"Fair Share"?

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Unless you are deliberately trying to avoid admitting the bleeding obvious. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Hmmmm, YA THINK!?! Of course, the Teawipe Parrotriots may differ with you. It screws up their cutting'n'pasting.

But I, for the life of me, can't figure out what it's supposed to be. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

That's because you are one, genuine and ignorant Kool Aid sucking sot, Randy4Andy! When did cell phones and wireless internet connection become "necesssities" to be subsidized by other taxpayers, Randy4Andy? The leftie-loony's definition of "needy" is out of wack, and that is documeted in the study cited above, Randy4Andy. The article documents that the vast majority of your "needy" that are receiving state assistance have clothing, shelter and more than enough food and health care to survive, and further that many have the "luxury" of owning multiple TVs, multiple DVDs, multiple cars, cablevision, and a few have jacuzzis!?! It's obvious extant social programs have enabled these so-called "needy" individuals to own jacuzzis, pay the notes on and insurance for multipe cars, pay for multiple TVs with cable TV service, and the state is now giving them phones and internet service so your continued demand for more taxpayer money is ridiculous!

No, they don't - at least not in the same numbers as in Europe. We are talking about AVERAGES here, not individual cases. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, no, we're talking very broad generalities here. At least you are. You've really offered nothing beyond "because i said so". Hell, you haven't even backed up the original claim, that they're unemployment rates are worse than ours.

Talking about what SOME people can do is irrelevant.

Exactly. And saying "some countries" do such and such and "some countries" have a higher UE rate than the US, and "some countries" blah blah blah means nothing.

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Unless you are deliberately trying to avoid admitting the bleeding obvious.

And one more thing - if someone isn't counted as unemployed in Europe, it's because they're ok and don't have to work. So they're not counted as unemployed because they're not unemployed. How is that a bad thing?

Actually, no, we're talking very broad generalities here. At least you are. You've really offered nothing beyond "because i said so". Hell, you haven't even backed up the original claim, that they're unemployment rates are worse than ours. Originally Posted by Doove

Did you not look at any of the links posted above?

We are at 7.9%. Spain 25.8%+, Greece 25.4%+, France 10.2%, Italy 10.2%.

Britain is about the same as US - 7.8%

Germany is the ONLY major European nation that is lower than us at 5.4%

And like I said ALL of those countries would have higher numbers if their retirement ages where the same as ours.

Exactly. And saying "some countries" do such and such and "some countries" have a higher UE rate than the US, and "some countries" blah blah blah means nothing. Originally Posted by Doove

See above. Those are all the big economies. And they suck, by and large, with the exception of Germany, whose real numbers closer to ours.

And one more thing - if someone isn't counted as unemployed in Europe, it's because they're ok and don't have to work. So they're not counted as unemployed because they're not unemployed. How is that a bad thing? Originally Posted by Doove

Now you're changing the subject.

We are talking about the REAL unemployment rates and how higher taxes don't bring about higher employment rates. That's how we got here, remember?

The point is not that they are "OK" in Europe when they are 58 and can't find work. Even in the US the 58 year old guy whose company shuts down can still get welfare or other public assistance.

However, in the US, he will be counted as unemployed. In Europe, he just applies for retirement benefits and is removed from the unemployment roles.

So, in sum, the Europeans can have a larger percentage of their population NOT employed and yet their unemployment numbers will look comparatively better than the US unemployment numbers would if the same percentage of the US population was not working.

It is interesting that no matter HOW many times Chica Chaser asked the question, NOT A SINGLE PROGRESSIVE has yet put down a number. That says a lot. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, it certainly does. Chica Chaser, ExNYer, and I all offered opinions regarding what we think would be a fair top-bracket rate, presumably one that would not create distortions and disincentives sufficient to inhibit investment and capital formation to an unacceptable degree.

I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question even more thoroughly than you did, if truth be told... Originally Posted by Doove

You did no such thing. You merely offered vague generalities and a declaration that the "rich" should pay "more." How much more? Do you think a 40% or 45% top rate is enough, or would you prefer that we go beyond that? You said that no one knows what the revenue-maximizing rate is, which is true. But what is your opinion? What, in your view, is fair?

And what about capital gains and qualified dividends?

I don't think any discussion of taxation is complete without addressing the capital gains tax rate, which is expected to rise to 23.8% next year. It's my view that any semblance of an appearance to try to balance revenue maximization and distortion avoidance would be thrown out the window by attempting to push the rate much higher than that.

If anyone disagrees, please let us know what you think the rate should be.

