Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Either that or we'll need a massive influx of young immigrant workers to support the retirees by expanding the payroll tax base.

Is it too late to support death panels for retirees?

It sounds like if we staff death panels with Mexican immigrants* we'll be good for another hundred years or so.

* They already know how to use weapons.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It sounds like if we staff death panels with Mexican immigrants* we'll be good for another hundred years or so.

* They already know how to use weapons.

Just send the retirees to Jaurez for bingo nite, we'll get 100% of the death with less cost and less immigration. Win-win.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'll tell you what, they jack up my taxes by 10% and it would definitely affect my standard of living. That's a few thousand bucks more a year. That's not chump change.

Depending on how you spend your money and whether or not like most of us you didn't get much of an increase the last couple of years because of the economy you've already absorbed that 10% and then some.

 

[SteveP]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

R. Lee Ermey apparently thinks Obama is a Jackwagon!

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pgBVrpI-4Ww&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pgBVrpI-4Ww&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Looks like someone has been exposed to a bit too many chemicals.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Quiet you. The Bush tax cuts were "for the rich."

It was... even by your standards.

Not estate tax cut... it's all for the rich.
Not capital gains tax cut... it's almost all for the rich.
Not the income tax cut... since according to you guys they hardly pay any taxes anyways so it was mostly for the rich.
I guess SSI tax cut of 2% was the only tax cuts for the poor/middle.

So according to the "fair" doctrine we should lower taxes for the wealthy making over $1million/yr and increase it for the poor/middle class because they don't pay enough or gets too much credits/deductions. Great idea, lets take it from the needy and give it to the rich so it'll trickle down.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I was making about $19K and had just shelled out a whopping 22% in taxes, so this was a great boon.

Unless you are counting the matching payroll tax money paid by the employer, you either grossly overpaid or are lying about what you paid. The marginal rate was lowered to 10% for the first $6000 in taxable income, personal exemption was $3000, and the standard deduction was $4700 for the 2002 tax year (source: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=105145,00.html). Here is the rate table for 2002: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--2002.pdf

So, assuming $19,000 in gross income and no deductions or credits, your taxable income would have been $11,300 (I pulled a 1040 off their 2002 form list to double check this). That translates to a federal income tax of a little under $1400 (which is a hair under 7.4% of your total income). Even after factoring in the payroll tax (your end of it, not the employer's matching), your federal tax burden would only have hit 15%.

Again, and to be very clear about this, when I mention percentages paid in taxes, I am talking specifically about the federal income tax. Obviously, everyone who is working is paying payroll taxes that are well above that 3% number I mentioned earlier (7.65% if we want to be specific about the employee contribution). My point is obviously geared toward the fact that while low to middle income people are paying payroll taxes, they generally aren't paying much of anything in income taxes - which means they aren't funding discretionary spending on any substantive basis and are a contributing factor to the budget problems we now face. If we really want to talk fairness, why are we slapping marginal rates approaching 40% on high wage earners (whenever we allow the rates to revert back to the Clinton ones) while people further down the payscale have very little income tax liability? We *all* should be paying into the system, and not just on the OASDI side of things.

I guess this is just par for the course in the current generation - everybody wants someone else to make the sacrifice.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

If we really want to talk fairness, why are we slapping marginal rates approaching 40% on high wage earners (whenever we allow the rates to revert back to the Clinton ones) while people further down the payscale have very little income tax liability? We *all* should be paying into the system, and not just on the OASDI side of things.

I guess this is just par for the course in the current generation - everybody wants someone else to make the sacrifice.

Somehow you equate fairness=equality. Sounds like you guys want sales or VAT tax... where everyone will pay "fair"=equal tax regardless of financial situation.

For income tax it's matter of where discretionary money is at ... AGI (adjusted gross income) - all taxes (income/property/sales etc) - living expenses (shelter, food, medical etc..) = discretionary income that we should tax. Unless we decide to eliminate deductions/credits etc... so everyone can pay their "fair" share.

And why is it fair that people making over $1,000,000/yr pay less total tax than someone making $250,000 with low(0) capital gains. Because they have tons of money to invest (income-expenses= money left to invest) and pay only 15% on 40%+ of AGI.

It's fine to look at "fairness" but you also need to look at "need" "ability to pay" and "discretionary" income in deciding where we want to tax.

Maybe we should bring back "luxury" tax and call it fair, equal tax even though in reality only wealthy who can afford these luxury items will be taxed. Same thing with capital gains tax (cuts)... it's 10% of taxpayers and most (96%) of it is made by upper income ($1millioin/yr) So we'll just relabel this as luxury and bump it from 15% to 25%. or back to 28% or even 35%+.

 

[omahasioux1]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

R. Lee Ermey apparently thinks Obama is a Jackwagon!

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pgBVrpI-4Ww&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pgBVrpI-4Ww&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Hell yeah.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Sounds like you guys want sales or VAT tax... where everyone will pay "fair"=equal tax regardless of financial situation.

That's exactly what I want. Tax the sale of everything and set the rate according to the class of goods purchased/sold. If you want to pay less taxes, buy less crap. Pretty solid lesson in light of everything we've been through over the past few years, don't you think?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's exactly what I want. Tax the sale of everything and set the rate according to the class of goods purchased/sold. If you want to pay less taxes, buy less crap. Pretty solid lesson in light of everything we've been through over the past few years, don't you think?

I guess the problem is during recessions when you need more money for public assistance you get less because spending is down, but (1) same problem with income tax, and (2) nothing stops the government from running a surplus during good times to create a rainy day fund.

VATs make libertarians' heads spin. I dunno whether it's because all taxes are TEH DEVIL or because they find it peculiarly offensive.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

nothing stops the government from running a surplus during good times to create a rainy day fund.

