Draginol

I do not think your ideas will fly. If congress used your suggestions to balance the budget, they would not be reelected and the new members would reverse such changes. It is better to deal with issues before they become too large. Returning to the tax rates for the top 5% that were in effect prior to 2001 and cutting pork plus closing corporate tax loop holes would go a long way to bringing the budget into balance.

The concept called the margin propensity to consume is the economic reason it is more effective to raise tax rates on the wealthy then on the more moderate income group. Over all, the lower income taxpayer will spend a much higher proportion of any additional dollar and stimulate demand to a greater extent than will tax cuts to the wealthy. That is why it is more advisable increase taxes on the upper income citizens.

Draginol I do not think your ideas will fly

No more than yours will

"The top 5% of the people pay half the taxes. Did you even know that? I bet you didn't or you would quit ranting about "tax cuts for the rich"."

It is much the same in Britain too, but we must remember that income tax is not the only form of tax. The peasants often finds themselves hit hard from tax on cigarettes to VAT on the cheap food they eat.

I was aware of that. That does not alter the fact we are spending about $675 Billion more this year then we tax. That is what can not continue. When cuts that are acceptable to the majority have been made and loop holes closed, the remaining deficit must be filled with more revenue (Taxes). The tax rates in every other industrilized nation are far greater then in the US. Also, the higher tax rates on those who can afford to pay a bit more did not adversely inpct the economy in the 1990's in the U S.

See, here's the thing - you don't like the deficit. I don't like the deficit. Your solution is to make me and others like me pay to bring it down. My solution is to freeze spending across the board.

Freezing spending does not reduce the deficit, it only assures that we have a steady rate of deficit.
Those in the top 5% have gained most from the American economic system, are able to afford it the most, and have the most influence within Congress.

What annoys me about our tax system is that half the adult population basically pays no federal income taxes.

I won't call for a link for you to prove your statement because its misleading and irrelevent. Everyone pays taxes in the form of witholding which the government can use without paying interest back until their refunds are due. Additionally funds from everyones social security is borrowed against to pay off the general budget.
Do you and Draginol propose that we tax poor and lower middle income familiies higher?

The consumption tax is a sham. Those in favor argue that it will help the lower income classes more. Total lie. The new taxes would tax medical and food. Are you telling me a family makes so little money that they do not pay income taxes is going to save money by now being taxed on food? What it does is take the tax brackets down for the upper classes. Additionally there are no provisions to allow for charitable contributions, nor assistance for homeowners paying high interest rates for the pleasure of having a place to live.

Freezing spending does not reduce the deficit, it only assures that we have a steady rate of deficit. Those in the top 5% have gained most from the American economic system, are able to afford it the most, and have the most influence within Congress.

None of you have shown *any* justification as to why only the top 5% should pay.

What it does is take the tax brackets down for the upper classes

This is a lie. Consumption tax is a flat tax, so there would be no "tax brackets" to be taken down.

drmiler

The added revenue is needed to balance the budget and the top 5 % can affort a little higher taxes which was clearly documented in the 1990s when tax rates were higher.There is also an economic principle that the wealthier a person the less they will spend of of any added income including that which would come from a tax cut. This is called the marginal propensity to consume. Thus by increasing the taxes on the wealthy there is less impact on demand then the same tax increases on the middle income worker. Therefore there is a sound economic reason why we should increase tax rates on the wealthy as well as the fact that they can afford it without impacting their life style.

-isolated the muslim community by demonizing islam through demogaugery.

I take umbrage with this statement, as it is factually incorrect.

Osama/Usama Bin Laden is the "dipshit" that did what you allege. Him, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the rats nest of terrorists that are involving themselves in Iraq at this point.

Bush has done nothing other than to say that there are evil doers that have tried to soil the good name of Islam because of their treacherous terrorist acts.

Has the Muslim world become more isolated because of Bush's actions - doubtful. If it had, then the nations of Turkey, Afghanistan, the Kurdish muslims and other allies in Iraq and many other nations would not be working with us, would not be allied with us, and would be trying to kill us as have the few in the Islamic world that have taken up arms against the western world.


I'd rip you a new one on your other blatherings, but what you posted in that one line alone is enough to show it would probably do absolutely no good.

