Bush Enrapturement Syndrome

[Lex Luthor]

By just about any measure, our country is much worse off now than it was before President Bush took office seven years ago. Inflation is higher. Interest rates are higher. Unemployment is higher. There is a crisis in the home mortgage industry, and the federal budget deficit is completely out of control.

We unilaterally invaded another country for the first time in our history. We've squandered over five hundred billion dollars and thousands of lives on a war that was ill-conceived to begin with and poorly executed. Al-Qaeda is thriving in Iraq like never before, the Islamic zealots over there hate us like never before, and Osama bin Laden is still at large, seven years later.

There is one thing that people can point to as a positive: income tax rates are lower. I must admit that I enjoy paying a few bucks less each year in taxes (or even a few thousand bucks) just as much as the next guy. But at what cost? The lower tax rates we enjoy will be little consolation if the entire economy goes down the toilet because of the bad decisions that have been made by this administration.

Bush apologists dismiss all valid criticisms of their leader with the catchy slogan "You're just suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome".

Charles Krauthammer struck gold when he coined the phrase in this column (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2003/12/05/bush_derangement_syndrome) in 2003.

He defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush". With the invention of that simple term, Krauthammer made it possible for Bush to become the modern Teflon President. No criticism would stick to him, because his supporters could easily and effortlessly respond with the simple Bush Derangement Syndrome defense whenever they were confronted with an argument that they could not refute.

Sometimes reason fails, and sometimes logical arguments are swept away. When that happens, the only one thing a reasonable person can do is this: fight fire with fire.

From now on, whenever I am speaking with someone who is a staunch defender of George W. Bush and his failed policies, I will respond with this simple slogan: You are suffering from Bush Enrapturement Syndrome.

Bush Enrapturement Syndrome can be defined as the acute onset of euphoria in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

People generally become afflicted with Bush Enrapturement Syndrome if the lowering of income taxes is the only issue that they really care about. These otherwise intelligent and sensible people are seduced by candidates who promise to cut their taxes. George W. Bush may be a failure at most of the things he attempts to do, but he is a master at promising tax cuts and delivering them. For that reason, the prospects for finding a permanent cure for Bush Enrapturement Syndrome are dismal.

[WildCat]

We unilaterally invaded another country for the first time in our history.
Just out of curiosity, who were our allies in the Mexican War? The Spanish-American War? The Barbary Wars? Panama? Grenada?

[JoeEllison]

Just think... there are people who consider all tax cuts to be "conservative" and all tax increases to be "liberal." When facing that sort of stupidity/mental defect, what can we as sane people do to counteract the madness?

[davefoc]

Just think... there are people who consider all tax cuts to be "conservative" and all tax increases to be "liberal." When facing that sort of stupidity/mental defect, what can we as sane people do to counteract the madness?

Very little I suspect.

Part of standard Democratic fire-up-the-base rhetoric is "raise taxes on rich people". I am not sure what the limit is. At one point rich people tax rates exceeded 90%. This was so far above the tax recovery maximization point that it was very easy to raise net government income by lowering tax rates. But is there some point that the left wing Democratic base would be satisfied with rich people tax rates that they would agree that they're high enough. Obviously the moderate contingent of the Democratic Party would have no problems with the concept but when you're running in a Democratic primary I don't think you want to be the first guy to say that rich people taxes are high enough no matter what they are.

On the other side, the situation is mired in hypocrisy. In order to appeal to one segment of the Republican base it is necessary to constantly claim that tax rates are too high. Unfortunately, the actual people that make up the Republican leadership are corrupt hyper spenders without any regard to the fiscal responsibility that allows tax rates to be low in the long term. So their strategy is to make as much money as possible for crony corporations while the getting is good and rely on some future administration composed of responsible adults to sort it all out. And to cover up the hypocrisy as long as possible by accusing the evil Democrats of being out of control spenders.

So, I expect peace in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict before I ever to expect to hear an honest discussion of spending and taxation from the leaders of either party. (And I don't expect peace in my life time for the Palestinians and the Israelis).

[JoeEllison]

So, I expect peace in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict before I ever to expect to hear an honest discussion of spending and taxation from the leaders of either party. (And I don't expect peace in my life time for the Palestinians and the Israelis).

Well...

Honest discussion seems impossible these days. It might be possible to frame the issue as a closing of loopholes for the ultra wealthy or other honest ways , but the same ultra wealthy control most of the framing outlets. I can't imagine an honest discussion in which massive deficits and tax cuts for the already-wealthy would qualify as "conservative", and a "pay as you go" tax increase would be attacked as "liberal"... but I have a high IQ and a reality-based worldview. :cool:

[davefoc]

Well...

Honest discussion seems impossible these days. It might be possible to frame the issue as a closing of loopholes for the ultra wealthy or other honest ways , but the same ultra wealthy control most of the framing outlets. I can't imagine an honest discussion in which massive deficits and tax cuts for the already-wealthy would qualify as "conservative", and a "pay as you go" tax increase would be attacked as "liberal"... but I have a high IQ and a reality-based worldview. :cool:

I don't know what the maximum tax recovery rates for rich people are but I am pretty sure that we are somewhat near them now.

Many people tend to think of income tax as something that can be implemented in simple repeatable ways so that people just end up paying more when tax rates go up. This is true for most people that draw a readily traceable salary. For millions of self employed and wealthy people this is just not the case. It is very possible to manipulate the amount of taxes paid with cheating, marginally legal tax dodges and just plain old making less money because the reward for increased salary is so low that it just isn't worth the effort. And as tax rates go up tax cheating and dodging go up also.

So it might feel good to rant about the rich people not paying their fair share, the fact is that increasing taxes on rich people probably won't produce more income and it may discourage entrepreneurship and job creation even if the government does pick up a few more dollars here and there. That's not to say that closing some rich people tax loopholes here and there might not be a good idea, but what in particular are the ones that should be closed?

I can think of a few areas where spending could be reduced with little or no reduction in benefits to the average citizen that would preclude the need for tax rate increases:
1. Agricultural subsidies. This is a national scandal. Efforts were in place to reduce agricultural subsidies but thanks to the Bush administration the US is now full tilt to have the highest agricultural subsidies of all time.
2. Ethanol from corn. This is a program without any benefit to the average American. Phase out all ethanol subsidies as quickly as possible.
3. Military. This is low hanging fruit when it comes to reducing spending. Americans spend more on military spending than all other countries combined. Don't do that.
4. Corrupt Medical plans. One can debate the benefits and problems with socialized medicine but the Medicare drug plan is so dripping with corruption that even long time socialized medicine advocates like Ted Kennedy wouldn't vote for it. Fix it.

[JoeEllison]

davefoc,

No offense, but you don't seem to be aware of a basic truth of taxes: the ultra rich pay a lower percentage than anyone else in this country. And, frankly, the idea that a billionaire would stop doing what he does because he might only make $900 million instead of an even billion this year? Really? Are you that nuts, or is that billionaire?

[davefoc]

davefoc,

No offense, but you don't seem to be aware of a basic truth of taxes: the ultra rich pay a lower percentage than anyone else in this country. And, frankly, the idea that a billionaire would stop doing what he does because he might only make $900 million instead of an even billion this year? Really? Are you that nuts, or is that billionaire?

Absolutely no offense taken.

Is your statistic partially skewed because rich people buy tax free bonds? If that is true, does your statistic misrepresent the situation since in one sense the ultra rich are just deferring one kind of tax for another.

There is another issue that might be in your statistic. Income taxes don't apply to capital assets so one issue might be that some ultrarich have relatively little income if they choose to have much of their wealth in large capital assets in the form of cars, houses, boats, land, etc. or even commercial property that they choose not to exploit for maximum dollar return.

As to your question about the billionaire making choices based on tax rates. I am sure they do. Government income from one of the most straight forward taxes, the capital gains tax, is highly dependent on rate. Make the capital gains tax too high and people just don't sell stuff or they come up with sham ways of transferring capital to avoid the tax. So raise the capital gains tax and the rate of capital transfer can be slowed down to the point that less money is taken in by the government then it was before the tax increase.