I laughed so hard reading this I almost peed my pants.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

VATs make libertarians' heads spin. I dunno whether it's because all taxes are TEH DEVIL or because they find it peculiarly offensive.

The problem is that when most politicians ponder the idea, it's on top of the taxes we have already. That would be terrible.

Secondly, it doesn't exactly work. From Investor's Business Daily (behind a paywall):

Supposedly a value-added tax is a magic elixir for curing budget deficits and excessive debt. Quack remedy would be more like it. If it worked, you’d observe that countries with a VAT had budget surpluses and no debt problems. But almost every country that has a VAT is plagued with budget deficits and excessive debt. … No surprise that the worst financial basket cases all have a VAT. Iceland has the highest VAT rates, but this didn’t prevent its financial crisis and the near bankruptcy of its government. Italy’s VAT rates are almost as high, and its debt exceeds its GDP. Financial crises are looming in Spain and Portugal, and of course they have a VAT. Greece has a VAT, too, and when politicians ran out of money to pay government employees for more than a year’s worth of work every year, they rioted in the streets. Great Britain has a VAT, and its government finances are in the worst shape since World War II — its budget deficit is expected to be bigger than that of Greece. Moreover, the OECD has acknowledged that “(VAT) tax and transfer wedges have discouraged firms from offering employment and individuals from taking it, reduced employment and increased inequality.”

Now, I'm not exactly sure what leaps he goes on to make. I doubt VAT's cause severe fiscal pain, but they certainly don't alleviate it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I laughed so hard reading this I almost peed my pants.

Well, let's say nothing in principle stops them...

Dramatic structural changes to the economy are neither practical nor, perhaps, even prudent (if you guess wrong, you're screwed) so the question is what are the incremental changes we can tack towards?

Liberal suggestions:

Shift the tax burden higher
Cut military spending
Cut corporate welfare

Conservative suggestions:

Cut everybody's taxes
Cut social spending
Cut government salaries

We could achieve all of these things simultaneously. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Again, and to be very clear about this, when I mention percentages paid in taxes, I am talking specifically about the federal income tax. Obviously, everyone who is working is paying payroll taxes that are well above that 3% number I mentioned earlier (7.65% if we want to be specific about the employee contribution)..

That's wrong.

Someone making ~100,000 per year pays ~6,000 in payroll taxes and their employer pays another ~6,000 to match.
Someone making ~1,000,000 per year pays ~6,000 in payroll taxes and their employer pays another ~6,000 to match.

So, the person making 100,000 per year is paying in 12% and the person making 1,000,000 a year is paying 1.2% per year.

So, if you're rich you're no where near the 3% number. Not even close.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Maybe we should bring back "luxury" tax and call it fair, equal tax even though in reality only wealthy who can afford these luxury items will be taxed. Same thing with capital gains tax (cuts)... it's 10% of taxpayers and most (96%) of it is made by upper income ($1millioin/yr) So we'll just relabel this as luxury and bump it from 15% to 25%. or back to 28% or even 35%+.

After all, it worked so well the last time we tried it...

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's exactly what I want. Tax the sale of everything and set the rate according to the class of goods purchased/sold. If you want to pay less taxes, buy less crap. Pretty solid lesson in light of everything we've been through over the past few years, don't you think?

Yeah, because sales taxes aren't regressive at all. It's not like Joe Schmoe making $35,000/year has to spend 95% of that on living expenses, while Daddy Warbucks making $2,000,000/year can do what he wants, including nothing, with a good 75% of his money.

Joe Schmoe spends 33,000, at a tax rate of 10%, pays 3,300 in taxes, an effective rate of 9.42% (3300/35000).
Daddy Warbucks spends $500,000, paying $50,000 in taxes, an effective rate of 2.5%.

Yeah, that seems really fair to the poor and middle class, making them pay a higher percentage in taxes for actually wanting to live.

Maybe we should bring back "luxury" tax and call it fair, equal tax even though in reality only wealthy who can afford these luxury items will be taxed. Same thing with capital gains tax (cuts)... it's 10% of taxpayers and most (96%) of it is made by upper income ($1millioin/yr) So we'll just relabel this as luxury and bump it from 15% to 25%. or back to 28% or even 35%+.

The luxury tax didn't hurt the wealthy. It hurt the people making luxury goods. The rich people can simply not buy that 100 foot yacht. The yachtmaker suddenly is in a world of hurt, though, when his products stop being bought.

which means they aren't funding discretionary spending on any substantive basis and are a contributing factor to the budget problems we now face. If we really want to talk fairness, why are we slapping marginal rates approaching 40% on high wage earners (whenever we allow the rates to revert back to the Clinton ones) while people further down the payscale have very little income tax liability?

Because poor people have to spend more just to live. When you're spending every penny on food, clothing, shelter, and transportation, it's not fair (as far as society is concerned presently) to be taxed as highly as someone who has far more discretionary income.

Very, very few economists would argue against a progressive tax structure, and those that do argue against it are likely paid handsomely by their benefactors.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Courtesy of Gawker, and for no other reason than there's no appropriate place for this and, what the hey, the winner of the Best Actual Non-Joke Headline Contest for 2010.

(The article somehow even improves on it.)

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Liberal suggestions:

Shift the tax burden higher
Cut military spending
Cut corporate welfare

Conservative suggestions:

Cut everybody's taxes
Cut social spending
Cut government salaries

We could achieve all of these things simultaneously. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

That is to say if we had little debt. Today we can afford to do all simultaniously...except in all likelihood cut taxes.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That is to say if we had little debt. Today we can afford to do all simultaniously...except in all likelihood cut taxes.

We could theoretically cut taxes if we cut spending enough. For example, halve the military budget and cut the payroll tax 1%.