Corporate Profits At All Time High: - Page 4

Kaosium · 3rd December 2012, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit.

Is it possible you might have heard that wrong, or the person misspoke? The top 1% had an adjusted gross income in 2010 (last year I can find the final data on) of 1.517 Trillion, which would be slightly less than the entire budget deficit for 2011, though it's hoped the 2012 deficit will be more on the order of 1 Trillion. The top 10% had an adjusted gross income of about 3.6 trillion.

They could have meant that the total confiscation of the top ten percent's income wouldn't make a dent in the debt which is currently figured at 16 Trillion though of that 5 Trillion is money the government has 'borrowed' from itself or already 'promised' to pay such as the Social Security 'Trust Fund' and other federal pensions and things like nuke plant decommissioning costs. The reason I make the distinction is that the 11 Trillion of Public Debt means we pay interest out on it, whereas the other 5 Trillion we do not, however the Social Security 'Trust Fund' accumulates 'interest' for reasons not germane to this post, however that just adds to the amount kept track of in the fund which is to ensure that every dime plus 'interest' that had been raised from 1983-2010 gets paid to social security recipients as we deliberately ran a surplus those years. For all other intents and purposes that five trillion is just 'debt in waiting' as we have to borrow it when it comes time to pay out, which is why most simply refer to the debt as 16 Trillion.

Quote:

Speaking of fair, what would be nice, would be if the 46% of people who filed tax reports, actually paid a little tax, and if we stopped refunding taxes to people who didn't pay any.

Regarding the issue of 'fairness' and the rich 'paying their share' the top 1% with that income of 1.517 trillion, which as you can see was 18.9% of the total AGI of all filers, paid 37.4% of the total income tax. The top 10% with ~45% of adjusted gross income paid ~70% of the total income tax. The bottom 50% of filers had 11.7% of the AGI and paid 2.4% of the total income tax. However the FICA tax is capped at 102k or so, thus anyone making more doesn't pay more in payroll taxes, meaning that tax is not nearly as progressive as the income tax and the bottom 50% pay a much more significant portion.

Just FYI as I happened to be looking at it earlier.

SezMe · 3rd December 2012, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Wait, wait, wait.....

You're saying all rich people were born advantaged? Really?

Is it obtuse Monday? People born INTO wealth are advantaged.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Is it obtuse Monday? People born INTO wealth are advantaged.

Thank you. I'm a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm a fan of capitalism. I don't mind that people are rich. I'm glad that in America it's possible for the poor to become rich.

I'm not anti-rich. I'm against the BS of those who are born on third base, think they hit a triple and bitching that somewhere someone is extending a hand to someone who is poor.

That's it.

sir drinks-a-lot · 3rd December 2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm against the BS of those who are born on third base, think they hit a triple and bitching that somewhere someone is extending a hand to someone who is poor.

What about people who were born on second base that think they hit a double? How about those born on first base who think they hit a single? Are you as resentful of them as well? I am asking rhetorically, because from reading your posts in the past I know that the answer is a resounding "NO!" You're not upset by the general phenomenon that people often tend to overestimate their abilities. You're upset when the people who do it happen to have a certain measure of wealth. This explains why you and others on the left use the term "rich" as a pejorative so frequently. You've even used the phrase "rich idiots" in this very thread with the intent that a rich idiot was even worse than one who was not rich. So, no, I'm not buying that you're not anti-rich.

Secondly, the bad rich people are not often bitching that "someone" is extending a hand "somewhere" to someone who is poor. Nice of you to move the goalposts and all, but that is not what you've been claiming all along. Do you think you mis-stated a few things in your example?

Caper · 3rd December 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm really not sure what your point is. It sounds like you are wedded to small tax rates for the rich though you really don't know why. Is that correct?

Not really. I wouldn't want to wildly over tax anyone. If someone is making 500k a year they are already paying a tonne more then me in taxes, if we are paying the same rate. I don't think it's my place to tell a guy who is paying 200k a year in taxes, that he is not paying enough. Maybe a mild amount more tax.

Though this is a bit off topic.

I do however believe society would be better off if we asked everyone to pay income tax. There are too many people not pulling their weight. I think if you make a dollar a year.... 30 pennies should be paid to help out.

Caper · 3rd December 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Not only that, but corporate profits belong to the shareholders of that corporation. The subject is completely irrelevant to anyone who isn't a shareholder. But the whiners on the left seem to think that because Apple is sitting on $50 billion in cash (or whatever), that somehow some portion of that should be given to them, even though they don't own shares. How dare Apple have that much money!!!