And what about capital gains and qualified dividends?

I don't think any discussion of taxation is complete without addressing the capital gains tax rate, which is expected to rise to 23.8% next year. It's my view that any semblance of an appearance to try to balance revenue maximization and distortion avoidance would be thrown out the window by attempting to push the rate much higher than that.

If anyone disagrees, please let us know what you think the rate should be. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Here is a rather balanced article on that very question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-..._b_932625.html

So i am curious does anyone think these DC money addicts will ever slow down spending ? I know you libs want to keep taking OPM for the greater good but please acknowledge when do they need to quit giving our money away and wasting it on all kinds of crazy bullshit.
Gentleman its your money too, dont any of you ever get freaked out about how they piss it away.
Sometimes it seems smarter to just throw it in a bar-ditch.
So am i wrong, do all you left wingers think the Govt is always right?
I would appreciate an answer ! Not alot of name calling.

Here is a rather balanced article on that very question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-..._b_932625.html Originally Posted by WTF

Sorry, but that lands well short of being classifiable as a "balanced article." The author is far-left "economist" Jared Bernstein, who in fact has multiple graduate degrees in "social work", and as far as I know has no formal training in mathematics, or even economics. He can reliably be counted on to offer the viewpoint of the very most progressive end of the political spectrum.

Be that as it may, I'll try to offer some substance and tell you just a few points I would make if I were to sit down at a table and debate this issue with Mr. Bernstein.

We have experience based on many decades during which politicians have moved the capital gains tax rate up and down. For a long period prior to the 1970s, the rate was held steady at 25%, even though the top rate on ordinary income was as high as 91%. (Although as was previously noted, hardly anyone paid tax at a rate more than a fraction of that.)

In the post-Watergate days, Democrats strengthened their hand in congress and pushed for a more liberal agenda, including increased taxes on the wealthy. But since the top rate on ordinary income was already extremely high, they concentrated on the capital gains rate, elevating it to about 39%. Analysts and financial reporters began noticing that didn't work very well, and revenues dropped substantially relative to what they had been under the 25% rate. An apparently surprised Democratic congressional majority then created and passed legislation reducing the cap gains rate to 28%, and the president signed it. You might note that it was Carter, not Reagan, who signed the legislation. Revenues increased dramatically in the years that followed, even though the equity markets sucked through the whole period (reaching new lows in 1982).

On several more occasions, revenues increased after rate cuts, and vice versa. Of course, correlation does does necessarily imply causation, and there are always multiple things going on in an economy at any given time. But I think the argument that you can push the rate to a very high level (such as 39%) without causing serious distortions is highly questionable, at best.

I also think that plotting the top cap gains rate against net real business investment misses much of the point. Initially investing is one thing. Harvesting gains in the most advantageous way with respect to all factors (including taxation) is another. When capital gains tax rates are high, investors naturally seek to lower their tax burdens. If you can match a gain with the sale of something in which you have an unrealized loss in the same tax year, you will be incentivized to try to do so. Additionally, when rates are high you may simply borrow against an appreciating asset rather than sell it. This is usually pretty easy for wealthy investors to do, and you can hedge against potential losses in a variety of ways.

You must also consider something we refer to as "lock-in effect." When capital is "locked in" to an asset or asset class by rates high enough that they reduce incentives to sell, capital may fail to flow to its highest and best use, and therefore the real economy may suffer. Reasonable people may differ on opinions of the rate threshold beyond which this becomes a potential issue, but no one familiar with the dynamics of taxation is likely to argue that it is not a factor.

Although it is very difficult to estimate the revenue-maximizing, non-distorting top tax rate on capital gains, history is clear on the fact that there is a powerful inverse correlation between the top cap gains tax rate and net capital gains realizations.

Although it is very difficult to estimate the revenue-maximizing, . Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well on that we agree, which make the orginial question somewhat moot.

Just what is fair?

Is it fair that you pay for what you buy? If so, we the taxpayers have not been fair for buying services and not paying for them. I seem to recall that the GOP had control of both Houses and the WH for six years, just as you pointed out that the Dem's had complete control for two years. So for the last 12 years both parties have had complete control for 8 of them and not done a damn thing , yet each blames the other side for not doing anything. I would ask, Is that really fair?

You did no such thing. You merely offered vague generalities and a declaration that the "rich" should pay "more." How much more? Do you think a 40% or 45% top rate is enough, or would you prefer that we go beyond that? You said that no one knows what the revenue-maximizing rate is, which is true. But what is your opinion? What, in your view, is fair? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You need to learn to read. Just because i didn't pull a random number outa my ass doesn't mean i didn't answer the question.