Terphan1980

What is #34 in answer to in this Blog?

drmiler The added revenue is needed to balance the budget and the top 5 % can affort a little higher taxes which was clearly documented in the 1990s when tax rates were higher.There is also an economic principle that the wealthier a person the less they will spend of of any added income including that which would come from a tax cut. This is called the marginal propensity to consume. Thus by increasing the taxes on the wealthy there is less impact on demand then the same tax increases on the middle income worker. Therefore there is a sound economic reason why we should increase tax rates on the wealthy as well as the fact that they can afford it without impacting their life style.

No matter *how* you slice this what you have stated is NOT a justification! Because they can afford it? Who's to say wether or not they can? You? I think not. Sorry but your overwhelming arrogance is only matched by your towering ignorance.

Sorry but your overwhelming arrogance is only matched by your towering ignorance.

Bwahahahahahahaha................
I guess he told ya, huh?

None of you have shown *any* justification as to why only the top 5% should pay.

Never said they should?? You like to read too far into things.

Freezing spending does not reduce the deficit, it only assures that we have a steady rate of deficit. Those in the top 5% have gained most from the American economic system, are able to afford it the most, and have the most influence within Congress.

You are wrong. If you freeze spending, then we would outgrow the deficit.  The economy grows each year. Tax receipts grow.  It's not a static economy.

Statements like yours are precisely the reason why left wingers such as you should not be involved in monetary policy.

I won't call for a link for you to prove your statement because its misleading and irrelevent. Everyone pays taxes in the form of witholding which the government can use without paying interest back until their refunds are due. Additionally funds from everyones social security is borrowed against to pay off the general budget. Do you and Draginol propose that we tax poor and lower middle income familiies higher?

Sigh. Where do I start:

(1) You are assuming that 100% of adults work.

(2) You are way way over-estimating the amount of interest the government holds from someone who is making under $30,000 per year.

The fact is, the top 5% pay over half the taxes but don't make over half the income. I"m okay with that btw. What I'm not okay are proposals to soak the rich even more while self-righteous people like Col Gene go around complaining. 

COl Gene's attitude is much like the guy in the neighborhood association who doesn't lift a finger to help out the neighborhood but bitches about the 5% of the neighborhood that does most of the work to improve it.

Returning to the tax rates in effect during the 1990's is NOT SOAKING THE RICH. The simple fact is that we are not collecting enough in taxes to balance the budget. If the choice is to collect a little more from those that can afford it or from those that are just making ends meet, the choice is simple.

None of you have shown *any* justification as to why only the top 5% should pay. Never said they should?? You like to read too far into things.

I never insinuated that you in particular did. *However* COL Gene on the otherhand most assuredly has and I quote....

The added revenue is needed to balance the budget and the top 5 % can affort a little higher taxes

Reply #35 By: COL Gene - 3/8/2005 7:42:21 PM Terphan1980 What is #34 in answer to in this Blog?

See reply #10, and the line which I had quoted. Obviously you missed the "quote" box that I used, and the statement I disputed, but that's just the way you seem to operate... always missing the obvious.


And regarding this:

Reply #41 By: COL Gene - 3/8/2005 9:52:35 PM Returning to the tax rates in effect during the 1990's is NOT SOAKING THE RICH. The simple fact is that we are not collecting enough in taxes to balance the budget. If the choice is to collect a little more from those that can afford it or from those that are just making ends meet, the choice is simple.

I still hold that IF YOU (and others like Al Gore, John Kerry, and most of the Democratic party) like those tax rates so much, then you pay them. You can send more money into the government anytime. You can choose not to use all of your available deductions and exemptions. You pay more. Feel free.

I on the other hand, am enjoying the very middle class tax cuts that helped my just barely better than single earner family with 2 kids, 2 cars (not SUVs, but old, barely paid for, small cars), our official redneck certified double-wide mobile home (since housing in the DC metro area is so damned expensive as to be unaffordable) as I and my wife save money to get ready to help our soon to be college age son be able to get into a bastion of higher learning and liberalism that is known as a "university" or college.

You keep missing the research that shows that no matter what the vast majority of the tax burden in this country hits the middle class, and that has been the case for decades now. That top 5% of earners you want to hit comes in at an income level that many consider "middle class" or which barely affords a reasonable standard of living in cities like NYC; Boston, L.A., Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, San Fran and others.


When you can absolutely tell all of us -- without using percentages -- what income level you want more taxes from, then maybe, just maybe you can get some of us to support your continued cries for higher taxes.