It might seem like a simple thing to raise government income by taxing rich people but the ramifications are anything but. Lots of rich people are entrepreneurs whose businesses depend on their ability to reinvest profits to purchase new equipment. When money is taken from people like that they buy less equipment, their businesses are less successful and the people they employ make less money. And when the employees of those businesses make less money the government loses tax revenue from them.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Just out of curiosity, who were our allies in the Mexican War? The Spanish-American War? The Barbary Wars? Panama? Grenada?

Um, those weren't unilateral. We had God on our side telling us that it was our territory, duh.

[JoeEllison]

Absolutely no offense taken. That's good, because I rather agree with you in general.

Is your statistic partially skewed because rich people buy tax free bonds? If that is true, does your statistic misrepresent the situation since in one sense the ultra rich are just deferring one kind of tax for another.

There is another issue that might be in your statistic. Income taxes don't apply to capital assets so one issue might be that some ultrarich have relatively little income if they choose to have much of their wealth in large capital assets in the form of cars, houses, boats, land, etc. or even commercial property that they choose not to exploit for maximum dollar return.

As to your question about the billionaire making choices based on tax rates. I am sure they do. Government income from one of the most straight forward taxes, the capital gains tax, is highly dependent on rate. Make the capital gains tax too high and people just don't sell stuff or they come up with sham ways of transferring capital to avoid the tax. So raise the capital gains tax and the rate of capital transfer can be slowed down to the point that less money is taken in by the government then it was before the tax increase.

It might seem like a simple thing to raise government income by taxing rich people but the ramifications are anything but. Lots of rich people are entrepreneurs whose businesses depend on their ability to reinvest profits to purchase new equipment. When money is taken from people like that they buy less equipment, their businesses are less successful and the people they employ make less money. And when the employees of those businesses make less money the government loses tax revenue from them. All of that factors into my viewpoint. Someone in the top 1% doesn't pay "income taxes" to a significant degree. They pay capital gains taxes(maybe) or other taxes that never come close to approaching the top income tax rate. Plus, because most taxes are capped, that same 1% at the top simply never has to consider most of the taxes that the rest of us deal with.

And, since real taxes never touch the wealthiest few to a significant degree, there is no logical reason that taxing them at a higher rate should reasonably affect them, or their contribution to society. If that were true, it would also be simple to manipulate them so that their contribution would be cheaper than the alternative.

[davefoc]

Joe Ellison,
I think you and I are arguing qualitatively about a quantitative subject.

I don't know that the benefits of a rich people tax increase wouldn't outweigh the harm done by one. If I was even going to begin to make an objective determination for myself of that I would need to have a better understanding of the underlying numbers.

I generally believe in the notion of a progressive tax rate (although I would probably eliminate the income tax altogether if somebody puts me in charge). But right now the marginal tax rate for rich people is someplace around 50% when you include in state taxes. I believe that this is somewhere near the rate that even rich people are willing to start significant cheating to reduce their tax burden. And they are certainly willing to engage in all sorts of tax avoidance strategies at that rate. My strong suspicion (without any quantitative evidence to back it up) is that marginal income tax rates above 50% are in net harmful for many reasons.

Capital gains tax rates designed to maximize government revenues can't be anywhere near that high before government revenues are reduced because as I noted above people just don't sell stuff to avoid paying taxes when the taxes get too high. So raising capital gains taxes even on the ultrarich is likely not to increase government revenues.

Although it is part of the Democratic manifesto these days that rich people don't pay enough taxes, raising rich people's taxes is (IMHO of course) very unlikely to make a tiny dent in the problems facing the US right now. But if there are some unfair loopholes floating around that rich people use to avoid paying their share then I hope that they get closed.

I'm also not real keen on reducing inheritance taxes. There seem to be some pretty big loopholes floating around in that area that I wouldn't mind seeing closed. At least when a person dies it seems reasonable to me that the government should be able to collect a reasonable tax on the capital he passes on to his heirs.

[JoeEllison]

Joe Ellison,
I think you and I are arguing qualitatively about a quantitative subject.

I don't know that the benefits of a rich people tax increase wouldn't outweigh the harm done by one. If I was even going to begin to make an objective determination for myself of that I would need to have a better understanding of the underlying numbers.

I generally believe in the notion of a progressive tax rate (although I would probably eliminate the income tax altogether if somebody puts me in charge). But right now the marginal tax rate for rich people is someplace around 50% when you include in state taxes. I believe that this is somewhere near the rate that even rich people are willing to start significant cheating to reduce their tax burden. And they are certainly willing to engage in all sorts of tax avoidance strategies at that rate. My strong suspicion (without any quantitative evidence to back it up) is that marginal income tax rates above 50% are in net harmful for many reasons.

Capital gains tax rates designed to maximize government revenues can't be anywhere near that high before government revenues are reduced because as I noted above people just don't sell stuff to avoid paying taxes when the taxes get too high. So raising capital gains taxes even on the ultrarich is likely not to increase government revenues.

Although it is part of the Democratic manifesto these days that rich people don't pay enough taxes, raising rich people's taxes is (IMHO of course) very unlikely to make a tiny dent in the problems facing the US right now. But if there are some unfair loopholes floating around that rich people use to avoid paying their share then I hope that they get closed.

I'm also not real keen on reducing inheritance taxes. There seem to be some pretty big loopholes floating around in that area that I wouldn't mind seeing closed. At least when a person dies it seems reasonable to me that the government should be able to collect a reasonable tax on the capital he passes on to his heirs.

I think you missed my main point: you can set the income tax rate at 50%, 70%, or 110%, and it doesn't matter if the bulk of a person's wealth doesn't fall under that particular tax.

[davefoc]

I think you missed my main point: you can set the income tax rate at 50%, 70%, or 110%, and it doesn't matter if the bulk of a person's wealth doesn't fall under that particular tax.

Perhaps I have. What tax rates on the ultrarich do you think should be raised? I was only thinking of capital gains and income taxes and my point was that raising the highest marginal rates for either of them would probably not result in much more if any federal income.

Are you arguing for the end of tax free bonds (seems like a good idea to me) or a tax on wealth? What do you want to change so the rich people pay more taxes?

[Mycroft]

By just about any measure, our country is much worse off now than it was before President Bush took office seven years ago.

I certainly agree there.

I personally really dislike Bush and believe he's the worst President of my lifetime. Even though I state this opinion fairly often, I've been sometimes called a Bush apologist simply for not agreeing with every criticism of Bush.

Bush apologists dismiss all valid criticisms of their leader with the catchy slogan "You're just suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome".

That's way too broad a brush. Nobody does anything all the time.

Charles Krauthammer struck gold when he coined the phrase in this column (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2003/12/05/bush_derangement_syndrome) in 2003.

If you read the article, it's clear he's not attaching the term to all criticism of Bush, just the crazy, over-the-top, paranoid stuff.

The article opens with Howard Dean putting out a theory that Bush was warned about 9-11 by the Saudis. C'mon, that's truther stuff. Next he mentions Barbra Streisand claiming Bush took us to war to satisfy "corporate malefactors" such as the logging industry.

In context it's clear the term isn't applied to all criticism of Bush, but the criticism that is paranoid and nonsensical.


He defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush". With the invention of that simple term, Krauthammer made it possible for Bush to become the modern Teflon President.

Except the evidence is that criticism does stick to him, and it sticks hard. He's got a phenomenally low approval rating. Reagan was called the Teflon President because his gaffes and mistakes never seemed to hurt his approval ratings.

If you honestly think Bush is above criticism then you've been wasting too much of your time on the Internet. You need to get out more. :)

[JoeEllison]

Perhaps I have. What tax rates on the ultrarich do you think should be raised. I was only thinking of capital gains and income taxes and my point was that raising the highest marginal rates for either of them would probably not result in much more if any federal income.

Are you arguing for the end of tax free bonds (seems like a good idea to me) or a tax on wealth? What do you want to change so the rich people pay more taxes?You know, I don't claim to be a "tax expert." Yet, from what I've been able to gather, the richest Americans pay a slightly smaller tax as a percentage of total income than the poorest Americans who pay taxes. I'm not accountant, but I can smell the BS when it is stacked this high... :rolleyes:

We've spent the last 8 years listening to lies about how cutting taxes will improve the economy. And, yet, jobs are still sent overseas, jobs in America are still phased out, corporations still undercut the average American in favor of their own short-term needs.

All the "harms" of raising taxes? They have already hit the average American. Try pulling the other leg...

