|
|
On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others.
Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes.
If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that.
But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive.
|
Lol. Maybe argue something equally ridiculous and obnoxious.
"Private property is theft."
Now what?
Also the tax persecution whining:
"How it is justifiable to Not levy taxes to punish the Not successful people to Not fund assundry programs as oligarchs and corporations, some of whom unelected, see fit?"
|
On October 01 2012 23:22 Darknat wrote:
Wow, I never said that taxing was theft. I said excessive taxing is theft.
sorry but that doesn't make your argument any better. Simply put Taxation can NEVER be theft. It can be unfair, it can immoral but it cannot be theft.
You can argue that it might be wrong, you can argue that it might not solve anything, those arguments are political and honestly a matter of opinion. Wether it is theft is a question of fact or definition. In both categories the answer is a definite NO.
Also to make your one liner even worse you included the word excessive laying yourselve wide open to the political debate of what exactly excessive might be, frankly I'd stop digging and come back with a different argument because that one isn't going anywhere.
|
On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive.
It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone.
|
On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone.
Oh, you sure did "get" him.
Note the importance of quotation marks. I suspect that the meaning in which he used them was to imply that you don't think it's a "fair" situation, but that he does.
Using his example, it sure as hell does seem fair to me for the wealthy to have to pay more. A single-mom getting taxed 30% is way, way different than multi-millionaire's having to get smaller boats, and I would absolutely qualify that as fair. If society needs funds to deal with collective issues, it's absolutely fair to take them from those whose quality of life would not be significantly impacted by the loss. Taking 5k from a single-mother making 35k a yeah trying to work and feed two children on her own is a lot worse (and more unfair) than taking 500k from a dude making 3.5 million a year.
Boo-fucking-hoo, make do with your smaller yacht so the single-mother doesn't have to live in a slum, can afford to feed her children good-quality food, and can afford to provide a decent education for them (which is still a fucking stretch on a budget of 35k). The multi-milllionaire still has 3 million a year to enjoy the "good life". Excuse me if I lack sympathy for his predicament relative to the situation faced by the working-poor single mother.
How is this even a question in our society?
Edit: Noticed the tax numbers obviously aren't 30%. The point still holds, though. Feel free to do the math if you want to.
|
On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone.
This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes, since they probably receive the same (or even less) benefit from public works and services than the poor do.
But when you look at it from a pragmatic standpoint, a lot of extra tax revenue can be gained from taxing the rich more than the poor, and if it's done in the right amount won't even impact their bottom line. Does it suck for mega-millionaire X that he is in a higher tax bracket and pays a larger % in taxes than a single mother? I guess it does...except that at the end of the day he is still a mega-millionaire, she is still a single mother, and we get higher tax revenue to help pay back this ridiculous deficit without having to cut essential (keyword) programs.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there are two strands of operative principles here. one is the natural rights approach that i'm sure people are familiar with. the other is the idea that taxation serves a social function by virtue of its consequences. along with the idea that the existing distribution of rewards in a certain situation may not be just or appropriate for welfare. keep in mind, our basic, native ideas of property comes from rather brutish animal instincts, which are not in themselves justified or necessarily desirable. further, the power distribution in society seldomly favors the weak. we have reason to be suspicious of existing distributions.
mixed up in this is how to 'properly' understand taxation in a democratic government. when it comes to how the taxed person understands the tax, there is a drastic difference between someone who 'participates' in the tax, and someone who views it as external to her political life.
the idea here is that, when you see yourself as a participant in society, as not merely someone subject to its rules, but by your actions constitute that very society, then you accepting taxation is a simple matter of understanding it as contributing your share, or in more sophisticated case, performing the duty of resource allocation in society. it can be better seen as an invitation to coordinated activity. sort of like when a bunch of friends are talking about where to go for a picnic. there is no sense of coercion involved. the constitution is written in this sense, that it is a gigantic call for mass participation. there is no internal contradiction with someone who willingly go along with its ideals. the randoid argument about necessary egoism is pierced thoroughly.
