate, excise, income) and leveling a flat tax on all consumer goods which (in theory remember) wouldn't change the price structure to the consumer at all. While the tax structure is seemingly regressive, the current price levels are no different. The family of four with a $70,000 yearly income consumes the same basic goods as a family of four earning $200,000 a year, therefore the price structure takes a larger percentage of income from the $70,000 family than the $200,000.

Also in theory, a "fair tax" would remove some of the inhibitions for businesses to hire workers. Although I'm not sure how many business leaders are out there saying "Oh man, they're lowering my taxes? Let's go hire some workers!1!!!!@!1121!!". The fair tax would also allow the IRS to be drastically reduced, I don't remember the actual figure, but it's in the billions of $ per year. I'm not saying this is the ideal, I just think it's something to seriously be considered as the current tax structure is broken.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should actually read the article I linked because those things are covered.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

collegehcky2 said:
Maybe you should link it right. :p
Click to expand...
I did link it right, the website is just messing up. Even if you go through their website it doesn't work. The cached version works just fine and it doesn't require a CS degree from MTU to get to.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Foxton said:
I did link it right, the website is just messing up. Even if you go through their website it doesn't work. The cached version works just fine and it doesn't require a CS degree from MTU to get to.
Click to expand...

I actually have read a similar critical piece like linked article before, when I was in undergrad we talked about fair tax and I had to read up about it (really boring by the way) and just as a clarification, I'm not talking about the fair tax that group has the big, nice looking website for. The way they want to implement it is really ineffective. They piggy backed on a previous proposal and carved their own niche. I don't necessarily think there's a way to make any type of tax fair (not because it doesn't exist but because politicians from a certain party would never agree to it), and right now everything besides income tax is rooted in theory.

If I can dig up the fair tax that I actually back (it's on my old school computer), then I'll post it. It focuses more on implementation than getting down to the actual numbers. One of the interesting components to this tax structure proposal is discussing the value added concept, where a value added "fair tax" through to the consumer is examined. In that case it's technically not a fair tax at all, but interesting nonetheless. If I can hook up my tower tomorrow I'll host it and then post it on here.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

collegehcky2 said:
I actually have read a similar critical piece like linked article before, when I was in undergrad we talked about fair tax and I had to read up about it (really boring by the way) and just as a clarification, I'm not talking about the fair tax that group has the big, nice looking website for. The way they want to implement it is really ineffective. They piggy backed on a previous proposal and carved their own niche. I don't necessarily think there's a way to make any type of tax fair (not because it doesn't exist but because politicians from a certain party would never agree to it), and right now everything besides income tax is rooted in theory.

If I can dig up the fair tax that I actually back (it's on my old school computer), then I'll post it. It focuses more on implementation than getting down to the actual numbers. One of the interesting components to this tax structure proposal is discussing the value added concept, where a value added "fair tax" through to the consumer is examined. In that case it's technically not a fair tax at all, but interesting nonetheless. If I can hook up my tower tomorrow I'll host it and then post it on here.
Click to expand...
If that one with the nice looking website isn't the one you're backing, why are you quoting almost verbatim the arguments they use? Or is the one you are referencing the one that Bush wouldn't sign off on? Criticisms of that make up a good deal of the fact check article and they are still being pushed by supporters.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Try WWW.fairtax.org

Explains most of it including the "prebate".

I will say this about the FT - rich and poor may buy the same things, but one would think that the rich would buy things that cost more.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

joecct said:
Try WWW.fairtax.org

Explains most of it including the "prebate".

I will say this about the FT - rich and poor may buy the same things, but one would think that the rich would buy things that cost more.
Click to expand...
Yea I'm going to try the website created and maintained to support the movement after I just linked two articles that explain why their "fair" tax isn't fair and won't work.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

geezer said:
He'll face a lot of pressure to retire.
Click to expand...

No he won't. Obama's still in a dead heat with a generic GOP candidate, but there's never a GOP that runs as effective as a generic GOP candidate (RCP average). Obama's still doing quite well considering his few key shortfalls and the sigificant balance of slander.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

joecct said:
Try WWW.fairtax.org

Explains most of it including the "prebate".

I will say this about the FT - rich and poor may buy the same things, but one would think that the rich would buy things that cost more.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, since they spend less as a percentage of their income and would then, in effect, be taxed less. All the prebate does is shift the highest tax burden to the middle class as opposed to the dirt poor (I know, nothing new there). The Buffett Paradox still exists, though; in other words, the ultra rich will still pay an effective tax rate that is lower than than their secretary's.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

unofan said:
Doesn't matter, since they spend less as a percentage of their income and would then, in effect, be taxed less. All the prebate does is shift the highest tax burden to the middle class as opposed to the dirt poor (I know, nothing new there). The Buffett Paradox still exists, though; in other words, the ultra rich will still pay an effective tax rate that is lower than than their secretary's.
Click to expand...
Which is the whole point behind progressive tax brackets. $1000 paid in taxes by someone making $50,000 is far more "costly" than $10,000 paid in taxes by someone making $500,000. There are two ways to face that: a high personal exemption and progressive brackets.