[davefoc]

You know, I don't claim to be a "tax expert." Yet, from what I've been able to gather, the richest Americans pay a slightly smaller tax as a percentage of total income than the poorest Americans who pay taxes. I'm not accountant, but I can smell the BS when it is stacked this high... :rolleyes:

We've spent the last 8 years listening to lies about how cutting taxes will improve the economy. And, yet, jobs are still sent overseas, jobs in America are still phased out, corporations still undercut the average American in favor of their own short-term needs.

All the "harms" of raising taxes? They have already hit the average American. Try pulling the other leg...

I am not necessarily arguing with anything that you have said. I have just been expressing some opinions and explaining what I believe I know about the situation. I very well might agree with any specific ideas that you have about raising rich people's taxes, especially if those ideas don't raise my taxes.

I guess now what you are saying is that a poor person pays sales taxes, perhaps some social security taxes including those paid through their employer, some property taxes indirectly through their landlord and some other miscellaneous taxes that depend on what they purchase, etc. and that the ratio of all those taxes to their overall income is greater than the ratio of taxes that a rich person pays to his overall income.

That seems plausible to me although I would like to see the source for it and the assumptions behind the statistic.

There are things that could be done to change it somewhat.
1. exempt the poorest people from social security taxes. For the ones that don't work this is already the case, but it might be nice to eliminate social security taxes on the first 10,000 dollars or so of income IMHO.

2. eliminate tax free bonds. I don't see any justification for these. Why should the federal government subsidize districts that borrow more money from tax free bonds than other districts.

3. Eliminate the limit for social security taxes. Might be a good idea.

4. Force full social security taxes to be paid whether the income is from investment or salary.

5. Don't allow property to be inherited with unpaid capital gains taxes. Right now as I understand it when an individual inherits property that appreciated significantly when it was owned by the deceased he resets the basis for the property to current market value and capital gains taxes are never paid on the gain ( I stand to be corrected on this).

6. Figure out exactly how rich people are avoiding taxes and work at making it so that they don't do that. Part of the solution here might be to reduce marginal tax rates below 50% if they are too high for maximum government revenue.

I wouldn't disagree strongly with any of the above ideas although at least a few of them would make it so I'd have to pay more taxes and I don't like that idea and I'm far from ultrarich.

ETA: But are any of these ideas part of what is being advocated for by the Democratic Party? I thought the idea was pretty much to raise marginal income tax rates. Perhaps I was wrong about that.

[Cain]

First, too many people conflate "income taxes" with "taxes." Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, and Republicans are always willing to raise the former in order to offset lowering the latter: meaning, screwing the middle class and working poor. It helps that probably 95% of the public does not understand how marginal brackets work.

Second, you cannot have a tax cut if you're going to be running deficits. Bush is raising taxes on future generations -- all those people who are supposed to judge his presidency as wise after he's (conveniently) long dead. One such decision, the idea that we needed to invade Iraq for the awesome and immediate threat posed by Saddam Hussein, will end up costing much more than 500 billion dollars.

RedJoe wrote:
You know, I don't claim to be a "tax expert." Yet, from what I've been able to gather, the richest Americans pay a slightly smaller tax as a percentage of total income than the poorest Americans who pay taxes. I'm not accountant, but I can smell the BS when it is stacked this high.

According to David Cay Johnson, we effectively have a flat tax once you account for all of the ********.

[JoeEllison]

[QUOTE=Cain;3530797]

RedJoe /QUOTE]

"Red"?!?! You've got to be *********** me!

[JoeEllison]

I am not necessarily arguing with anything that you have said. I have just been expressing some opinions and explaining what I believe I know about the situation. I very well might agree with any specific ideas that you have about raising rich people's taxes, especially if those ideas don't raise my taxes.

I guess now what you are saying is that a poor person pays sales taxes, perhaps some social security taxes including those paid through their employer, some property taxes indirectly through their landlord and some other miscellaneous taxes that depend on what they purchase, etc. and that the ratio of all those taxes to their overall income is greater than the ratio of taxes that a rich person pays to his overall income.

That seems plausible to me although I would like to see the source for it and the assumptions behind the statistic.
concerns,
There are things that could be done to change it somewhat.
1. exempt the poorest people from social security taxes. For the ones that don't work this is already the case, but it might be nice to eliminate social security taxes on the first 10,000 dollars or so of income IMHO.

2. eliminate tax free bonds. I don't see any justification for these. Why should the federal government subsidize districts that borrow more money from tax free bonds than other districts.

3. Eliminate the limit for social security taxes. Might be a good idea.

4. Force full social security taxes to be paid whether the income is from investment or salary.

5. Don't allow property to be inherited with unpaid capital gains taxes. Right now as I understand it when an individual inherits property that appreciated significantly when it was owned by the deceased he resets the basis for the property to current market value and capital gains taxes are never paid on the gain ( I stand to be corrected on this).

6. Figure out exactly how rich people are avoiding taxes and work at making it so that they don't do that. Part of the solution here might be to reduce marginal tax rates below 50% if they are too high for maximum government revenue.

I wouldn't disagree strongly with any of the above ideas although at least a few of them would make it so I'd have to pay more taxes and I don't like that idea and I'm far from ultrarich.

ETA: But are any of these ideas part of what is being advocated for by the Democratic Party? I thought the idea was pretty much to raise marginal income tax rates. Perhaps I was wrong about that.

Your 6-point list pretty much addresses my concerns, except that you ignored the tax on stock dividends that has a top rate of 15%, which is part of the "virtual flat tax" that exists in America today. Otherwise, you've closed most of the obvious loopholes.

[Chaos]

Just out of curiosity, who were our allies in the Mexican War? The Spanish-American War? The Barbary Wars? Panama? Grenada?

I had to laugh at that sentence, too. Has the opening poster ever read a freakin´ history book?

I do agree with the rest of his post, though.

[WildCat]

I do agree with the rest of his post, though.
I agree Bush has been a terrible President, but I can't agree that there's a lot of rabid Bush supporters out there. That's quite a rare animal!

[Lex Luthor]

Just out of curiosity, who were our allies in the Mexican War? The Spanish-American War? The Barbary Wars? Panama? Grenada?
That's a good question. It looks like I got that one completely wrong.

[Lex Luthor]

I certainly agree there.

I personally really dislike Bush and believe he's the worst President of my lifetime. Even though I state this opinion fairly often, I've been sometimes called a Bush apologist simply for not agreeing with every criticism of Bush.



That's way too broad a brush. Nobody does anything all the time.



If you read the article, it's clear he's not attaching the term to all criticism of Bush, just the crazy, over-the-top, paranoid stuff.

The article opens with Howard Dean putting out a theory that Bush was warned about 9-11 by the Saudis. C'mon, that's truther stuff. Next he mentions Barbra Streisand claiming Bush took us to war to satisfy "corporate malefactors" such as the logging industry.

In context it's clear the term isn't applied to all criticism of Bush, but the criticism that is paranoid and nonsensical.



Except the evidence is that criticism does stick to him, and it sticks hard. He's got a phenomenally low approval rating. Reagan was called the Teflon President because his gaffes and mistakes never seemed to hurt his approval ratings.

If you honestly think Bush is above criticism then you've been wasting too much of your time on the Internet. You need to get out more. :)
You're right. In the future I'll focus more on my frustration with the Bush Derangement Syndrome argument and try to stay away from making the incorrect claim that no criticism ever sticks to Bush.

[New Ager]

Just think... there are people who consider all tax cuts to be "conservative" and all tax increases to be "liberal." When facing that sort of stupidity/mental defect, what can we as sane people do to counteract the madness?

Could you name the last time a liberal cut taxes?

[New Ager]

At least when a person dies it seems reasonable to me that the government should be able to collect a reasonable tax on the capital he passes on to his heirs.



The money has already been taxed once. Why does the gov't need to tax it again? And why is this reasonable?

[New Ager]

I think you missed my main point: you can set the income tax rate at 50%, 70%, or 110%, and it doesn't matter if the bulk of a person's wealth doesn't fall under that particular tax.

The bulk of a person's wealth is money they have that has already been taxed. You're not suggesting their wealth be taxed, are you?

[Darth Rotor]

It helps that probably 95% of the public does not understand how marginal brackets work.
Yep. Also, property, state, local, and sales tax is another area folks forget to account for in the total tax burden, all too often.