however, when you see the entire existing political structure as just a bunch of guys (of whom you are obviously not a part of) who has no right of using the term 'we the people' with you in mind, then it becomes a rather clear cut case of external coercion. see the classic screed by lysander spooner. even so, in this instance, you are still left with the ethical question of whether your rejection of any social duty is right, and whether the tax itself is just.
in the modern world, this question is largely subsumed by various complicated historical turns. but it is still a live question always, as long as the society itself seeks to be rational.
ultimately the question of whether taxation is just is not settled on any question of right or duty objectively speaking. it is a call to participatory governance and the project of society itself. in the rare instance when force is invoked, to my mind always an unfortunate event, the consequence of the tax collection is foremost consideration, followed by giving the guy some option of opting out of the society without severe deprivation of resources. this does not apply to the severin cases though.
|
On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes, since they probably receive the same (or even less) benefit from public works and services than the poor do. But when you look at it from a pragmatic standpoint, a lot of extra tax revenue can be gained from taxing the rich more than the poor, and if it's done in the right amount won't even impact their bottom line. Does it suck for mega-millionaire X that he is in a higher tax bracket and pays a larger % in taxes than a single mother? I guess it does...except that at the end of the day he is still a mega-millionaire, she is still a single mother, and we get higher tax revenue to help pay back this ridiculous deficit without having to cut essential (keyword) programs.
The point I was making was about this quote here:
MR. GIBSON: “And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”
SENATOR OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”
|
On October 02 2012 05:17 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:On September 29 2012 19:26 Defacer wrote:
Edit: It's also an indicator of how much better the DNC speeches were than the RNC's ... which were just ass.
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes, since they probably receive the same (or even less) benefit from public works and services than the poor do. But when you look at it from a pragmatic standpoint, a lot of extra tax revenue can be gained from taxing the rich more than the poor, and if it's done in the right amount won't even impact their bottom line. Does it suck for mega-millionaire X that he is in a higher tax bracket and pays a larger % in taxes than a single mother? I guess it does...except that at the end of the day he is still a mega-millionaire, she is still a single mother, and we get higher tax revenue to help pay back this ridiculous deficit without having to cut essential (keyword) programs. The point I was making was about this quote here: MR. GIBSON: “And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” SENATOR OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”
Well then you have yet to make the point. Like I said, what is fair depends on your perspective and what goals you are trying to accomplish. If you want to go about it on an individual basis, no it is not fair that the wealthy pay more than the poor in taxes. But if you want to look at it as what would benefit the country the most, you are able to tax the wealthy more without infringing on their financial bottom line than you can the poor. That's just a fact. Those hedge fund managers losing an extra couple million per year is like a drop in the bucket, whereas taxing $5,000 more from a single mother working two low-income jobs is crippling.
If you're referring more to the part where tax revenues went up when the rate dropped and vice versa, I would need a little more information than that to form an opinion. Since this is counter-intuitive (at least to me), what caused the revenues to increase when the rate dropped? More people investing?
|
On October 02 2012 05:28 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 05:17 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes, since they probably receive the same (or even less) benefit from public works and services than the poor do. But when you look at it from a pragmatic standpoint, a lot of extra tax revenue can be gained from taxing the rich more than the poor, and if it's done in the right amount won't even impact their bottom line. Does it suck for mega-millionaire X that he is in a higher tax bracket and pays a larger % in taxes than a single mother? I guess it does...except that at the end of the day he is still a mega-millionaire, she is still a single mother, and we get higher tax revenue to help pay back this ridiculous deficit without having to cut essential (keyword) programs. The point I was making was about this quote here: MR. GIBSON: “And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” SENATOR OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.” Well then you have yet to make the point. Like I said, what is fair depends on your perspective and what goals you are trying to accomplish. If you want to go about it on an individual basis, no it is not fair that the wealthy pay more than the poor in taxes. But if you want to look at it as what would benefit the country the most, you are able to tax the wealthy more without infringing on their financial bottom line than you can the poor. That's just a fact. Those hedge fund managers losing an extra couple million per year is like a drop in the bucket, whereas taxing $5,000 more from a single mother working two low-income jobs is crippling. If you're referring more to the part where tax revenues went up when the rate dropped and vice versa, I would need a little more information than that to form an opinion. Since this is counter-intuitive (at least to me), what caused the revenues to increase when the rate dropped? More people investing?
