I did belong to a Baptist church when I was growing up (my Louisianan- born mother making me go and miss football). So I have some vague recollection that a major focus of Christianity is to help the poor. But I am certainly not going to hunt down verses, though I will cite to someone who has. http://www.zompist.com/meetthepoor.html

As for the fact that Romney's money has aready been taxed, so what? Why should we value the money that is made from investments (where one may literally have to do nothing but count your money) over money produced by work?

Funny, you never answer the question of why it's fair that since 1980 wealth has gone towards the rich and away from the middle-class and poor. Why is it fair that the wealth is going more and more towards the wealthy? You never answer that question, because there is no answer. The central thesis of conservatives that if you cut taxes you willl free people to create so much wealth that everyone benefits hasn't happened. They simply take more wealth and keep it (or worse they corner the market or monopolize or get government contracts). And the great conservative idea of deregulation has led to the Savings & Loan collapse of the 1989s and the 2000s Financial Crisis.Conservative ideas have failed--that is what is so irritating. We tried them and they did not work--why keep doing them?

I will answer that question.

It is fair because the people who are wealthy worked to become so (in a majority of cases), or others worked for them, and passed the benefits down to them. Both are legal, and completely acceptable. I have given my story before about the class I was in as a child. I worked HARD to better my economic condition. Those options are available to each and every person.

You are right about Christianity. People are called to care for the poor. Notice the word, please. I said people. Show me a verse in the Bible where it says the government should take care of the poor, and I will be quite surprised. It is not there.

Glad to see you trying to use Bible to back up your assertions. There are many other interesting aspects of the Bible. Care to ascribe to them? Perhaps Romans or John 3:16?

bbauska wrote:Nice attempt at a dodge... Answer as if you were giving your opinion. That is what I would like to know... your opinion; not what what a blog somewhere says...

That is my opinion. If you don't agree, fine. If you don't like it, fine. If you want to make out it's deception, then that's your problem.

To clarify - 'fair' is an adjective, not a noun. Many things can be 'fair', not just one. You have decided what you think is fair. I, respectfully, disagree.

Doctor Fate wrote:Attacks on religion will always get my attention.

And so, it appears, will comments about religious people that are not attacks on religion. By the way, in your own silly rules you invited people to let you know if you broke any. Don't complain when someone does. Well, no, please do complain. Whine and moan and call me names. It make you look such the better person.

bbauska wrote:It is fair because the people who are wealthy worked to become so (in a majority of cases), or others worked for them, and passed the benefits down to them. Both are legal, and completely acceptable.

Hmmm. Do you have figures on how many people in the top, say, 10% worked for it and how many inherited it, to back your 'in a majority of cases' claim? Or will it just hang there as an unchallengeable assertion. When you say 'others worked for them and passed the benefits down to them' are you only talking about single-generation inheritance? What about multi-generation inheritance (where great-grandpaw 'worked' for the money that four generations later keeps his descendents in the manner to which they've become accustomed'

And what about those who got wealthy through the work of other others?

I have given my story before about the class I was in as a child. I worked HARD to better my economic condition. Those options are available to each and every person.

No, they are not. I have a cousin. He is severely autistic. He has to work 'HARD' just to understand what's going on and to get along with his family. He's never going to be in a position to earn his way to comfort.

You know as well as I do that not everyone has the same capabilities. The Declaration of Independence was incorrect - it is actually 'self evident' that all people are not created equal, when you look at real people.

You are right about Christianity. People are called to care for the poor. Notice the word, please. I said people. Show me a verse in the Bible where it says the government should take care of the poor, and I will be quite surprised. It is not there.

To paraphrase Mitt Romney "government is people, my friend".

But you do know which 'people' are 'called to' help the poor the most? The rich.

freeman2 wrote:Conservative ideas have failed--that is what is so irritating. We tried them and they did not work--why keep doing them?

The hard part for me on reading this is that we have also tried liberal ideas. We have every manner of program to help the poor including food stamps, early education up through college, housing policies, and health policies. We have campaigns to correct the distortions of the market in every which way whether it is price supports for agriculture (because the prices get too low) or help for paying for oil (because the prices get too high). We have government policies that support unions, and others that encourage exports. Fundamentally we live in a mixed economy that is neither conservative nor socialist. It is liberal capitalism.