Second, you cannot have a tax cut if you're going to be running deficits. Bush is raising taxes on future generations -- all those people who are supposed to judge his presidency as wise after he's (conveniently) long dead.

Bingo. It's been a criticism I've had with Bush since he took us to war and refused to hold any tax cut, thus putting an expensive war on a credit card bill, in early 2003.

As I've said time and again, guns and butter is a bankrupt fiscal policy.

DR

[New Ager]

You liberals play around with these percentages and act like it means something.

The truth is the rich pay billions in taxes and you can't get away from that.

And those so-called loopholes are really laws to help the rich reduce some of their burden which is immense.



Second, you cannot have a tax cut if you're going to be running deficits. Bush is raising taxes on future generations -- all those people who are supposed to judge his presidency as wise after he's (conveniently) long dead.



That's just silly. Tax cuts increase revenue.

Liberals just can't stand it when there's a tax cut.



As I've said time and again, guns and butter is a bankrupt fiscal policy.



Actually, tax increases and the liberal welfare state is.

[PAC]

Most of the people I know who were die-hard Bush supporters are now very quiet. However, many will continue to support him if pushed. I know of none who have admitted to making a great error in their support of Bush. None of those who were critical of me for questioning him, in his 2000 run,
his initial foreign policy errors, 911, Iraq, etc have ever apologized for their attacks on me. I take satisfaction in their silence.

But, have they learned? Will they support another Bush-type in the future?
I suspect they will.

We all make errors, for some admitting this is hard. The best result of errors is to learn from them.

But, I save my real contempt for a local radio "personality". She was all pro Bush, pro Iraq war, etc in a very emphatic way. Now she is just the opposite but has failed to ever admit this is a dramatic change.

[New Ager]

First, too many people conflate "income taxes" with "taxes."



No, actually when conservatives are talking about income taxes, liberal try to bring in other taxes to back up their weak points.



Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes...



They do? Could you show us some numbers on that one?



..and Republicans are always willing to raise the former in order to offset lowering the latter: meaning, screwing the middle class and working poor.



When did this happen?

[PAC]

While liberals, conservatives, blue people, etc, can discuss basic beliefs,
spending continues to increase, and deficit spending is a significanct concern.
Is it fair to say that spending, taxes, etc. have passed the point of being assigned to an ideoligical point of view and, instead, are now part of the political fabric?

I am of the opinion that it is all about power and money is quite literally the currency of power. We provide the currency and the politicians use it.
More power can be had only by using more money. We, the people, are the enablers in this situation. But we, the people, do not want to hear that spending needs to be controlled so politicians stay away from it.

We can blame any group we want but only we can change this. I hope we choose to do so before it gets too far out of control.

[davefoc]

The money has already been taxed once. Why does the gov't need to tax it again? And why is this reasonable?

Actually not all income is even taxed once as I understand it. Suppose one owned real estate that has appreciated from $100,000 to $300,000 during his life. He never paid income tax on any of that appreciation and his heir won't either because when the property is inherited the basis for the property is reset to current market value.

I believe that the $200,000 gain falls below the level that there are any inheritance taxes so no taxes are ever paid on the gain.

But I think mostly your question is philosophical. I think when a person receives a significant windfall it is reasonable that he pay taxes on it. Whether he inherited it or he won it in a lottery doesn't matter to me. It is part of my notion that people who have the most in this society should pay the most in taxes to be a part of this society. This is not strictly an economic argument, it is just based on my own sense of fairness. That you may not agree with this strikes me as completely reasonable also. This is not an issue that can be decided objectively, it just depends on one's basic notions about fairness and where they apply.

There is also another argument for inheritance taxes that I like. If the government does not tax enormous wealth at the time of inheritance then there is little check on the accumulation of vast wealth and the attendant power by families who rely just on the power of compounded interest to gradually increase their control over the US. As it is various loopholes exist that are exploited by wealthy families to pass down their wealth without subjecting it to taxation. I would close those loopholes.

[Cain]

No, actually when conservatives are talking about income taxes, liberal try to bring in other taxes to back up their weak points.

You mean conservative weak points, rights? It does not make sense to talk about only one type of tax; you're not even trying to look at the big picture.

They do? Could you show us some numbers on that one?

Sure. I had to drudge through a drawer filled with crap to find my notes on the Johnson book. I want to know something first: Are you at all interested in the facts? I strongly suspect that when presented with them you'll just shrug and say "so what?" I mean, it's always better when people try to contest the evidence because they're implicitly admitting that the figures matter, so an opinion will have to be revised accordingly.

Perfectly Legal, p. 119: Three-quarters of households pay more in soc. sec. tax than income tax.

I have a lot of other notes from the book I might as well include:

p. 90-105: Reagan relied on the Alternative Income tax to make up for the inevitable budget shortfalls from lowering income tax on the rich. Unlike income tax, the AMT brackets do not rise with inflation, so more people end up paying it.

p. 94: BLS looked at local, state and federal levies: taxes consumed 19% of the top fifth's income; these individuals and families average 116, 666. The poorest fifth with 7,946 dollars paid 18%. On p. 11 I noted: "Richest 1% are taxed more lightly than the middle-class."

p. 119: Reagan facing budget shortfalls increased excise taxes, but it wasn't called a tax increase -- rather "revenue enhancements." Also increased gas tax a nickel.

p. 131 Ronald Reagan on the Earned Income Tax Credit: "The best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation to come out of Congress."

p. 132 1999, for the first time in history, the poor were more likely then the rich to be audited.

When did this happen?

I regularly read about "compromises" floated by conservatives when it comes to tax relief. They "offer" to increase payroll taxes in exchange for reducing to income taxes. It's all about shifting the burden from the rich to the poor; from people alive today to future generations. You know, part of that whole "taking personal responsibility" mantra.

[Complexity]

I thought that this thread would have to do with the fundies and their peculiar belief in 'the rapture'.

I think Bush still believes that he'll be the last president in history due to 'the rapture'.

This reminds me of the fundies who aren't concerned about environmentalism since 'the rapture' will take them from this planet and leave those of us who are hell-bound on it for a short, nasty time.

[Ziggurat]

Charles Krauthammer struck gold when he coined the phrase in this column (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2003/12/05/bush_derangement_syndrome) in 2003.

He defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush". With the invention of that simple term, Krauthammer made it possible for Bush to become the modern Teflon President. No criticism would stick to him, because his supporters could easily and effortlessly respond with the simple Bush Derangement Syndrome defense whenever they were confronted with an argument that they could not refute.

So where's the evidence that this is actually the dynamic going on? Where is your evidence that this really is how all valid criticism is deflected? Can you name posters on this board who are doing this? Because it seems to me like you've got a persecution complex.

Sometimes reason fails, and sometimes logical arguments are swept away. When that happens, the only one thing a reasonable person can do is this: fight fire with fire.

In other words, you can tell that reason is failing because your side isn't winning. Therefore, you're going to abandon reason. And you expect to get any respect?

From now on, whenever I am speaking with someone who is a staunch defender of George W. Bush and his failed policies, I will respond with this simple slogan: You are suffering from Bush Enrapturement Syndrome.

I note that you're stating you will do this whether or not the person you're arguing with uses the phrase "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to describe you. You have, in effect, invented an offense for your future adversary and used it to justify a counter-insult. Isn't that a little... pre-emptive? The irony is rich indeed.

People generally become afflicted with Bush Enrapturement Syndrome if the lowering of income taxes is the only issue that they really care about.

National security has been my number one issue for the last few years. Income tax rates don't come close.

[Magyar]

I don't know what the maximum tax recovery rates for rich people are but I am pretty sure that we are somewhat near them now.['quote]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

Many people tend to think of income tax as something that can be implemented in simple repeatable ways so that people just end up paying more when tax rates go up. This is true for most people that draw a readily traceable salary. For millions of self employed and wealthy people this is just not the case. It is very possible to manipulate the amount of taxes paid with cheating, marginally legal tax dodges and just plain old making less money because the reward for increased salary is so low that it just isn't worth the effort. And as tax rates go up tax cheating and dodging go up also.
So lets crack down on these thieving scum bags. Have the IRS aggressively audit these SOBs so they stop cheating - but oh no that would be unfair and destroy our economy right!?