And i'm still waiting for chica chaser (or you, or exnyer, or whomever) to answer my question about the exact number in dollars that they think the budget should be for all the social programs.

And how about defense? Give me a number.

That's because you are one, genuine and ignorant Kool Aid sucking sot, Randy4Andy! When did cell phones and wireless internet connection become "necesssities" to be subsidized by other taxpayers, Randy4Andy? When it's the only phone they have. Do you really believe that the poor in the past didn't have land lines? Of course, those services were already subsidized by a monopoly (AT&T aka The Bell System). Are we talking top of the line smart phones with s $200/mo data plan? The leftie-loony's definition of "needy" is out of wack, and that is documeted in the study cited above, Randy4Andy. The study does not address the means of acquisition of ANY of the "luxuries" shown in the study. It also falsely implies that they were all bought new. It also does not address the age of any of the "luxuries." The article documents that the vast majority of your "needy" that are receiving state assistance have clothing, shelter and more than enough food and health care to survive, and further that many have the "luxury" of owning multiple TVs, multiple DVDs, multiple cars, cablevision, and a few have jacuzzis!?! See above, you ignorant slut. Also, several of the categories are subtle duplications of other categories. This is fatuous padding to make the list look larger than it really is. It's obvious extant social programs have enabled these so-called "needy" individuals to own jacuzzis (your graph shows maybe 1% but it could be a lot less), pay the notes on and insurance for multipe cars (you think they own "Welfare Cadillacs" and are carrying insurance longer than it takes to get a tag?), pay for multiple TVs with cable TV service (yeah, bonehead, some equals ALL), and the state is now giving them phones and internet service so your continued demand for more taxpayer money is ridiculous! Hmmmm, If you mean by "demanding more taxpayer money" that I'm in favor of those who have been benefitting from corporate welfare who have had their incomes dramatically spike and their tax rates fall, both through artificial, non-market driven means pay more taxes, then you're right about my "demands." Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There is the "data" of the "study" and then there are the conclusions YOU and other Teawipe Parrotriots draw from that data. Your assumption is that all of the things are all bright, shiny and new items fresh off of the showroom floor. And, absolutely ALL of what they own was obtained with assistance money. You really are ate up with the dumbass if you think anyone who has the capacity to think buys into your b.s. I guess that you don't know any poor people. Also, there is still quite a number of people who were productive and employed prior to the current recession included in the data. How did they transition from one situation to another?

Now, having said all of that and being an adult in the real world, I understand that there is some fraud on receipients' parts as well as poor administration of these programs. However, these facts do not lead me to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also know that things such as the current Hostess bankruptcy and the gross mismanagement of that company by the crew of venture "capitalists" doesn't exactly make any "how to run a business" list. Looks like fraud and mismanagement isn't completely a government problem, is it? Soon there will be 18K people receiving government assistance, some for a little while, older and less skilled ones for a lot longer. Now, according to your study, anything that these people own and paid for when they were working now goes on the list of your study. The data of the study may be accurate, but your conclusions definitely are not.

As long as you and your other Teawipe Parrotriots insist on coming at issues with hysterical, Chicken Little, hair-on-fire "outrage," any reasonable discussion is out of the question because none of you are interested in any of that. All you want to do is employ grade skool scare tactics and paint everything with as broad of a bursh as possible. That's much easier and allows you to cut'n'paste.

When it's the only phone they have. Do you really believe that the poor in the past didn't have land lines? Of course, those services were already subsidized by a monopoly (AT&T aka The Bell System). Are we talking top of the line smart phones with s $200/mo data plan? Randy4Andy, you babbled quite a bit, but you never showed where the government paid for land line service in the past; so, you're trying to equate apples with oranges.

The study does not address the means of acquisition of ANY of the "luxuries" shown in the study. It also falsely implies that they were all bought new. It also does not address the age of any of the "luxuries." Cable vision, cell phone and Internet service are bills that are paid monthly, you ignoramus, and these services are above and beyond basic needs.

See above, you ignorant slut. Also, several of the categories are subtle duplications of other categories. This is fatuous padding to make the list look larger than it really is. How so? It’s notable you passed on addressing such duplications in detail. Discussing whether your “needy” have one TV or multiple TVs, etc., is not fatuous padding.

(your graph shows maybe 1% but it could be a lot less) . . . but it’s still tens of thousands.