Scrut.... you're making too many serious posts lately.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

Not really. I wouldn't want to wildly over tax anyone. If someone is making 500k a year they are already paying a tonne more then me in taxes, if we are paying the same rate. I don't think it's my place to tell a guy who is paying 200k a year in taxes, that he is not paying enough. Maybe a mild amount more tax.

Whose place is it?

I don't want to wildly over tax anyone. I would very much like everyone to pay as little in taxes as possible. Hell, I'd like to eliminate taxes alltogether and I'd like everyone to have whatever it is that they want or will make them happy. I'd like to be young again and I'd like to date Joanna Krupa. I'd like my problems with edema to go away and I'd like peace on earth.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

Scrut.... you're making too many serious posts lately.

Really? Try getting Scrut to name these people who give a **** that Apple has so much money? Outside a few anarchists they don't exist. Yeah, you guessed it, it's a straw man. But hey, if that's all you got, right?

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 03:53 PM

I realize how easy it is to become distracted by shinny objects and squirrels. But this thread is about the apparent lack of evidence for supply side economics.

The OP does not claim that the disparity between record profits and record wealth disprove supply side economics. The OP simply notes the lack of any empirical data that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have resulted in improved economic conditions of those at the bottom tiers (rungs) of society.

So, the trick here for the advocates of SSE is to show why we shouldn't expect 10 years of lower taxes to result in improved conditions for the lower and middle classes or, why conditions have measurably improved.

The rest is irrelevant.

sir drinks-a-lot · 3rd December 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I realize how easy it is to become distracted by shinny objects and squirrels. But this thread is about the apparent lack of evidence for supply side economics.

1) respect mentioned on page 2 that you are conflating supply side economics with trickle down economics.

2) Everyone here know that you don't really want to discuss anything, you just want to vent and rant about rich people and conservatives. See your first few posts in the thread. They don't have a tone that lends itself to honest discussion.

SezMe · 3rd December 2012, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

You've even used the phrase "rich idiots" in this very thread with the intent that a rich idiot was even worse than one who was not rich.

They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like.

Is it politically incorrect to criticize rich idiots? Rich idiots are off limits? Really? **** that! Being rich doesn't make one an idiot but being rich is no protection against being an idiot.

sir drinks-a-lot · 3rd December 2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

A poor idiot affects virtually nobody.

Often not true.

Quote:

A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide.

But not always.

A more precise and sensible strategy would be to simply decry "idiots that affect others"? That way, one would catch the poor idiots that affect people and avoid the rich idiots that affect no-one. Pretty easy. Unless, of course one intends to use the word "rich" as a pejorative.

Seems pretty obvious which is the case.

sir drinks-a-lot · 3rd December 2012, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Is it politically incorrect to criticize rich idiots? Rich idiots are off limits? Really? **** that! Being rich doesn't make one an idiot but being rich is no protection against being an idiot.

As steve a said, you're anti-rich.

Criticizing idiots is another thing all together.

Skeptical Greg · 3rd December 2012, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thank you. I'm a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm a fan of capitalism. I don't mind that people are rich. I'm glad that in America it's possible for the poor to become rich.

I'm not anti-rich. I'm against the BS of those who are born on third base, think they hit a triple and bitching that somewhere someone is extending a hand to someone who is poor.

That's it.

I don't think they have much of a problem with someone extending a hand to the poor; the problem is being forced to extend their hand to the poor. It's called stealing their stuff, and giving it to someone else.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I don't think they have much of a problem with someone extending a hand to the poor; the problem is being forced to extend their hand to the poor. It's called stealing their stuff, and giving it to someone else.

You mean like when the govt takes money and gives it to defense contractors and when it uses that money to fight wars on false pretenses?

Perhaps these people don't understand what living in a society means. Taxation isn't stealing. It might be burdensome. It might be unfair but it damn sure isn't stealing. Conservatives don't think it's theft to take 700 billion from people to spend on misadventure so excuse me if I don't buy into the "they're stealing my stuff" nonsense. When these people move to an island BEFORE they get rich then they can tell me how it's stealing if someone takes their money or stuff. Otherwise it's nonsense.

For those that don't know. Taxation is constitutional. If you live in the USA the govt has every right to tax you. If you don't like it leave. Just understand that those who live in the USA have the right to vote, they have local and national representatives and they have the right to speak out and to seek redress.