So it might feel good to rant about the rich people not paying their fair share, the fact is that increasing taxes on rich people probably won't produce more income and it may discourage entrepreneurship and job creation even if the government does pick up a few more dollars here and there. That's not to say that closing some rich people tax loopholes here and there might not be a good idea, but what in particular are the ones that should be closed?



You know it is JUST INCREDIBLE how well the republican sound machine has brainwashed this voodoo trickle down economics into the brain of the average Joe.

Since Bush has been in office (actually really before that)the top 400 richest peoples income has DOUBLED and their tax rate has been CUT IN HALF according the IRS.

So we should be SWIMMING in jobs and new wealth creation because these billionaires have created SOO many new businesses and companies in the US according to this utter BS.
YET - study after study shows that it is NOT these mega rich who are hording their money and taking it where they can make more by doing nothing (which on the individual basis I find nothing wrong with, but to set tax policy on it is just the height of stupidity) that are creating jobs and business in the US.
Two especially surprising findings from the study are: (a) that the Latino rate of entrepreneurship increased from 0.38 percent in 1996 to 0.48 percent in 2004, which was higher than the white, non-Latino rate of 0.39 percent; and (b) that immigrants have substantially higher rates of entrepreneurship than native-born individuals. The average rate of entrepreneurship for immigrants was 0.46 percent compared to 0.35 percent for the native-born.
http://www.kauffman.org/items.cfm?itemID=640


We are now deeply into our Second Gilded Age with our own exclusive 400 lists. There is the annual fall release of the Forbes 400, a ranking of individual wealth. The list is now exclusively billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.54 trillion.

Now we have the “Fortunate 400,” a U.S. Treasury department analysis of the country’s top 400 income earners. This report –which doesn’t name names –reveals that these 400 households together earned $85.6 billion in 2005, an average income of $213.9 million each. See www.inequality.org.

For perspective, in 1982 when Forbes first published its 400 list, it only took $91 million in wealth, not income, to be included. The Fortunate 400 took home a stunning 1.15 percent of all the income earned in the U.S. in 2005.

For starters, we could tax income from wealth at the same rate as work. The average federal income tax rate for the Fortunate 400 was 18.23 percent, low because 86 percent of their income was capital gains and taxed at a 15 percent rate. If their earners had been from wages, they would have paid income taxes closer to the top rate of 35 percent.

Here's a little something to chew on while you get your income tax files together this season. Median income in the USA is $48,000. Average annual income of the top four hundred taxpayers? Two hundred and fourteen million dollars. Yep. Two hundred and fourteen million.

Their share of the nation's income has doubled since 1995. And the tax bill of our happy gazillionaires? Well, it's fallen by almost half in that same period, from 30 to 18 percent.
and yo know what, as absolutely ridiculous as that is, it would be A-OK if there was ACTUALLY a grain of truth to this "oh they'll re-invest it ans start new businesses which creates jobs BULLSH8! http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080307_b_main.asp but the REALITY is that most of these people make their money NOT by producing jobs (at least NOT in the US) but by manipulating money - hedge funds, futures, betting against the dollar and taking their money to "new markets" like China and India. So not only do we tax them less than what we do to the medium income joe, but we're helping them make it harder for us to keep and create jobs here because they're taking their money to our competitors!

And the Limbaugh dildo heads are merrily helping them do it.

[New Ager]

While liberals, conservatives, blue people, etc, can discuss basic beliefs, spending continues to increase, and deficit spending is a significanct concern.



Liberals never want to decrease spending. Many conservatives want to, but liberals and liberal elite liberal media bash them whenever they try to.



Is it fair to say that spending, taxes, etc. have passed the point of being assigned to an ideoligical point of view and, instead, are now part of the political fabric?



Not really. It would take many conservative administrations with the willpower to stand up to liberals and do the right thing to end the deficit and cut spending.

Sometimes, as conservatives we win a battle, but as far as these two items are going, we are losing the war.



I am of the opinion that it is all about power and money is quite literally the currency of power. We provide the currency and the politicians use it.
More power can be had only by using more money. We, the people, are the enablers in this situation. But we, the people, do not want to hear that spending needs to be controlled so politicians stay away from it.



We hear spending should be cut all the time, but people always want someone else's spending to be cut.



We can blame any group we want but only we can change this. I hope we choose to do so before it gets too far out of control.

We are too fractured as a country and seemingly no leader to stand up and do what needs to be done.

I don't see that leader on the horizon so I doubt anything will change.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Actually not all income is even taxed once as I understand it. Suppose one owned real estate that has appreciated from $100,000 to $300,000 during his life. He never paid income tax on any of that appreciation and his heir won't either because when the property is inherited the basis for the property is reset to current market value.

I don't want to split heirs (har har), but in the above example, the appreciation of a house is most certainly not "income" unless the person sells the house. In that case, unless it is one's primary residence (which in most inheritances, it won't be), then the sale of the house will be taxed as a capital gain. The only way the above example would be valid would be if, for one example, my parents sold their house before they died (as a primary residence, it won't get hit with the capital gains tax), and they then passed the money on to me.


Don't allow property to be inherited with unpaid capital gains taxes. Right now as I understand it when an individual inherits property that appreciated significantly when it was owned by the deceased he resets the basis for the property to current market value and capital gains taxes are never paid on the gain ( I stand to be corrected on this).

Sorry, I just saw you had an earlier post on this where you discussed capital gains. A person would absolutely pay it as soon as they sold the house, again as long as they weren't using that house as their primary residence.

[New Ager]

But I think mostly your question is philosophical. I think when a person receives a significant windfall it is reasonable that he pay taxes on it. Whether he inherited it or he won it in a lottery doesn't matter to me. It is part of my notion that people who have the most in this society should pay the most in taxes to be a part of this society. This is not strictly an economic argument, it is just based on my own sense of fairness. That you may not agree with this strikes me as completely reasonable also.



I don't recall saying they shouldn't.

Arguing a point I didn't make.



This is not an issue that can be decided objectively, it just depends on one's basic notions about fairness and where they apply.



I think everyone should pay the same rate. 10% is fine with me. Why a progressive system? That doesn't seem fair.



There is also another argument for inheritance taxes that I like. If the government does not tax enormous wealth at the time of inheritance then there is little check on the accumulation of vast wealth and the attendant power by families who rely just on the power of compounded interest to gradually increase their control over the US.


I don't particularly like the gov't having so much power to tax us.

And there are families that have control over the US?



As it is various loopholes exist that are exploited by wealthy families to pass down their wealth without subjecting it to taxation. I would close those loopholes.

Yeah, because the gov't needs it more.

The trillions they collect every year just isn't enough.

And I like how people trying to keep their money is exploitive.

[Kestrel]

I thought that this thread would have to do with the fundies and their peculiar belief in 'the rapture'.

I think Bush still believes that he'll be the last president in history due to 'the rapture'.

This reminds me of the fundies who aren't concerned about environmentalism since 'the rapture' will take them from this planet and leave those of us who are hell-bound on it for a short, nasty time.

Such beliefs would be considered delusions and a sign of serious mental illness if they were not part of church doctrine.

[New Ager]

You mean conservative weak points, rights? It does not make sense to talk about only one type of tax; you're not even trying to look at the big picture.



Not at all. When I'm talking the income tax, that's what I'm talking about.

When I talk apples doesn't mean I need to talk about other fruits.





Perfectly Legal, p. 119: Three-quarters of households pay more in soc. sec. tax than income tax.




That's really misleading. I'll bet it's because they pay little in income tax.



p. 90-105: Reagan relied on the Alternative Income tax to make up for the inevitable budget shortfalls from lowering income tax on the rich. Unlike income tax, the AMT brackets do not rise with inflation, so more people end up paying it.

p. 94: BLS looked at local, state and federal levies: taxes consumed 19% of the top fifth's income; these individuals and families average 116, 666. The poorest fifth with 7,946 dollars paid 18%. On p. 11 I noted: "Richest 1% are taxed more lightly than the middle-class."



Again misleading. Percentages are just tricks. The rich pay more in actual dollars.

And is this in all taxes or income tax?



p. 119: Reagan facing budget shortfalls increased excise taxes, but it wasn't called a tax increase -- rather "revenue enhancements." Also increased gas tax a nickel.



Don't liberals think gas should be high anyway so we can save the environment?