(you think they own "Welfare Cadillacs" and are carrying insurance longer than it takes to get a tag?) . . . and you KNOW they drop their insurance when they get their tags, how? Furthermore, taxpayers are also burdened with taxes to pay for mass transit for the poor in larger cities: double jeopardy.

(yeah, bonehead, some equals ALL) WTF?

Hmmmm, If you mean by "demanding more taxpayer money" that I'm in favor of those who have been benefitting from corporate welfare who have had their incomes dramatically spike and their tax rates fall, both through artificial, non-market driven means pay more taxes, then you're right about my "demands." . . . and exactly how does your proposed solution discriminate between those YOU think deserve to be taxed more and those who earned their income in other ways?


There is the "data" of the "study" and then there are the conclusions YOU and other Teawipe Parrotriots draw from that data. Your assumption is that all of the things are all bright, shiny and new items fresh off of the showroom floor. And, absolutely ALL of what they own was obtained with assistance money. Every item YOU own, Randy4Andy, became “used” the moment you walked out the door with the item. So you argument is inane. You really are ate up with the dumbass if you think anyone who has the capacity to think buys into your b.s. I guess that you don't know any poor people. I’ve seen real poverty where people live in huts with dirt floors or they live in ramshackle tin structures in vacant lots – they don’t have cell phones and Internet service; so STFU, you fatuous jackass.
Also, there is still quite a number of people who were productive and employed prior to the current recession included in the data. How did they transition from one situation to another? No, you are quite wrong, you fatuous jackass. The data is from 2005.

Now, having said all of that and being an adult in the real world, I understand that there is some fraud on receipients' parts as well as poor administration of these programs. However, these facts do not lead me to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. . . . yet the obverse is true. You are, in fact, throwing out the baby with the bathwater when you keep throwing money at ineffective and poorly administered programs.
I also know that things such as the current Hostess bankruptcy and the gross mismanagement of that company by the crew of venture "capitalists" doesn't exactly make any "how to run a business" list. Looks like fraud and mismanagement isn't completely a government problem, is it?
Soon there will be 18K people receiving government assistance, some for a little while, older and less skilled ones for a lot longer. Now, according to your study, anything that these people own and paid for when they were working now goes on the list of your study. The data of the study may be accurate, but your conclusions definitely are not. It’s a funny thing how you use Hostess as an example of “fraud and mismanagement”. Hostess is suffering the consequences of failure; it’s going out of business. Meanwhile, the government persists in spite of failure, and you yahoos on the left just expect the taxpayers to pony-up and pay more in taxes and continue on without adjustment.

As long as you and your other Teawipe Parrotriots insist on coming at issues with hysterical, Chicken Little, hair-on-fire "outrage," any reasonable discussion is out of the question because none of you are interested in any of that. All you want to do is employ grade skool scare tactics and paint everything with as broad of a bursh as possible. That's much easier and allows you to cut'n'paste. The “cut and paste” article was a substantive study, unlike your remarks.
Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

.

If we ever needed further evidence of how full of sh*t you are, we don't need it now. You just want to toss inane statements and figures out and try to pass them off as legitimate. I know that you don't have what it takes to go below the surface of anything. I just wanted you to make it clear to anyone who hasn't already caught on.

If we ever needed further evidence of how full of sh*t you are, we don't need it now. You just want to toss inane statements and figures out and try to pass them off as legitimate. I know that you don't have what it takes to go below the surface of anything. I just wanted you to make it clear to anyone who hasn't already caught on. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

I wouldn't expect anything different from I B, our resident Log Cabin Republican!

Is it fair that we have taken from the SS and Medicare Surplus to pay for Defense and then not ask folks whose wealth has increased X-fold to not pay more?

Is it fair to try and pin Defense spending to GDP and then cry about Obama doubling the national debt, just like Reagan?

What I do not think is fair, is for us to spend beyond our means, I also do not think it fair that while we have cut the tax rate at the Federal level over the last thirty years (A progressive tax) we have increased it at the state and local level (regressive taxes). That along with globalization (cheap labor) has given rise to this huge income diaparity in this country.

One sides reply has been this stupid Ayn Rand cry about doers and takers. The takers have been the very wealthy who have their income taxed at a much lower level than the working man and have spent that working mans SS savings and is now wanting the working man to pay more.

Why is it when you ''cut taxes at all cost'' folks cry about the rich paying to high a rate and the poor not enough? Why is that. If cutting taxes are so good, why do you bitch about the poor paying no Fed taxes? You should celebrate your idiotic principal. Yet you bitch.