Not an unbiased source, but here's some more information on the Gibson/Obama quote: http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/04/18/gibsons-capital-gains-tax-assertion-during-deba/143267
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 02 2012 05:28 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 05:17 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2012 01:15 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
It is difficult for a party of limited government to give a speech that resonates with a bunch of people who all want something from the government and don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. So, yeah, when Democrats can simply say they are going to give everything to everybody and make the rich 1% pay for it, what's not to like, from the perspective of the Democrat base ? You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes, since they probably receive the same (or even less) benefit from public works and services than the poor do. But when you look at it from a pragmatic standpoint, a lot of extra tax revenue can be gained from taxing the rich more than the poor, and if it's done in the right amount won't even impact their bottom line. Does it suck for mega-millionaire X that he is in a higher tax bracket and pays a larger % in taxes than a single mother? I guess it does...except that at the end of the day he is still a mega-millionaire, she is still a single mother, and we get higher tax revenue to help pay back this ridiculous deficit without having to cut essential (keyword) programs. The point I was making was about this quote here: MR. GIBSON: “And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” SENATOR OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.” If you're referring more to the part where tax revenues went up when the rate dropped and vice versa, I would need a little more information than that to form an opinion. Since this is counter-intuitive (at least to me), what caused the revenues to increase when the rate dropped? More people investing?
One thing you must keep in mind with capital gains taxes is that it's an easily avoidable tax. If people know that the tax rate will drop they will just wait for the tax cut before cashing in. This creates a temporary boost in tax revenue that does not remain very long and revenue will go down over time. Also, companies will have more incentive to pay their CEOs and other top executives in stock option than in dollar income, which increases revenue from capital gains but decreases income tax revenue. Likewise, if it's speculated that tax rates may increase, then that's incentive for investors to sell prior to the boost in the tax rate and causes revenue from the succeeding year to be lower.
The big crux of capital gains taxes is that cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy which leads to massive income equality as we have witnessed this past decade and contributes to the stagnation of wages for the middle/working classes and heavy deficits overall.
You also have to remember that the stock market is dependent on factors outside of the tax rate as well (such as the dot.com boom). All-in-all capital gains is a tricky thing due to the government frequently changing hands between the two polarized parties and speculation plays a big part.
|
On October 02 2012 06:23 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 05:28 ZasZ. wrote:On October 02 2012 05:17 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 04:59 ZasZ. wrote:On October 02 2012 03:07 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 23:48 ZasZ. wrote:On October 01 2012 17:25 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 15:20 -_-Quails wrote:On September 30 2012 09:24 Darknat wrote:On September 30 2012 01:19 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
You know, this IS a democracy. If the majority think that we should raise taxes on the rich (yes even republicans agree on this), then isn't that what we should do? And funnily enough, this isn't what anyone is doing in congress, democrat OR republican. It's almost like it's a corrupt system... The United States was founded on limited government, not on stealing money from the rich just because some Americans have class envy. Tax is not theft, it is the fee paid in order to live in society. Just as you must pay fees levied by the administration of a housing complex you live in, should they choose to levy them in order to provide ongoing maintenance and services, so too must you pay the fees levied by the administration of the nation you live in, that they too may provide ongoing maintenance and services. And just as the administration of a housing complex might vary the fees for occupants in different situations to provide on average the greatest benefit to occupants for the least impact, perhaps charging more for the occupier of a penthouse than a studio, the administrators of a nation might vary the fees they levy according to the situation of each citizen. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a housing complex - proximity to amenities, schools, or places of employment; security systems; doormen and maintenance staff; leisure facilities; inbuilt utilities such as running water, gas, electricity, phone lines; or a comfortable lifestyle - then you can give up that occupancy and find yourself a more compatible place of residence. If you do not want to take advantage of the many benefits of a nation - economic and educational opportunities. including access to schools and employment at sites within that country; police force, armed forces and judicial system to protect you from internal and external threats; emergency services to help out in times of crisis; a healthcare system; an infrastructure system; and distribution systems for food, medicine, clothing, clean water and hundreds of other goods, services and necessities that make modern life possible even in areas far above the local carrying capacity of the land or lacking in key resources - then you are free to drop your citizenship and move to a country that better meets your needs. Otherwise, pay your fees to the administration that offers you a better chance at the lifestyle you want than any other. That is the dumbest comparison I have ever heard of. A housing complex and the U.S. government are NOT comparable in any way. I have never understood why it is considered greed to keep what you have earned, but not considered greed to take from others. Are you completely out of touch with reality? He takes his analogy a bit far, but at it's core a housing complex and the U.S. government are comparable in a lot of ways. It's not greed to want to keep what you have earned, as long as you make sure not to use public schools, public transportation, interstate highways, student loans, etc. etc. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, and there are many areas of the budget where we can trim the fat and get rid of useless bureaucracy, but you really don't see the necessity of taxation? Public works projects and infrastructure cost money, and last I checked running a municipal, state, or federal government rarely rakes in the dollars without taxes. If your issue is with corruption, or your money not going where you want it to go, then it is a whole separate issue. But taxes are a necessary evil. And the concept that the rich should pay a higher percentage than the poor in taxes is not one without any merit. A single mother paying 30% of her income in taxes will find that much more oppressive than a multi-millionaire paying the same percentage...he may just have to scale down the size of his next yacht. I realize this may not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy, but we're trying to pay back a deficit here while maintaining much of the budget, and the poor people definitely can't help with that. But that gets into a whole different tax argument that I understand is controversial. But not wanting to pay any taxes at all is a bit naive. It is funny that you used the word "fair" when you said it might not be "fair" for the ultra-wealthy when Obama himself wants to do exactly what you said isn't fair for reasons of fairness, even if it doesn't actually help anyone. This is a straw-man. "Fairness" means different things when you're talking about different goals. On an individual basis, it isn't fair to make the rich pay more than the poor in taxes, since they probably receive the same (or even less) benefit from public works and services than the poor do. But when you look at it from a pragmatic standpoint, a lot of extra tax revenue can be gained from taxing the rich more than the poor, and if it's done in the right amount won't even impact their bottom line. Does it suck for mega-millionaire X that he is in a higher tax bracket and pays a larger % in taxes than a single mother? I guess it does...except that at the end of the day he is still a mega-millionaire, she is still a single mother, and we get higher tax revenue to help pay back this ridiculous deficit without having to cut essential (keyword) programs. The point I was making was about this quote here: MR. GIBSON: “And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?” SENATOR OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.” If you're referring more to the part where tax revenues went up when the rate dropped and vice versa, I would need a little more information than that to form an opinion. Since this is counter-intuitive (at least to me), what caused the revenues to increase when the rate dropped? More people investing? One thing you must keep in mind with capital gains taxes is that it's an easily avoidable tax. If people know that the tax rate will drop they will just wait for the tax cut before cashing in. This creates a temporary boost in tax revenue that does not remain very long and revenue will go down over time. Also, companies will have more incentive to pay their CEOs and other top executives in stock option than in dollar income, which increases revenue from capital gains but decreases income tax revenue. Likewise, if it's speculated that tax rates may increase, then that's incentive for investors to sell prior to the boost in the tax rate and causes revenue from the succeeding year to be lower. The big crux of capital gains taxes is that cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy which leads to massive income equality as we have witnessed this past decade and contributes to the stagnation of wages for the middle/working classes and heavy deficits overall. You also have to remember that the stock market is dependent on factors outside of the tax rate as well (such as the dot.com boom). All-in-all capital gains is a tricky thing due to the government frequently changing hands between the two polarized parties and speculation plays a big part.
I'm going to add that cap gains can also be avoided in the long-term as well. Companies can finance more through debt than equity (which avoids cap gains) and investors can choose to sit on their shares for a long time. Neither of these outcomes are good for the economy or tax revenues.
|
An issue that is coming up here in Virginia...might not be catching on in the rest of the country as much.
Since there isn't a budget..and with Sequestration...all the mandatory defense cuts happen Jan 2nd.