Many liberal ideas have failed -- that is what is so irritating. We tried them and they do not work yet they stay on the books.

freeman2 wrote:I did belong to a Baptist church when I was growing up (my Louisianan- born mother making me go and miss football). So I have some vague recollection that a major focus of Christianity is to help the poor. But I am certainly not going to hunt down verses, though I will cite to someone who has. http://www.zompist.com/meetthepoor.html

Thanks for the link--it saves someone a lot of time.

Deuteronomy 26:5-9. The blog could have listed a lot of OT Scriptures. As I said, this is to Israel, which was a theocracy. If you want to live under all of the Law, fine, bring it. However, to select one law out of the whole and act as if that proves something is not helpful. These were "God's people" and He charged them to live in a specific way. As far as I know, the US is not "God's people" in that theocratic sense.

The bigger problem with every verse listed is this: there is no command from God to any people to care for the poor. I could have done a better job of making the argument. Instead, this person has listed verses that show God cares for the poor. In that case, one could argue, why should the government?

The bigger picture: a safety net is a safety net, it is not a guarantee of cradle-to-grave entitlements. Government should help those who cannot help themselves or who, for no fault of their own, find themselves in temporary distress. Convince me that insufficient taxation is the problem.

As for the fact that Romney's money has aready been taxed, so what? Why should we value the money that is made from investments (where one may literally have to do nothing but count your money) over money produced by work?

It is different. Why? Because when you work there is no risk involved. Being a big shot, you probably get, what, $200/hr? Whatever your rate, at the end of the day, that's what you get paid. On the other hand, most investments are not locked in at a particular return. To encourage investment, it is taxed at a lower rate.

Additionally, if it's so "unfair," such a crime against reason, why didn't the "fair" Obama change it in the first two years of his presidency? You've yet to answer that. Maybe, just maybe, it's because it wasn't a priority until he needed a campaign issue.

Funny, you never answer the question of why it's fair that since 1980 wealth has gone towards the rich and away from the middle-class and poor. Why is it fair that the wealth is going more and more towards the wealthy? You never answer that question, because there is no answer.

Tell you what: how about I answer for myself?

I don't view it as a matter of "fairness." Life is not fair. If you want "fair," go to Pomona.

We already have a system under which nearly 50% of Americans pay zero income tax and the top 10% of earners pay 70%. If we really get to "fair," what SPECIFIC rate would you propose? The truth is we are getting very near a government of the untaxed. What a great system! The majority will pay zero and just keep voting for candidates who promise to take more and more from those who do pay! Awesome!

steve
We already have a system under which nearly 50% of Americans pay zero income tax and the top 10% of earners pay 70%. If we really get to "fair," what SPECIFIC rate would you propose? The truth is we are getting very near a government of the untaxed. What a great system! The majority will pay zero and just keep voting for candidates who promise to take more and more from those who do pay! Awesome!

Your first sentence is accurate. But then you seque to falsehood. You couched the first sentence by stating "income tax" because you know that those 50% who don't pay income taxes, most all pay payroll taxes, some also pay state taxes and everyone pay consumption taxes... And its absurd to imagine a situation of no taxation.

But you are right to note that Obama failed to change taxation rates in the first two years, when the numbers sugested he had a chance. You're absolutley right that he made a mistake not eliminating the tax deduction for the wealthiest and that failure has added to the deficit for the last 3 years.

Fine, RickyP.

What total percentage of ALL TAX would you like to see. Please include all taxes and make a total percentage or total amount. Please keep it the same to make it equal. I know how much equality means to you...

Danivon,
I will look for data for the % of self made wealthy. Do you think that all people who are unable to make it have a disability such as autism? I would hope not. Are there many people who do not try in your world view, or do they all have good reasons for not bettering themselves?

rickyp wrote:Your first sentence is accurate. But then you seque to falsehood. You couched the first sentence by stating "income tax" because you know that those 50% who don't pay income taxes, most all pay payroll taxes, some also pay state taxes and everyone pay consumption taxes... And its absurd to imagine a situation of no taxation.