So, I know I can't stop that meme but I can point out how bankrupt it is. If you think you are being unfairly taxed I'll listen and perhaps you can persuade me. But if all you have is hackneyed propaganda then I'm not interested.

psionl0 · 3rd December 2012, 04:46 PM

Isn't "rich idiot" an oxymoron? After all, no idiot is going to be rich for long.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

You mean like when the govt takes money and gives it to defense contractors and when it uses that money to fight wars on false pretenses?

Ever notice how Republicans are so happy to have their taxes used to kill people but they don't like their taxes used to feed people. *What's up with that?

*As a lifelong conservative Republican I'm honestly not certain why that is. Probably good framing and propaganda on behalf of those who stand to benefit from war and see little good in feeding the hungry.

Profanz · 3rd December 2012, 05:22 PM

Just going back to Clinton like tax rates shouldn't even be an argument. But how about we go back to the 1954 tax code if anyone wants to get real about tackling the deficit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code

Skeptical Greg · 3rd December 2012, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Ever notice how Republicans are so happy to have their taxes used to kill people but they don't like their taxes used to feed people. *What's up with that?
.

No, I haven't noticed that..

Do you have some specific examples ?

As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin.

Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work..

Profanz · 3rd December 2012, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

No, I haven't noticed that..

Do you have some specific examples ?

As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin.

Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work..

So Bush's wars while cutting taxes didn't contribute to the deficit?

Skeptical Greg · 3rd December 2012, 05:28 PM

Could you explain what that has to do with my response to RandFan's comment ?

Profanz · 3rd December 2012, 05:31 PM

War isn't defense spending? How about no bid contracts? Who pays for that?

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Do you have some specific examples ?

Did you ever complain that your money was stolen from you to fund a war in Iraq that was started on false pretenses?

Quote:

As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin.

The military budget is one of every five dollars of the US budget.

Quote:

Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work..

People have to spend the money on something (ostensibly it will be given to people who work).
People have to work to administer social programs.
Providing social services often gets them back on their feet. When you kill a child that child is just dead.

But all of that is irrelevant. The money is till taken from one group to be used by another. If it's theft for citizens to vote for leaders who levy a tax to pay for social services then it damn sure is theft to levy a tax to kill people.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work..

I'm curious, do you honestly think poor people eat the money? No, seriously, what do you honestly think happens to the money? It disappears?

The Economic Case for Food Stamps

Originally Posted by The Atlantic

Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."

Skeptical Greg · 3rd December 2012, 05:45 PM

I seemed to have missed the evidence where Republicans are happy to kill people with taxes while reluctant to help the poor ..

Are you still putting that together ?

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I seemed to have missed the evidence where Republicans are happy to kill people with taxes while reluctant to help the poor ..

You are not up on rhetorical device are you Greg. And here you are ignoring my questions again.

Quote:

Are you still putting that together ?

Says the guy who ignores my questions and arguments.

So, did you complain when your money was taken from you and used to start a war in Iraq on false pretenses?

Profanz · 3rd December 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I seemed to have missed the evidence where Republicans are happy to kill people with taxes while reluctant to help the poor ..

Are you still putting that together ?

Its when they advocate and rubber stamp very expensive wars under the flimsiest of evidence but drag their feet and filibuster when we need to raise revenues to help the working class and the ever increasing poor of this country. Did you really miss that?

psionl0 · 3rd December 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Profanz

Just going back to Clinton like tax rates shouldn't even be an argument. But how about we go back to the 1954 tax code if anyone wants to get real about tackling the deficit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code

The problem with imposing punitive tax levels on the rich is that it then becomes profitable for them to hire expensive lawyers to avoid the tax.

With the ease in which profits can be shipped overseas, you would probably get away with hiring an undergraduate law student.

Profanz · 3rd December 2012, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

The problem with imposing punitive tax levels on the rich is that it then becomes profitable for them to hire expensive lawyers to avoid the tax.

With the ease in which profits can be shipped overseas, you would probably get away with hiring an undergraduate law student.

Its not punishment. Its an opportunity to be patriotic for real for once.

psionl0 · 3rd December 2012, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Profanz

Its not punishment. Its an opportunity to be patriotic for real for once.

A lot of people would rather be rich than patriotic.

Profanz · 3rd December 2012, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

A lot of people would rather be rich than patriotic.