High top marginal rates and a balanced budget amendment are not mutually exclusive. I would like to see the Dems propose that sort of a structure to focus the debate. It's not about cutting or raising taxes. It's about cutting or raising whose taxes. Muddling that point has been a deliberate strategy.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

unofan said:
Doesn't matter, since they spend less as a percentage of their income and would then, in effect, be taxed less. All the prebate does is shift the highest tax burden to the middle class as opposed to the dirt poor (I know, nothing new there). The Buffett Paradox still exists, though; in other words, the ultra rich will still pay an effective tax rate that is lower than than their secretary's.
Click to expand...
Well crap -- of course they do. They make more and are more "successful" than the rest of the pool. If the secretary makes 30,000 and I make 300,000 and she pays 20% in taxes she has $24,000 left. If I pay 40% in taxes, I end up with 180,000. If you tax me at 90%, I still have more money than she has left. This ain't Sweden, folks.

Now, if I understand the fair tax, the secretary pays close to $0 in federal tax with the prebate. Me, because I am "rich", even with the prebate, am going to buy more stuff than she does and will pay federal fair tax. Warren Buffett, because he makes more than everyone on this board combined, will pay even more, unless he's putting his $$ into savings accounts and investments and not spending poop.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Old Pio said:
I was serving as president of the IFC at DU when the SDS asked if they could address us. I said, sure. They announced a "day of rage" or something and said they couldn't be responsible if any private property (fraternity houses, for the dense) was damaged or destroyed. I asked the treasurer how much money was in the contingency fund, and announced that the IFC would cover the expenses of any fraternity wishing to hire armed guards to protect their property. This was all undergraduate chest thumping of course, because if those dudes had come onto anybody's property they would surely have regretted it. But it shows what was going on on campuses all across the country. DU was waaay less radicalized than some. After all, punks set off a bomb at the University of Wisconsin that killed a graduate student.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I once had a sociology prof at MTU claim that there were a number of pro-war demonstrations in Houghton at the time, simply because war = engineering jobs.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

joecct said:
Well crap -- of course they do. They make more and are more "successful" than the rest of the pool. If the secretary makes 30,000 and I make 300,000 and she pays 20% in taxes she has $24,000 left. If I pay 40% in taxes, I end up with 180,000. If you tax me at 90%, I still have more money than she has left. This ain't Sweden, folks.

Now, if I understand the fair tax, the secretary pays close to $0 in federal tax with the prebate. Me, because I am "rich", even with the prebate, am going to buy more stuff than she does and will pay federal fair tax. Warren Buffett, because he makes more than everyone on this board combined, will pay even more, unless he's putting his $$ into savings accounts and investments and not spending poop.
Click to expand...

Dude lives in like a 600K house. I don't think he's a big spender. And I'm pretty sure all he does is put his money back into his investments....if it ain't broke and all. ;)
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

joecct said:
Now, if I understand the fair tax, the secretary pays close to $0 in federal tax with the prebate. Me, because I am "rich", even with the prebate, am going to buy more stuff than she does and will pay federal fair tax. Warren Buffett, because he makes more than everyone on this board combined, will pay even more, unless he's putting his $$ into savings accounts and investments and not spending poop.
Click to expand...

Let's assume, simply for ease of math, the FairTax is 10%.
A person making $15,000 spends all of that in a year. $1500, or 10% of his income, is the sales tax he paid.
A person making $75,000 spends $65,000 in a year. He pays $6500 in taxes, for an effective rate of 8.6%.
A person making $750,000 spends $400,000 in a year. He pays $40,000 in taxes, for an effective rate of 5.3%.

Now say there's a $1500 prebate.
The person making $15,000 now effectively has $16,500 to spend, and he again spends all of it. He's now paid $1650 in taxes, of which $1500 was the gov't prebate and $150 is personal. He now has an effective rate of 1%.
The person making $75,000 ($76,500 with the prebate) has a few more options. He could save the $1500 or spend some or all of it. If he saves it, his tax bill will be $5000 (6.6%). If he spends it all, he'll have a rate of 6.9% (total personal tax bill of $5150). Note that these are still higher percentages than what the person making $750,000 paid even before the prebate.

The point is that the rich can still live a lavish life while not spending as much of their income as the middle class. A bigger prebate still doesn't change the fact that rich people do not have to spend as much simply to live; it simply shifts the burden farther up the middle class. Either way, the sales tax is regressive to the extent the richest will pay a lower effective rate than people below them.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Interesting. I once had a sociology prof at MTU claim that there were a number of pro-war demonstrations in Houghton at the time, simply because war = engineering jobs.
Click to expand...

It was a crazy time. On "Law and Order" there was an episode about a 60's radical discovered as a wealthy Republican living in Scarsdale after decades "underground." They even had William Kuntsler as her lawyer. Jack McCoy tells whatever sweet thing was his assistant at the time that "you had to have been there." Boy, howdy.

Another example: San Francisco State president S. I. Hayakawa ( a hugely controversial figure because he stood up to undergraduate punks) was booked into Mackey auditorium on the CU campus. SDS types acquired seats in the first few rows. Naturally, the idea was to shut Sam up. They wound up ripping the seats off the floor, throwing them on the stage, forcing Sam off stage. At that point, the distinction between SDS types and Hitler's SA had narrowed significantly. This kind of totalitarian behavior was sop on college campuses all across the country, as was the unwillingness of administrators to confront them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top