I regularly read about "compromises" floated by conservatives when it comes to tax relief. They "offer" to increase payroll taxes in exchange for reducing to income taxes. It's all about shifting the burden from the rich to the poor; from people alive today to future generations. You know, part of that whole "taking personal responsibility" mantra.

I've never seen this payroll increase offer.

And since payroll taxes have included in them federal income tax, don't the poor get almost all those refunded and then some with the EIC.

I'm sorry, but the poor pay very little of the income tax in this country.

Maybe you could cite that percentage of the total they pay. It's really small.

Also, could you tell me when liberals have offered to cut taxes?

[New Ager]

You know it is JUST INCREDIBLE how well the republican sound machine has brainwashed this voodoo trickle down economics into the brain of the average Joe.



Not as much as liberals who claim tax increases are good.



Since Bush has been in office (actually really before that)the top 400 richest peoples income has DOUBLED and their tax rate has been CUT IN HALF according the IRS.



So, tax cuts are good. And so is wealth. Do you want everyone to be failures? Would it help your life if the top 4 richest people lost money?



So we should be SWIMMING in jobs and new wealth creation because these billionaires have created SOO many new businesses and companies in the US according to this utter BS.
YET - study after study shows that it is NOT these mega rich who are hording their money and taking it where they can make more by doing nothing (which on the individual basis I find nothing wrong with, but to set tax policy on it is just the height of stupidity) that are creating jobs and business in the US.

..and yo know what, as absolutely ridiculous as that is, it would be A-OK if there was ACTUALLY a grain of truth to this "oh they'll re-invest it ans start new businesses which creates jobs BULLSH8!



So tax increases encourage job creation?


http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080307_b_main.asp but the REALITY is that most of these people make their money NOT by producing jobs (at least NOT in the US) but by manipulating money - hedge funds, futures, betting against the dollar and taking their money to "new markets" like China and India.



So when you want a job, do you go to a successful person or a poor person?



So not only do we tax them less than what we do to the medium income joe, but we're helping them make it harder for us to keep and create jobs here because they're taking their money to our competitors!



The tax rates for the rich are higher, so what are you talking about?


And the Limbaugh dildo heads are merrily helping them do it.

More jealousy of Rush and his millions of fans.

[davefoc]

I don't want to split heirs (har har), but in the above example, the appreciation of a house is most certainly not "income" unless the person sells the house. In that case, unless it is one's primary residence (which in most inheritances, it won't be), then the sale of the house will be taxed as a capital gain. The only way the above example would be valid would be if, for one example, my parents sold their house before they died (as a primary residence, it won't get hit with the capital gains tax), and they then passed the money on to me.



Sorry, I just saw you had an earlier post on this where you discussed capital gains. A person would absolutely pay it as soon as they sold the house, again as long as they weren't using that house as their primary residence.

I am not sure whether I made my point clear enough or that you disagree with it. Let me restate it:

If an individual inherits real estate the basis of the property for tax purposes resets to the current market value.

For instance, if you inherit a house valued at $300,000 at the time you inherit it and the person you inherited from had a basis of $100,000 on the property you would not owe capital gains if you sold the house immediately after you inherited it for $300,000. So in this example the government would not have received any tax on the $200,000 gain. However if the person you inherited the house sold it just before he died, he would owe capital gains tax on the $200,000 and there would be less money for you to inherit.

If you sold the house a few years after inheriting it for $450,000 you would owe capital gains tax on the $150,000 of appreciation that occurred after you owned it.

This is a site that seems to confirm what I have said :
http://www.thinkglink.com/Determining_Taxes_on_Inherited_Homes.htm

[Ziggurat]

I think Bush still believes that he'll be the last president in history due to 'the rapture'.

This says more about your paranoia than it does about Bush. Would you have said the same thing about Carter? Why is Bush considered more fundamentalist than Carter? He's not.

[New Ager]

Such beliefs would be considered delusions and a sign of serious mental illness if they were not part of church doctrine.

Of course, some people think atheists are delusional too.

[davefoc]

You know it is JUST INCREDIBLE how well the republican sound machine has brainwashed this voodoo trickle down economics into the brain of the average Joe.

Since Bush has been in office (actually really before that)the top 400 richest peoples income has DOUBLED and their tax rate has been CUT IN HALF according the IRS.

So we should be SWIMMING in jobs and new wealth creation because these billionaires have created SOO many new businesses and companies in the US according to this utter BS.
YET - study after study shows that it is NOT these mega rich who are hording their money and taking it where they can make more by doing nothing (which on the individual basis I find nothing wrong with, but to set tax policy on it is just the height of stupidity) that are creating jobs and business in the US.




and yo know what, as absolutely ridiculous as that is, it would be A-OK if there was ACTUALLY a grain of truth to this "oh they'll re-invest it ans start new businesses which creates jobs BULLSH8! http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080307_b_main.asp but the REALITY is that most of these people make their money NOT by producing jobs (at least NOT in the US) but by manipulating money - hedge funds, futures, betting against the dollar and taking their money to "new markets" like China and India. So not only do we tax them less than what we do to the medium income joe, but we're helping them make it harder for us to keep and create jobs here because they're taking their money to our competitors!

And the Limbaugh dildo heads are merrily helping them do it.

Hi Magyar,
you said a lot of stuff there and I wasn't always sure exactly what you meant, but a few comments:

Cheating is easier for many people than you might think. It can be done so that it is not cost effective to eliminate. As rates go higher the benefits of cheating become larger and people do more of it. Whether to cheat or not is a balancing act between the gain, the likelihood of being caught, the good feelings associated with honesty and doing your share, and the benefits that are available from honestly reporting the income from capital assets. This is not to say that I don't think the government shouldn't do more audits. It surprised me to see that this is an area of government that has been reduced. It seems like a profit center to me and I am not opposed to more government audits.

As to rich people tax rates cut in half: Could you provide the basis of that claim or a link to where the claim is made: The maximum marginal tax rate for federal income tax right now is 35%. Was it 70% when Bush took office?

As to the rich not creating jobs with their money:
If a rich person uses it for personal benefit he hires people to do stuff so at least some people benefit.

If a rich person uses it to finance equipment for his company, his company and his employees benefit.

If a rich person puts it in the bank, it serves to increase the pool of money available for people to buy homes with and finance businesses so that seems like a good thing.

If a rich person gives it away presumably the people he has directed the money to help benefit so that seems like a good thing.

So what do you think rich people should do with their money to be as harmful as possible so that they can live up to your evil expectations for them?

Republican sound machine brainwashing this voodoo trickle down economics into the brain of the average Joe:

I understood this to mean that you thought I had this voodoo trickle down economics brainwashed into my brain. This is of course possible, but I am not sure what it is that you think I believe that provides your evidence for this. Let me say that I am all for rich people paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poor people. If there are loopholes that allow rich people to unfairly avoid taxes I'm for closing them.

The marginal income tax rate for rich people approaches 50% when the California state income tax is added in. My suggestion was that just increasing that rate may not increase government revenues because I suspect it is near the rate that provides the maximum return already. I also said I wasn't prepared to back this idea up with statistics, and that it was just based on my own gut feel. If you think that a higher rate would get more dollars then you might be right. Do you favor increasing the maximum marginal rate? What do you want to increase it to?

[Cain]

Not at all. When I'm talking the income tax, that's what I'm talking about.

When I talk apples doesn't mean I need to talk about other fruits.

I'm not going to take your metaphor any further. Suffice it to say you're being dishonest by arbitrarily singling out one type of tax.


That's really misleading. I'll bet it's because they pay little in income tax.

Heh, OK...

Again misleading. Percentages are just tricks. The rich pay more in actual dollars.

Excellent. Maybe you can be one of the handful of illustrious libertarians joining my flat fee tax. Everybody should have to pay the same dollar amount. I mean, when you go into a McDonald's you pay the same amount of money for the same crappy burger; the sales technician(?) does not ask for your income.

Anyway, I think I have a new signature.

And is this in all taxes or income tax?

I think they're going for all taxes.

I've never seen this payroll increase offer.

Then it doesn't exist. Sorry for wasting your time.

And since payroll taxes have included in them federal income tax, don't the poor get almost all those refunded and then some with the EIC.

I'm sorry, but the poor pay very little of the income tax in this country.

Maybe you could cite that percentage of the total they pay. It's really small.