Except when it comes to war and defense contracts. Then they pretend they are the most patriotic of all.

psionl0 · 3rd December 2012, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Profanz

Except when it comes to war and defense contracts. Then they pretend they are the most patriotic of all.

That doesn't really rebut my assertion.

Profanz · 3rd December 2012, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That doesn't really rebut my assertion.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Like how you never rebutted any of my assertions.

Skeptical Greg · 3rd December 2012, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

...
So, did you complain when your money was taken from you and used to start a war in Iraq on false pretenses?

No.

Do you think it would have mattered if I did ?

Would you have felt better if the Republicans were killing people for what you consider legitimate purposes ?

psionl0 · 3rd December 2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Profanz

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Like how you never rebutted any of my assertions.

Most of your assertions don't need rebutting.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

No.

Do you think it would have mattered if I did ?

I was quite confident you didn't. But I always had me in reserve. I was a life long conservative Republican and I didn't complain about the govt spending my money to kill people in Iraq on false pretenses. In fact, I defended the war on this forum. Demonstrating that Republicans by and large don't give a damn about their money being used on misadventures like Iraq is easy.

RandFan · 3rd December 2012, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Would you have felt better if the Republicans were killing people for what you consider legitimate purposes ?

I think that would be better, don't you? If you are going to kill someone wouldn't it make sense to have a legitimate purpose?

It's truly amazing, spending money to feed people is outrageous but killing people for illegitimate reasons.... meh~

Caper · 3rd December 2012, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Ever notice how Republicans are so happy to have their taxes used to kill people but they don't like their taxes used to feed people. *What's up with that?

*As a lifelong conservative Republican I'm honestly not certain why that is. Probably good framing and propaganda on behalf of those who stand to benefit from war and see little good in feeding the hungry.

You say you want a serious discussion and then you post something as ridiculous as that?

SezMe · 3rd December 2012, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Often not true.

Can you provide an example of how a poor idiot can affect millions of people, often. I can only think of one way but it doesn't happen very often.

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

But not always.

Of course. I said "can" which is true. If I had said "does" you would be right to call me on it.

3rd December 2012, 01:35 PM	#121
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,308	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg It may have just been speculative rhetoric, but I have heard numbers that indicate that if the top 10% income earners paid all of their income in taxes, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit. Is it possible you might have heard that wrong, or the person misspoke? The top 1% had an adjusted gross income in 2010 (last year I can find the final data on) of 1.517 Trillion, which would be slightly less than the entire budget deficit for 2011, though it's hoped the 2012 deficit will be more on the order of 1 Trillion. The top 10% had an adjusted gross income of about 3.6 trillion. They could have meant that the total confiscation of the top ten percent's income wouldn't make a dent in the debt which is currently figured at 16 Trillion though of that 5 Trillion is money the government has 'borrowed' from itself or already 'promised' to pay such as the Social Security 'Trust Fund' and other federal pensions and things like nuke plant decommissioning costs. The reason I make the distinction is that the 11 Trillion of Public Debt means we pay interest out on it, whereas the other 5 Trillion we do not, however the Social Security 'Trust Fund' accumulates 'interest' for reasons not germane to this post, however that just adds to the amount kept track of in the fund which is to ensure that every dime plus 'interest' that had been raised from 1983-2010 gets paid to social security recipients as we deliberately ran a surplus those years. For all other intents and purposes that five trillion is just 'debt in waiting' as we have to borrow it when it comes time to pay out, which is why most simply refer to the debt as 16 Trillion. Quote: Speaking of fair, what would be nice, would be if the 46% of people who filed tax reports, actually paid a little tax, and if we stopped refunding taxes to people who didn't pay any. Regarding the issue of 'fairness' and the rich 'paying their share' the top 1% with that income of 1.517 trillion, which as you can see was 18.9% of the total AGI of all filers, paid 37.4% of the total income tax. The top 10% with ~45% of adjusted gross income paid ~70% of the total income tax. The bottom 50% of filers had 11.7% of the AGI and paid 2.4% of the total income tax. However the FICA tax is capped at 102k or so, thus anyone making more doesn't pay more in payroll taxes, meaning that tax is not nearly as progressive as the income tax and the bottom 50% pay a much more significant portion. Just FYI as I happened to be looking at it earlier.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,308	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Last edited by Kaosium; 3rd December 2012 at 01:46 PM.