But I remind you and all again that what $60,000 buys in West Virginia or Tuscaloosa, Alabama for example is vastly different than what that same amount buys in Norman, Oklahoma or San Francisco. Unless you want to seriously complicate the tax code and allow for all kinds of locality exemptions and deductions that could encourage more flight from, or more flight to certain areas of the country, you better slow down and realize that what you are talking about when you cry for these increases to past rates is inherently not fair.

If you want fair, then everyone pays the same percentage -- except, ooops, that isn't fair because a 10% burden on a poor person is overwhelming while a 10% burden, regardless of the fact that the burden brings in many times more actual revenue, on someone that earns more than $1,000,000 a year, is too generous. How is the fact that the million dollar earner paying $99,000 more in revenue not fair? You cry that it isn't because that individual can afford more and better. Yet you miss the fact that the more and better you speak of comes in buying goods and services that are provided by people at all wage scales. Jobs for others along the line.

You are hopeless. You continue to bleet the same liberal sheepish whine and can see no more than the fact that your cries -- like many others in this past election -- were deafened by the votes of 64+ million U.S. citizens that wanted no part of what you are crying for.

You, sir, deserve a JUST SHUT UP award. Here it is for you to enjoy:

The first thing we must do is agree on what we want the government to do for us. Not just the far Right or far Left but what the majority want.

Second, we must pay for those services. Not pay part and charge the balance.

It may be necessary to eliminate some programs but those the majority want must be properly funded and run well to be effective in delivering the desired service. Those who say stop increasing the budget in future years are living in a dream world. Any program the majority wants will cost more in the future due to infltion or the growth in the number of people being served. We will also need to change our tax laws to insure that people, rich or middle income are not allowed to dodge their share of the burden. When choosing what share each should pay we must consider the ability to pay. The wealthy have a different ability to pay then the poor and middle income workers.

When choosing what share each should pay we must consider the ability to pay. The wealthy have a different ability to pay then the poor and middle income workers.

Translation: anyone that has more than me must pay more because it wasn't possible that they worked harder or smarter than me to earn the money.

Class envy at it's finest. I didn't get enough, and therefore I must get it from someone else.

Just another reminder: the former Soviet Union tried what you are proposing -- it was called Communism and it died a horrible death because it just plain doesn't work. It encourages people to become lazy wards of the state and society rather than encouraging them to be hard-working entrepreneurs and industrialists that produce and work for their rewards.

Do the freakin' math again.

If, as an example, COL Gene makes $100,000 a year, and he pays 10% in taxes, his contribution to the government coffers is $10,000.

If, as an example, Terpfan1980 makes $20,000 a year, and he pays 10% in taxes, he pays $2,000 a year into the government.

COL Gene, in this example, would be paying $8,000.00 more a year into the tax system than would terpfan. Or, another way, COL Gene would be paying 5x more taxes than would terpfan, who paid the same rate. Realistically, it could be said that COL Gene paid the way for terpfan's brother, sister, mother and father, since he paid an excess of $8,000 into the tax system, and an average person should be paying $2,000. (4 x $2,000 would cover those other four people).

I'm sure we can all see the good COL crying in advance that he doesn't make $100,000 or that taxes aren't at rates I toss around for discussion. That may be true (I don't know what the COL makes, but I hope he makes $0.00 on book sales) all around. In the case of taxes, the situation is different and worse than I describe, as the tax system is designed to be progressive and take more from people as they earn more.

People that earn $100,000 or more per year are asked to pay a higher percentage on the upper portion of their taxable income. The minimal rates are somewhere around 24% (sorry, I'm too lazy to look them up, I'll let someone else get paid for doing that work just so I can enjoy the benefits of the communism that COL Gene proposes), the upper rates about 4 - 5% higher.

Either way the person at the top *always* (unless they have a lot of deductions thanks to paying a bunch of tax lawyers, accountants and others) pays more into the system in REAL TOTAL DOLLARS than the people at the bottom.

The system already robs from the rich and helps shield the poor. Unfortunately not to enough effectiveness to get some people to stop crying for more.