Also, could you tell me when liberals have offered to cut taxes?

Wait a second, I thought you just said percentages are just tricks! Also, recall "the rich" paid a greater share of taxes during the Reagan years. Was that because Reagan raised their tax rates? No, it was because incomes actually declined/stagnated for the lower brackets and surged for the rich. Of course the poor are going to only pay (say) 1% of all taxes if they have one percent of all income, assuming a flat rate. Which is just another reason why we need to have a flat fee, and people who cannot pony up have to work it off at Shays' prison ranch. Taxation is like a form of slavery, and the rich have been enslaved too long while the poor have been getting a free-ride.

[President Bush]

And there are families that have control over the US?


I'll let you know for sure after season six of The Sopranos hits the half-price shelf at Blockbuster.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I am not sure whether I made my point clear enough or that you disagree with it. Let me restate it:

If an individual inherits real estate the basis of the property for tax purposes resets to the current market value.

For instance, if you inherit a house valued at $300,000 at the time you inherit it and the person you inherited from had a basis of $100,000 on the property you would not owe capital gains if you sold the house immediately after you inherited it for $300,000. So in this example the government would not have received any tax on the $200,000 gain. However if the person you inherited the house sold it just before he died, he would owe capital gains tax on the $200,000 and there would be less money for you to inherit.

Ah, I see what you are saying. And actually, in neither case above would the government have received capital gains revenue anyway. There is a $250,000 profit exemption for selling a house used as your primary residence (http://www.charliedunn.com/_Sellers_Tips/Capital_Gains_Exclusion_for_Homesellers.htm) ($500,000 for couples filing jointly). So in either case, the $200,000 valuation wouldn't have produced anything for the government at any point.

But, if you were to inherit, say, a home that had appreciated $1,000,000, and you turned around and sold it, then yes, the government would not have received a capital gains tax on the $750,000 (million minus the $250,000 exemption), which I think was your point. On the other hand, the local government would have generally received plenty in property taxes.

So sure, in the case of inherited property, the government can lose out.

If you sold the house a few years after inheriting it for $450,000 you would owe capital gains tax on the $150,000 of appreciation that occurred after you owned it.

True, unless the house became your primary residence.

[Complexity]

Such beliefs would be considered delusions and a sign of serious mental illness if they were not part of church doctrine.


I regard them as delusions and a sign of serious mental illness, regardless.

Believing in church doctrine is merely another indication of mental and moral deficiency.

[Regnad Kcin]

Ah, lots more insightful analysis by New Ager, author of the deep and scholarly observation that "Huckabee and Romney still look Presidential." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3325329&postcount=4)

[Dr Adequate]

This says more about your paranoia than it does about Bush. Would you have said the same thing about Carter? Why is Bush considered more fundamentalist than Carter? He's not. The jury is still out.I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.The existing and long-standing use of the word 'evolution' in our state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe. There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy.

There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith. Now, whatever else you may think of Carter and Bush, this is one respect in which Bush should have been more like Carter. Wouldn't it be great if he'd said something like that ... preferrably just after the Dover trial?

[Magyar]

Hi Magyar,
you said a lot of stuff there and I wasn't always sure exactly what you meant, but a few comments:

Cheating is easier for many people than you might think. It can be done so that it is not cost effective to eliminate. As rates go higher the benefits of cheating become larger and people do more of it. Whether to cheat or not is a balancing act between the gain, the likelihood of being caught, the good feelings associated with honesty and doing your share, and the benefits that are available from honestly reporting the income from capital assets. This is not to say that I don't think the government shouldn't do more audits. It surprised me to see that this is an area of government that has been reduced. It seems like a profit center to me and I am not opposed to more government audits.

Ok, but, and maybe I am missing something here, you seem to be making the argument that we should set taxation policy based on he fact that people will cheat. Well then why have taxes at all?


As to rich people tax rates cut in half: Could you provide the basis of that claim or a link to where the claim is made: The maximum marginal tax rate for federal income tax right now is 35%. Was it 70% when Bush took office?

well I thought I did, but if that isn't satisfactory please google "fortunate 400" and you will get any number of links. But this bit is "federal income tax right now is 35%"
what I'm referring to when I say 'brainwashed" !

We all know that those on this list and even those 4600 and then some below this 400 do NOT make the VAST majority of their money from punching an 9-5 time clock like the rest of us. This IS the primary difference between the rich and the poor, the amount of assets they hold! So to sit here and compare my 100% (yea I hold stocks and IRAs and stuff but let be real) income to Joe bezillionaires 20-30% (just a guess here) income from a salary and say "OH LOOK he pays MUCH more than YOU" is not only misleading it's an outright LIE! (note this does not mean that I disagree with this in general principal, but we can not have a legitimate discussion when one side continues to lie, and it also makes the legitimacy of their argument suspect!)

As to the rich not creating jobs with their money:
If a rich person uses it for personal benefit he hires people to do stuff so at least some people benefit.

If a rich person uses it to finance equipment for his company, his company and his employees benefit.

If a rich person puts it in the bank, it serves to increase the pool of money available for people to buy homes with and finance businesses so that seems like a good thing.

If a rich person gives it away presumably the people he has directed the money to help benefit so that seems like a good thing.

Again, I don't see this as legitimate reason for a tax policy. Substitute "rich person" for me, you or the bum down the street. works exactly the same!


So what do you think rich people should do with their money to be as harmful as possible so that they can live up to your evil expectations for them?


The same thing every one else does. I bought a boat this year to go fishing - which is a far higher percentage of my income then joe the bezillionaire. I went pretty high end, so given the purpose of the boat it IS reasonable to say that Joebezilionnaire might buy the very same boat. We created the same exact jobs etc. contributed EXACTLY the same amount to the economy. Yet CA will make me pay taxes on it.
If I am Joe the bazillionaire and I can afford to take my boat down to Cabo for the fishing season (90 days I think it is) or simply store it at my vacation home in Colorado for the winter. The Arnold will give me a $30,000 tax break FOR NO OTHER REASON than that I am a bezillionaire! THIS is not a sound taxation policy and the ONLY reason that it exists is because it IS rigged so that the rich will pay LESS taxes then the rest of us!

[Beerina]

At one point rich people tax rates exceeded 90%. This was so far above the tax recovery maximization point that it was very easy to raise net government income by lowering tax rates.

This was done by the Roosevelt and Kennedy clans, and the like. People who had already earned tens or hundreds of millions and thus an income tax would affect them very little.

However, it would have the effect of keeping down their growing competition.

Purely a coincidence, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

In any case, they stirred up outrage in the masses so they could kick other rich people in the balls, so they could wield more power. Quite sickening stripped of the silly song and dance.

[aggle-rithm]

We unilaterally invaded another country for the first time in our history.

...in 1812, when we foolishly invaded Canada.

[Ziggurat]

Now, whatever else you may think of Carter and Bush, this is one respect in which Bush should have been more like Carter.

I agree. Bush is more religious than I would prefer. But that hardly settles the comparison. Carter, for example, thought that Israel was not sufficiently religious, and had become too secular. I don't think I've ever heard Bush say anything similar about another country. And in both cases, it's a pretty damned far cry from believing they'll be the last president before the rapture, which was the accusation being made. No president in American history, Bush included, has ever given anyone reason to think that. I know you have a hard time passing up an opportunity to bash Bush, but I do note that you haven't actually tried to defend that accusation against him. I will assume it's because you don't find it credible either.

[davefoc]

Ok, but, and maybe I am missing something here, you seem to be making the argument that we should set taxation policy based on he fact that people will cheat. Well then why have taxes at all?

Not exactly, I am making the argument that one of the factors in the government maximization of tax revenues is that people are more encouraged to cheat and to use other aggressive techniques for tax avoidance as the marginal tax rate is raised. My sense of it is that a marginal tax rate of around 50% for earned income is some place around the revenue maximizing rate for the government and that raising it might be counterproductive. I think it is possible you agree with this and believe that other rates should be raised but not this one. I am just guessing here because I am still not quite sure what you are advocating.


well I thought I did, but if that isn't satisfactory please google "fortunate 400" and you will get any number of links. But this bit is "federal income tax right now is 35%"
what I'm referring to when I say 'brainwashed" !