So...there's a mandatory layoff notice law that requires 60 day notice in advance of mass layoffs. (WARN act http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/warn.cfm )
That is November 2nd to get the notices out.
November 6th is election day.
So there's the potential that many several of thousands of folks here in Virginia will be getting layoff warning letters a couple days before the election.
What's happening now is that if the Defense contractors follow the law...notices have to be sent out before Nov 2nd.
But the Administration is saying as of last Friday or today...that if contractors don't send out notices...that's ok.
|
On October 02 2012 09:29 RCMDVA wrote:An issue that is coming up here in Virginia...might not be catching on in the rest of the country as much. Since there isn't a budget..and with Sequestration...all the mandatory defense cuts happen Jan 2nd. So...there's a mandatory layoff notice law that requires 60 day notice in advance of mass layoffs. (WARN act http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/warn.cfm ) That is November 2nd to get the notices out. November 6th is election day. So there's the potential that many several of thousands of folks here in Virginia will be getting layoff warning letters a couple days before the election. What's happening now is that if the Defense contractors follow the law...notices have to be sent out before Nov 2nd. But the Administration is saying as of last Friday or today...that if contractors don't send out notices...that's ok.
The Labor Department told defense contractors in July they would not have to issue the notices. Then, last week the White House Office of Management and Budget reiterated the guidance. A letter from the Defense Department, as well, appeared to calm the concerns of Lockheed, a leading Pentagon contractor.
Even if lawmakers fail to reach a deal sidestepping the automatic spending cuts, there would be no contract actions on January 2 and funding would probably not be adjusted for several months after that, said Jennifer Allen, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman.
Source
|
On October 02 2012 09:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 09:29 RCMDVA wrote:An issue that is coming up here in Virginia...might not be catching on in the rest of the country as much. Since there isn't a budget..and with Sequestration...all the mandatory defense cuts happen Jan 2nd. So...there's a mandatory layoff notice law that requires 60 day notice in advance of mass layoffs. (WARN act http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/warn.cfm ) That is November 2nd to get the notices out. November 6th is election day. So there's the potential that many several of thousands of folks here in Virginia will be getting layoff warning letters a couple days before the election. What's happening now is that if the Defense contractors follow the law...notices have to be sent out before Nov 2nd. But the Administration is saying as of last Friday or today...that if contractors don't send out notices...that's ok. Show nested quote +The Labor Department told defense contractors in July they would not have to issue the notices. Then, last week the White House Office of Management and Budget reiterated the guidance. A letter from the Defense Department, as well, appeared to calm the concerns of Lockheed, a leading Pentagon contractor.
Even if lawmakers fail to reach a deal sidestepping the automatic spending cuts, there would be no contract actions on January 2 and funding would probably not be adjusted for several months after that, said Jennifer Allen, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman. Source
See the thing is that was the story back in August.
Last Friday or today..the administration changed it. Instead of saying... you don't have to send out notices..they are saying... Well if you get in trouble for not sending out notices...we will reimburse you.
The Office of Management and Budget is now promising to compensate defense contractors for any legal penalties that would stem from violating the WARN Act, a federal law that requires employers to warn employees at least 60 days in advance of mass layoffs. The Obama administration had already been urging contractors to ignore the WARN Act in the case of the looming sequestration cuts, since the 60-day-minimum would mean hundreds of thousands of employees could get notices of pending layoffs just days before the presidential election.
So if they break the law...they will get reimbursed.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259305-omb-tells-contractors-once-again-dont-issue-layoff-notices
|
On October 02 2012 09:58 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 09:53 farvacola wrote:On October 02 2012 09:29 RCMDVA wrote:An issue that is coming up here in Virginia...might not be catching on in the rest of the country as much. Since there isn't a budget..and with Sequestration...all the mandatory defense cuts happen Jan 2nd. So...there's a mandatory layoff notice law that requires 60 day notice in advance of mass layoffs. (WARN act http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/warn.cfm ) That is November 2nd to get the notices out. November 6th is election day. So there's the potential that many several of thousands of folks here in Virginia will be getting layoff warning letters a couple days before the election. What's happening now is that if the Defense contractors follow the law...notices have to be sent out before Nov 2nd. But the Administration is saying as of last Friday or today...that if contractors don't send out notices...that's ok. The Labor Department told defense contractors in July they would not have to issue the notices. Then, last week the White House Office of Management and Budget reiterated the guidance. A letter from the Defense Department, as well, appeared to calm the concerns of Lockheed, a leading Pentagon contractor.