3rd December 2012, 03:14 PM	#123
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by SezMe Is it obtuse Monday? People born INTO wealth are advantaged. Thank you. I'm a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm a fan of capitalism. I don't mind that people are rich. I'm glad that in America it's possible for the poor to become rich. I'm not anti-rich. I'm against the BS of those who are born on third base, think they hit a triple and bitching that somewhere someone is extending a hand to someone who is poor. That's it.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 03:28 PM	#124
sir drinks-a-lot Muse Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 577	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm against the BS of those who are born on third base, think they hit a triple and bitching that somewhere someone is extending a hand to someone who is poor. What about people who were born on second base that think they hit a double? How about those born on first base who think they hit a single? Are you as resentful of them as well? I am asking rhetorically, because from reading your posts in the past I know that the answer is a resounding "NO!" You're not upset by the general phenomenon that people often tend to overestimate their abilities. You're upset when the people who do it happen to have a certain measure of wealth. This explains why you and others on the left use the term "rich" as a pejorative so frequently. You've even used the phrase "rich idiots" in this very thread with the intent that a rich idiot was even worse than one who was not rich. So, no, I'm not buying that you're not anti-rich. Secondly, the bad rich people are not often bitching that "someone" is extending a hand "somewhere" to someone who is poor. Nice of you to move the goalposts and all, but that is not what you've been claiming all along. Do you think you mis-stated a few things in your example?
	__________________ "We all know that Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize, but none of us quite know what for." -Victor Davis Hanson Last edited by sir drinks-a-lot; 3rd December 2012 at 03:32 PM.

3rd December 2012, 03:31 PM	#125
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm really not sure what your point is. It sounds like you are wedded to small tax rates for the rich though you really don't know why. Is that correct? Not really. I wouldn't want to wildly over tax anyone. If someone is making 500k a year they are already paying a tonne more then me in taxes, if we are paying the same rate. I don't think it's my place to tell a guy who is paying 200k a year in taxes, that he is not paying enough. Maybe a mild amount more tax. Though this is a bit off topic. I do however believe society would be better off if we asked everyone to pay income tax. There are too many people not pulling their weight. I think if you make a dollar a year.... 30 pennies should be paid to help out.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Last edited by Caper; 3rd December 2012 at 03:34 PM.

3rd December 2012, 03:36 PM	#126
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Not only that, but corporate profits belong to the shareholders of that corporation. The subject is completely irrelevant to anyone who isn't a shareholder. But the whiners on the left seem to think that because Apple is sitting on $50 billion in cash (or whatever), that somehow some portion of that should be given to them, even though they don't own shares. How dare Apple have that much money!!! Scrut.... you're making too many serious posts lately.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

3rd December 2012, 03:00 PM	#122
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Wait, wait, wait..... You're saying *all* rich people were born advantaged? Really? Is it obtuse Monday? People born INTO wealth are advantaged.

3rd December 2012, 03:39 PM	#127
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by Caper Not really. I wouldn't want to wildly over tax anyone. If someone is making 500k a year they are already paying a tonne more then me in taxes, if we are paying the same rate. I don't think it's my place to tell a guy who is paying 200k a year in taxes, that he is not paying enough. Maybe a mild amount more tax. Whose place is it? I don't want to wildly over tax anyone. I would very much like everyone to pay as little in taxes as possible. Hell, I'd like to eliminate taxes alltogether and I'd like everyone to have whatever it is that they want or will make them happy. I'd like to be young again and I'd like to date Joanna Krupa. I'd like my problems with edema to go away and I'd like peace on earth.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 03:41 PM	#128
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by Caper Scrut.... you're making too many serious posts lately. Really? Try getting Scrut to name these people who give a **** that Apple has so much money? Outside a few anarchists they don't exist. Yeah, you guessed it, it's a straw man. But hey, if that's all you got, right?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 03:53 PM	#129
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Let's back up: I realize how easy it is to become distracted by shinny objects and squirrels. But this thread is about the apparent lack of evidence for supply side economics. The OP does not claim that the disparity between record profits and record wealth disprove supply side economics. The OP simply notes the lack of any empirical data that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have resulted in improved economic conditions of those at the bottom tiers (rungs) of society. So, the trick here for the advocates of SSE is to show why we shouldn't expect 10 years of lower taxes to result in improved conditions for the lower and middle classes or, why conditions have measurably improved. The rest is irrelevant.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 04:08 PM	#130
sir drinks-a-lot Muse Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 577	Originally Posted by RandFan I realize how easy it is to become distracted by shinny objects and squirrels. But this thread is about the apparent lack of evidence for supply side economics. 1) respect mentioned on page 2 that you are conflating supply side economics with trickle down economics. 2) Everyone here know that you don't really want to discuss anything, you just want to vent and rant about rich people and conservatives. See your first few posts in the thread. They don't have a tone that lends itself to honest discussion.
	__________________ "We all know that Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize, but none of us quite know what for." -Victor Davis Hanson