Indeed. You'd think that Income Tax was the only tax Americans paid, or the only Federal Tax, the way that some peopel fixate on it.

In reality, Income Tax accounts for about half of Federal Income (source: wikipedia. In order to judge the 'fairness' of the US federal taxation system one should look at the impact of all federal taxes.

And then, if one wants to look at the fairness of tax in the USA overall, one migh considers also looking at where State and local taxation hits.

That may, of course not be so convenient for those who want to pretend that the rich are so put upon.

[quote[But you are right to note that Obama failed to change taxation rates in the first two years, when the numbers sugested he had a chance. You're absolutley right that he made a mistake not eliminating the tax deduction for the wealthiest and that failure has added to the deficit for the last 3 years.[/quote]Well, one does have to be careful when increasing taxes (even if just by removing tax breaks) during and just after a recession, in case it has an effect on a return to growth. Of course, taxing people who are still doing well in such an economic state is less likely to be negative than taxing people at the bottom.

dan

Hmmm. Do you have figures on how many people in the top, say, 10% worked for it and how many inherited it, to back your 'in a majority of cases' claim

fun fact: The Koch brothers, along with 4 Sam Walton heirs, make up 6 of the top 11 in the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans.
The Koch brothers inherited their money from their father who got wealthy selling oil to Hitler and Stalin.

We've discussed this before, but social mobility is less in the US then in most other western nations. And far less than "socialized by US standards" nations like Sweden Norway or even Canada. Part of that is the risk of ill health and the costs that come with it, and the cost of education are not borne by the young. Society makes an investment in them with free health care and education becasue it benefits society in the long run.
The reason society began schooling was because it was the most efficient effective way to provide a trained and educated work force to industry. Thats borne out today, when societies that make this as free as possible see greater social mobility, indicating that those who demonstrate merit are being rewarded for their efforts.
Where economic circumstance ensures that those of working class or even middle class can get the edcutation without an attendant crippling debt, then you have true social mobility. And genuine equal opportunity.

ray

Many liberal ideas have failed -- that is what is so irritating. We tried them and they do not work yet they stay on the books

.

Thats true. But isn't it also true that nothing is born perfect and that whatever endevour one takes that it should be constantly examined to see if it can be improved? In the US, the notion of "exceptionalism" has meant that a large segment of your populace won't look at the experience in foreign lands as applicable to the US. It is also true that ideological blocks and myths affect the discussion before it even begins.(Ideas that are UnAmerican, or battles over constitutionality or states rights...) And similarly the notion that history can be ignored if it doesn't necessarilly fit. (For example when discussing taxation we must never bring up the much higher taxation rates in the recent past, that somehow didn't affect the way people invested, nor affected the development of the economy.)
But the stagnant nature of your governance, where laws and programs stay on the books probably does account for an inability to adapt... Perhaps the biggest improvement on governance would be a sunset law that requires recertification of many laws every so often, in order that they continue to jusitfy their existence. Is it working as intended? Have there been consequences unforseen? Can we improve this?

One thing that conservatives need to answer, that they don't. Lets say the programs that are in place to support the poor were taken away after a period of time... what happens then? Do the poor and indigent suddenly stop being poor and indigent?
If someone who was gainfully employed for 20 years, is still unemployed after 99 weeks...and you cut off his benefits, does he suddenly , magically find a job?
They forget that going back to the 1870's and 80's when there was limited governance wouldn't be an attractive life for the majority of Americans. (The top 1% had it pretty good...) And every law that was introduced that somehow enabled a middle class to grow and prosper, contributed to the economic growth and enrichment of society. Included in these are many of what are now called "entitlements".
Essentially the arguement today over "whats fair?" has to include the question..."Fair to whom?"
If the US is a society that prospered because its middle class prospered than a quick review of what happened to the middle class since 1980 is important. Becasue the "Fair to Whom" should mean the middle class in my view. (If its fair to the middle class, the working class will gain sufficently to be able to genuinely have an opportunity to improve their lives.)