We all know that those on this list and even those 4600 and then some below this 400 do NOT make the VAST majority of their money from punching an 9-5 time clock like the rest of us. This IS the primary difference between the rich and the poor, the amount of assets they hold! So to sit here and compare my 100% (yea I hold stocks and IRAs and stuff but let be real) income to Joe bezillionaires 20-30% (just a guess here) income from a salary and say "OH LOOK he pays MUCH more than YOU" is not only misleading it's an outright LIE! (note this does not mean that I disagree with this in general principal, but we can not have a legitimate discussion when one side continues to lie, and it also makes the legitimacy of their argument suspect!)


OK, now you seem to be making the argument that I was misleading (lying?) because I didn't specifically address other tax rate besides earned income. I did discuss capital gains taxes and the dilemma that I see for a government that is attempting to maximize government revenues with a high capital gains tax rate. If capital gains tax rates are too high people just hold onto assets to avoid paying taxes. There is some revenue maximizing number for the capital gains tax rate that I suspect is significantly below the revenue maximizing earned income tax rate. Right now I notice that the maximum marginal capital gains tax rate on real estate sales is 25%. My guess is that is above the revenue maximizing number. I also noticed a 15% capital gains rate that applies to stock transactions and perhaps other types of transactions. My sense of that rate is that if it was higher the government might increase revenues. But since it applies to stock transactions the corporation has already paid taxes on its capital appreciation and that the 15% rate is only part of the tax the government receives so that the taxes on this kind of transaction might be higher than they seem.


Again, I don't see this as legitimate reason for a tax policy. Substitute "rich person" for me, you or the bum down the street. works exactly the same!



The same thing every one else does. I bought a boat this year to go fishing - which is a far higher percentage of my income then joe the bezillionaire. I went pretty high end, so given the purpose of the boat it IS reasonable to say that Joebezilionnaire might buy the very same boat. We created the same exact jobs etc. contributed EXACTLY the same amount to the economy. Yet CA will make me pay taxes on it.
If I am Joe the bazillionaire and I can afford to take my boat down to Cabo for the fishing season (90 days I think it is) or simply store it at my vacation home in Colorado for the winter. The Arnold will give me a $30,000 tax break FOR NO OTHER REASON than that I am a bezillionaire! THIS is not a sound taxation policy and the ONLY reason that it exists is because it IS rigged so that the rich will pay LESS taxes then the rest of us!


I didn't get the point of some of this. But mostly you seem to be arguing that rich people have more assets to engage in tax avoidance schemes and the government shouldn't allow this. And you in particular don't like the fact that California has a loophole (the "sloophole") that allows people to avoid sales taxes on their boat purchases. Based on what I know about the loophole, it doesn't seem fair to me either and I disagree with the California Republicans that blocked reform of the law and I agree with you on this.

[Cain]

Ok, but, and maybe I am missing something here, you seem to be making the argument that we should set taxation policy based on he fact that people will cheat. Well then why have taxes at all?


well I thought I did, but if that isn't satisfactory please google "fortunate 400" and you will get any number of links. But this bit is "federal income tax right now is 35%"
what I'm referring to when I say 'brainwashed" !

Outside of faculty in the nearby universities, Davefoc is about as left-wing a Republican you're going to find in Orange County. He's a sensible, self-aware guy by any standard.

If we get into an argument on how best to maximize income tax revenue then we have achieved a small liberal/social-democratic victory, specifically one consistent with Rawls' second principle of justice. There will always be empirical squabbling -- see Martin Gardener's take on the Laffer Curve -- but it's a significant move away from regressive policies and "taxation is slavery" nonsense.


Ziggurat:
And in both cases, it's a pretty damned far cry from believing they'll be the last president before the rapture, which was the accusation being made. No president in American history, Bush included, has ever given anyone reason to think that.

I think Reagan made rumblings about the rapture, "last generation" and all that hokum.

[davefoc]

This was done by the Roosevelt and Kennedy clans, and the like. People who had already earned tens or hundreds of millions and thus an income tax would affect them very little.

However, it would have the effect of keeping down their growing competition.

Purely a coincidence, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

In any case, they stirred up outrage in the masses so they could kick other rich people in the balls, so they could wield more power. Quite sickening stripped of the silly song and dance.

I have had similar thoughts. It appears to me that there are two things which cause the creation of obviously counterproductive taxation rates:
1. A certain percentage of the population is so pissed off at the haves that they support any policy regardless of the practicalities as long as the policy succeeds in making the haves have less.

2. As you suggested, the existing power structure is happy to pass legislation that prevents others from entering into their privileged class. So the up start wealthy like movie stars, boxers, and successful entrepreneurs are savaged by the effects of ridiculously high earned income tax rates and the already wealthy are barely scathed since they can easily manipulate the sources of their income to avoid ridiculously high tax rates.

The synergy between the two groups seems so strong that it surprises me that their excesses were ever undone. Perhaps politics is not quite as cynical as I have come to see it and on occasion the power elite in this country actually does something in the best interest of the country. Or maybe its just because the excesses of one political group become so unwieldy and harmful to the country that they are eventually replaced by another political group that undoes some of their excesses.

[New Ager]

I'm not going to take your metaphor any further. Suffice it to say you're being dishonest by arbitrarily singling out one type of tax.



Not at all. Sales tax and social security taxes we all pay. Federal income tax is the big one and that's what I'm talking about and some pay none. If I want to talk about the others I will.



Excellent. Maybe you can be one of the handful of illustrious libertarians joining my flat fee tax. Everybody should have to pay the same dollar amount. I mean, when you go into a McDonald's you pay the same amount of money for the same crappy burger; the sales technician(?) does not ask for your income.



No idea what any of that means.



Then it doesn't exist. Sorry for wasting your time.



Not at all. I don't mind helping liberals see the errors of their way.




Wait a second, I thought you just said percentages are just tricks!



You liberals were using them, just thought I would respond in language you understand. But, even in dollar amounts the poor pay little.


Also, recall "the rich" paid a greater share of taxes during the Reagan years. Was that because Reagan raised their tax rates? No, it was because incomes actually declined/stagnated for the lower brackets and surged for the rich. Of course the poor are going to only pay (say) 1% of all taxes if they have one percent of all income, assuming a flat rate. Which is just another reason why we need to have a flat fee....



Hey, a flat tax. I'm all for that.



Taxation is like a form of slavery, and the rich have been enslaved too long while the poor have been getting a free-ride.

Where the federal income tax is concerned, you're not too far off. Of course, you don't want to talk about that.

[New Ager]

Ah, lots more insightful analysis by New Ager,



Well, thank you.



..author of the deep and scholarly observation that...
"Huckabee and Romney still look Presidential." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3325329&postcount=4)

They did then and actually Romney still looks Presidential. Clinton and Obama certainly don't and never did.

[Cain]

Not at all. Sales tax and social security taxes we all pay. Federal income tax is the big one and that's what I'm talking about and some pay none. If I want to talk about the others I will.

This demonstrates your bias/ignorance. I cited the relevant stat -- most people pay more in social security taxes, so claiming the income tax is "the big one" simply does not apply to most American households.

You liberals were using them, just thought I would respond in language you understand. But, even in dollar amounts the poor pay little.

I think everyone agrees the poor pay relatively less in dollar amounts.

Hey, a flat tax. I'm all for that.

Then why were you just harping on the lower percentage the poor pay? Even under a true flat tax -- no wimpy, pinko exemptions -- it's possible, for example, for the richest one percent to pay 25% of the taxes, and the lowest 20% to pay 5% of the taxes. What matters is the distribution of income, which you seem to ignore in previous comments so as to diminish the contributions of the working poor.

Where the federal income tax is concerned, you're not too far off. Of course, you don't want to talk about that.

Indeed. The poor have it easy; it just doesn't pay to be rich. Oh, war is peace, ignorance is strength, and slavery is freedom.

[EBU]

Last Sunday conservative columnist Ben Stein, writing in the NY Times business section, recommended increasing income tax on the wealthy in order to make a dent in the massive deficit (quoting Willy Sutton, "that's where the money is"). So I don't think we should necessarily accept the argument that anyone who wants to increase taxes on the wealthy is automatically a liberal.

[Regnad Kcin]

They did then and actually Romney still looks Presidential.Funny, they look like losers to me.

Clinton and Obama certainly don't and never did.What a silly boy you are.

So how 'bout Taft? Adams I or II? Your mama?