3rd December 2012, 04:11 PM	#131
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot You've even used the phrase "rich idiots" in this very thread with the intent that a rich idiot was even worse than one who was not rich. They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like.

3rd December 2012, 04:20 PM	#132
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by SezMe They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like. Is it politically incorrect to criticize rich idiots? Rich idiots are off limits? Really? **** that! Being rich doesn't make one an idiot but being rich is no protection against being an idiot.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 04:27 PM	#133
sir drinks-a-lot Muse Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 577	Originally Posted by SezMe A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. Often not true. Quote: A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. But not always. A more precise and sensible strategy would be to simply decry "idiots that affect others"? That way, one would catch the poor idiots that affect people and avoid the rich idiots that affect no-one. Pretty easy. Unless, of course one intends to use the word "rich" as a pejorative. Seems pretty obvious which is the case.
	__________________ "We all know that Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize, but none of us quite know what for." -Victor Davis Hanson

3rd December 2012, 04:30 PM	#134
sir drinks-a-lot Muse Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 577	Originally Posted by RandFan Is it politically incorrect to criticize rich idiots? Rich idiots are off limits? Really? **** that! Being rich doesn't make one an idiot but being rich is no protection against being an idiot. As steve a said, you're anti-rich. Criticizing idiots is another thing all together.
	__________________ "We all know that Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize, but none of us quite know what for." -Victor Davis Hanson

3rd December 2012, 04:31 PM	#135
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by RandFan Thank you. I'm a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm a fan of capitalism. I don't mind that people are rich. I'm glad that in America it's possible for the poor to become rich. I'm not anti-rich. I'm against the BS of those who are born on third base, think they hit a triple and bitching that somewhere someone is extending a hand to someone who is poor. That's it. I don't think they have much of a problem with someone extending a hand to the poor; the problem is being forced to extend their hand to the poor. It's called stealing their stuff, and giving it to someone else.
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 3rd December 2012 at 04:33 PM.

3rd December 2012, 04:44 PM	#136
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg I don't think they have much of a problem with someone extending a hand to the poor; the problem is being forced to extend their hand to the poor. It's called stealing their stuff, and giving it to someone else. You mean like when the govt takes money and gives it to defense contractors and when it uses that money to fight wars on false pretenses? Perhaps these people don't understand what living in a society means. Taxation isn't stealing. It might be burdensome. It might be unfair but it damn sure isn't stealing. Conservatives don't think it's theft to take 700 billion from people to spend on misadventure so excuse me if I don't buy into the "they're stealing my stuff" nonsense. When these people move to an island BEFORE they get rich then they can tell me how it's stealing if someone takes their money or stuff. Otherwise it's nonsense. For those that don't know. Taxation is constitutional. If you live in the USA the govt has every right to tax you. If you don't like it leave. Just understand that those who live in the USA have the right to vote, they have local and national representatives and they have the right to speak out and to seek redress. So, I know I can't stop that meme but I can point out how bankrupt it is. If you think you are being unfairly taxed I'll listen and perhaps you can persuade me. But if all you have is hackneyed propaganda then I'm not interested.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 3rd December 2012 at 04:46 PM.

3rd December 2012, 04:46 PM	#137
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,776	Isn't "rich idiot" an oxymoron? After all, no idiot is going to be rich for long.

3rd December 2012, 04:57 PM	#138
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by RandFan You mean like when the govt takes money and gives it to defense contractors and when it uses that money to fight wars on false pretenses? Ever notice how Republicans are so happy to have their taxes used to kill people but they don't like their taxes used to feed people. What's up with that? As a lifelong conservative Republican I'm honestly not certain why that is. Probably good framing and propaganda on behalf of those who stand to benefit from war and see little good in feeding the hungry.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 05:22 PM	#139
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Just going back to Clinton like tax rates shouldn't even be an argument. But how about we go back to the 1954 tax code if anyone wants to get real about tackling the deficit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

3rd December 2012, 05:22 PM	#140
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by RandFan Ever notice how Republicans are so happy to have their taxes used to kill people but they don't like their taxes used to feed people. *What's up with that? . No, I haven't noticed that.. Do you have some specific examples ? As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin. Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 3rd December 2012 at 05:23 PM.