Even if lawmakers fail to reach a deal sidestepping the automatic spending cuts, there would be no contract actions on January 2 and funding would probably not be adjusted for several months after that, said Jennifer Allen, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman. Source See the thing is that was the story back in August. Last Friday or today..the administration changed it. Instead of saying... you don't have to send out notices..they are saying... Well if you get in trouble for not sending out notices...we will reimburse you. Show nested quote +The Office of Management and Budget is now promising to compensate defense contractors for any legal penalties that would stem from violating the WARN Act, a federal law that requires employers to warn employees at least 60 days in advance of mass layoffs. The Obama administration had already been urging contractors to ignore the WARN Act in the case of the looming sequestration cuts, since the 60-day-minimum would mean hundreds of thousands of employees could get notices of pending layoffs just days before the presidential election. So if they break the law...they will get reimbursed.
No, the story I linked was authored today, and if Lockheed Martin won't issue notices, you can damn well expect a great many other companies to follow suit. Clearly they are unafraid enough to make a public gesture. Furthermore, an even more important consideration is the time frame with which cuts are dealt out, and if you think some massive glut of cuts is going to hammer down on a single day, well I've got some real estate to sell you in the Antiguas.
|
There are 3 exemptions to the WARN act. And they aren't actual layoffs. The are layoff warnings. Hence the name (WARN act).
1) a faltering company that is actively seeking capital or business and believes notification would prevent it from obtaining such capital,
2) a natural disaster
3) unforeseeable business circumstances
Labor Department is claiming that Sequestration is #3. In their opinion, it's unforseeable if Congress will or won't pass a budget that may or may not cover paying your defenese contract.
That is bullshit. Really.
And I want a house on Saba Island N.A.
|
The bandwagon jumping begins. This is why the debate is critical for Romney. Amid sagging poll numbers, donors are looking for better ways of spending their money ...
Mitt Romney's campaign may be suffering in more than just the battleground states.
Fox Business' Charlie Gasparino reports that some wealthy donors who have made financial commitments to the Romney campaign are reneging, and instead, opting to send their money to Republican House and Senate candidates who they see as having a better chance of winning next month.
Citing two sources, including "a major player in Romney’s New York fundraising circles," Gasparino notes that some donors are losing faith that the Republican nominee can beat Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/mitt-romney-donors_n_1930269.html
|
On October 02 2012 10:12 RCMDVA wrote:
There are 3 exemptions to the WARN act. And they aren't actual layoffs. The are layoff warnings. Hence the name (WARN act).
1) a faltering company that is actively seeking capital or business and believes notification would prevent it from obtaining such capital,
2) a natural disaster
3) unforeseeable business circumstances
Labor Department is claiming that Sequestration is #3. In their opinion, it's unforseeable if Congress will or won't pass a budget that may or may not cover paying your defenese contract.
That is bullshit. Really.
And I want a house on Saba Island N.A.
From the article I provided,
Even if lawmakers fail to reach a deal sidestepping the automatic spending cuts, there would be no contract actions on January 2 and funding would probably not be adjusted for several months after that, said Jennifer Allen, a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman.
I realize that the WARN act is a requirement of a warning in terms of impending layoffs, what I am saying is that even the date of Jan. 2nd is far too early; these cuts will be negotiated and dealt out over a relatively long period. I mean, come on, Republicans have been spending the past 4(30) years being as obstructive as possible, and now they want to pretend the budgetary process is some sort of unstoppable mechanical chopping mechanism with a perfectly timed blade? Puhleeze.
|
I wonder how much gridlock we are going see this election cycle. From what i am getting i see things staying the same, the dems keeping the presidency and the senate with repu. keeping the house. With obama being reelected it should take some wind out of the party of no but i just dont know. From there attitude is seems like they will let the country burn(well more so then it already is) before they compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