Until COL Gene is a "have" trying to protect his money from the "have nots" that he took it all from to begin with, he's not gonna be happy, and we'll continue to get beaten over the head with these rants until the wonders of medical science stop extending the life span of some bloggers, or until the COL's losses on book printing eat up his savings and leave him without enough money to pay for the internet connection he uses to take advantage of the charity that he receives at Joeuser.com

I have paid my way and then some both with my taxes and service in the military. The bottom line is this nation is going deeper and deeper into debt and the day is comming when we will be required to pay for our irresponsible fiscal behavior.

Terpfan: Progressive tax rates exist because as incomes rise each dollar has less marignal utility. People use their first ten or twenty thousand for important things like food, clothing, medical care, and clothes, so it makes sense not to heavily tax income used to secure these basic necessities. As you get into the $100,000+ bracket, people should pay more taxes because these dollars go toward less necessary things like a nice car, etc.

This concept is known as 'vertical equity' and left and right wing economists alike generally agree that it is a fundamental characteristic of a good income tax system. Col. Gene is not proposing anything Soviet and you'd do well not call call everyone you disagree with a commie. No one is arguing for really high tax rates on the rich, just one that better incoporates vertical equity.

A flat tax is a bad idea because it taxes high utility dollars at the same rate as low-utility dollars. A poll tax, where all citizens are required to pay X amount of dollars regardless of income, is an even worse idea because low and middle incomes now pay a higher % of their income in taxes than the rich.

So we are left with a progressive tax system - one which taxes the rich at a higher rate - as the only reasonable alternative. If you choose to see this as "robbing from the rich and helping shield the poor", fine, but someone's gotta pay the bills.

Finally, get off Col. Gene's ass, for crissakes. Show some respect, honour, and decency. Your attitude is uncivilized and way out of line. It's clear he is an educated and accmplished man and doesn't need you teaching him math or berating him for ranting. Col Gene does not "rant", his tone is impassive, he provides facts and figures, displays excellent understanding of public policy and offers many solutions in his posts. JoeUser is lucky to have a knowledgeable guy with a long fuse posting here in the Politics section.

David St. Hubbins

bwah-ha-hahahahahahaha!!!

Finally, get off Col. Gene's ass, for crissakes. Show some respect, honour, and decency. Your attitude is uncivilized and way out of line. It's clear he is an educated and accmplished man and doesn't need you teaching him math or berating him for ranting. Col Gene does not "rant", his tone is impassive, he provides facts and figures, displays excellent understanding of public policy and offers many solutions in his posts. JoeUser is lucky to have a knowledgeable guy with a long fuse posting here in the Politics section.

It's clear only that he wants to sell books and he continues to points whore with the same repetitive topics over and over again.

Get off his butt my ass.

Below me.

I may rant at times. Hell, I may rant all the time. But I show far more intelligence in any single reply than the COLs continued Bush bashing bleets.

You can cry if you want, I don't care.

I appreciate your attempt to explain the utility of money, but I would again point out that it's not for you, COL Gene or any other individual or group of individuals to decide how much utility there is to my money, or anyone else's money as I or others acquire more of it. If I collect it and never spend it, even if I only make $10,000 a year, then how much utility was there to my money? If I make $300,000 a year, and spend $280,000 of that money on trivial wasteful items (think M.C. Hammer here for a sec, during his 15 minutes), then was there or was there not more utilitarian use of the money? Keep in mind that M.C. Hammer gave out money like Michael Jackson giving out candy to kids at Neverland ranch. Were the people that took his money any less entitled to get it directly from him than they were from the government in the form of a welfare check?

You say reasonable alternative, I say B.S. I don't want to put too much burden on the poor, but I also don't like the system as currently structured with loophole after loophole that are used to provide tax breaks for those that can afford to pay CPAs and tax lawyers, or for those that are "too poor" to be paying into the system. I'd rather see a flat tax and no deductions at all than have the mess we have now. I expect it will never happen, but I can hope for it.

And for the record, I actually do look at athletes like the MLBPA, or actors and others like the MPAA members that make well more than $1,000,000 per year and think "gee, wouldn't it be nice if those people could live off a reasonable amount of money, and we didn't have salary inflation because each has to outdo the last for salaries?" I'd love to say that if you make more than $1,000,000 a year the government takes 99% of the money, but then what incentive is there to try harder than the next person? And who gets to arbitrarily decide what salary level is appropriate before taking all that money from the person that was supposed to get it?

Reply #46 By: COL Gene - 3/9/2005 4:35:24 PM I have paid my way and then some both with my taxes and service in the military.

And so have I and my family you smug bastard.