3rd December 2012, 05:24 PM	#141
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg No, I haven't noticed that.. Do you have some specific examples ? As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin. Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work.. So Bush's wars while cutting taxes didn't contribute to the deficit?
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

3rd December 2012, 05:28 PM	#142
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Could you explain what that has to do with my response to RandFan's comment ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

3rd December 2012, 05:31 PM	#143
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	War isn't defense spending? How about no bid contracts? Who pays for that?
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

3rd December 2012, 05:36 PM	#144
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Do you have some specific examples ? Did you ever complain that your money was stolen from you to fund a war in Iraq that was started on false pretenses? Quote: As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin. The military budget is one of every five dollars of the US budget. Quote: Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work.. People have to spend the money on something (ostensibly it will be given to people who work). People have to work to administer social programs. Providing social services often gets them back on their feet. When you kill a child that child is just dead. But all of that is irrelevant. The money is till taken from one group to be used by another. If it's theft for citizens to vote for leaders who levy a tax to pay for social services then it damn sure is theft to levy a tax to kill people.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 05:40 PM	#145
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work.. I'm curious, do you honestly think poor people eat the money? No, seriously, what do you honestly think happens to the money? It disappears? The Economic Case for Food Stamps Originally Posted by The Atlantic Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 3rd December 2012 at 05:42 PM.

3rd December 2012, 05:45 PM	#146
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	I seemed to have missed the evidence where Republicans are happy to kill people with taxes while reluctant to help the poor .. Are you still putting that together ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

3rd December 2012, 05:51 PM	#147
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,217	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg I seemed to have missed the evidence where Republicans are happy to kill people with taxes while reluctant to help the poor .. You are not up on rhetorical device are you Greg. And here you are ignoring my questions again. Quote: Are you still putting that together ? Says the guy who ignores my questions and arguments. So, did you complain when your money was taken from you and used to start a war in Iraq on false pretenses?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd December 2012, 05:52 PM	#148
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg I seemed to have missed the evidence where Republicans are happy to kill people with taxes while reluctant to help the poor .. Are you still putting that together ? Its when they advocate and rubber stamp very expensive wars under the flimsiest of evidence but drag their feet and filibuster when we need to raise revenues to help the working class and the ever increasing poor of this country. Did you really miss that?
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

3rd December 2012, 05:58 PM	#149
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,776	Originally Posted by Profanz Just going back to Clinton like tax rates shouldn't even be an argument. But how about we go back to the 1954 tax code if anyone wants to get real about tackling the deficit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code The problem with imposing punitive tax levels on the rich is that it then becomes profitable for them to hire expensive lawyers to avoid the tax. With the ease in which profits can be shipped overseas, you would probably get away with hiring an undergraduate law student.

3rd December 2012, 06:02 PM	#150
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by psionl0 The problem with imposing punitive tax levels on the rich is that it then becomes profitable for them to hire expensive lawyers to avoid the tax. With the ease in which profits can be shipped overseas, you would probably get away with hiring an undergraduate law student. Its not punishment. Its an opportunity to be patriotic for real for once.
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

3rd December 2012, 06:09 PM	#151
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,776	Originally Posted by Profanz Its not punishment. Its an opportunity to be patriotic for real for once. A lot of people would rather be rich than patriotic.

3rd December 2012, 06:11 PM	#152
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by psionl0 A lot of people would rather be rich than patriotic. Except when it comes to war and defense contracts. Then they pretend they are the most patriotic of all.
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

3rd December 2012, 06:14 PM	#153
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,776	Originally Posted by Profanz Except when it comes to war and defense contracts. Then they pretend they are the most patriotic of all. That doesn't really rebut my assertion.

3rd December 2012, 06:30 PM	#154
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by psionl0 That doesn't really rebut my assertion. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Like how you never rebutted any of my assertions.
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

3rd December 2012, 06:30 PM	#155
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by RandFan ... So, did you complain when your money was taken from you and used to start a war in Iraq on false pretenses? No. Do you think it would have mattered if I did ? Would you have felt better if the Republicans were killing people for what you consider legitimate purposes ?
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 3rd December 2012 at 06:32 PM.