Mitt Romney said that "the middle class has been crushed" in January. But he hasn't said how what he's proposed can change that, since most of what he's proposed is a repeat of the theme of the last 30 years

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I will look for data for the % of self made wealthy.

Cheers.

Do you think that all people who are unable to make it have a disability such as autism? I would hope not. Are there many people who do not try in your world view, or do they all have good reasons for not bettering themselves?

All? No. But that's not what I was saying, because what you were saying is that everyone can work hard and achieve what you have. I was pointing out that this is not the case.

So, we have to make a choice, do we:

a) make allowances for the fact that some people are through genetics, through illness, or through accident, not going to have the same opportunities as the rest of us, or
b) not do so, in case one person manages to freeload

Similarly, it's all very well commending inherited wealth as being legal and perfectly acceptable, but do you not concede that it also creates a starting-point of inequality?

I'm done trying to interact with people who won't answer questions or assign absurd positions (see Uncle Dan's comment in another forum where I allegedly suggest we drill in Cuban waters. No, numbskull, the point is the President doesn't want us drilling anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico--and that stops no one else--so why trust our environment to the Cubans, Russians, etc.? I know, I know, that's too sophisticated for Uncle Dan, but I thought he went to law school since he so regularly represents Ricky and rarely interjects a meaningful link. *NB* I have noticed in the past that when I point out Owen/Dan's sluggard ways he tends to become "Uncle Link.").

Ricky, do I really have to use the words FEDERAL INCOME TAX repeatedly? Can you not follow context? What's the topic? "State of the Union." Was the President addressing "state taxes and . . . . consumption taxes?" Are you that daft? Well, I notice it's not just you, but your barrister. Lovely. He even wants to point to other sources of Federal revenue.

Well, Mr. Barrister, do tell us: what percentage of that other revenue is paid by the 47% of the population that pays ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAX? Go ahead. Use that "helpful" link. Please, tell us what percentage they pay in terms of duties, estate taxes and other taxes. I'm willing to be convinced by FACTS, not by a single jpeg with no other information. Please, tell us.

Here is my entire paragraph:

Doctor Fate wrote:We already have a system under which nearly 50% of Americans pay zero income tax and the top 10% of earners pay 70%. If we really get to "fair," what SPECIFIC rate would you propose? The truth is we are getting very near a government of the untaxed. What a great system! The majority will pay zero and just keep voting for candidates who promise to take more and more from those who do pay! Awesome!

Did I talk about States in there?

You are either clueless or being deliberately dishonest. Since you often tell me how much you know, I'll go with the latter.

This is for you and your fellow liberal, Mr. Freeman.

Administration officials are not releasing projected revenues from the much-hyped plan named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. During the State of the Union address, Obama tied his proposal — which would tax those earning $1 million at a minimum of 30 percent — to cutting a deficit estimated to top $1.1 trillion for the fourth straight year.

But for the moment, the White House wants to keep the attention focused on Obama’s argument that it’s unfair to tax Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than her boss.

“I’m not going to give you a schedule of how broad individual tax reform would break down and what impact it would have,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the Wednesday briefing. “The president simply believes that as a matter of principle that unfairness ought to be changed.”

Republican lawmakers — noting the absence of real numbers — attacked the plan as a political charade, an attempt to score points in the November election instead of a serious policy to reduce federal debt. One outside analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation indicates the rule would generate another $36.7 billion a year in revenue — far from enough to make a serious dent in a national debt of $15 trillion.

In other words, this whole "Buffett rule" nonsense is political theater. Even liberal groups guess this might be $50B a year.

This is the "big idea" of the President?

Anyway, since interaction with you and Owen is a waste of time, I'm going to take a few days off. Maybe that will be long enough for you to figure out what SPECIFIC tax rate would be "fair," but I doubt it.

Ray Jay wrote:The hard part for me on reading this is that we have also tried liberal ideas. We have every manner of program to help the poor including food stamps, early education up through college, housing policies, and health policies. We have campaigns to correct the distortions of the market in every which way whether it is price supports for agriculture (because the prices get too low) or help for paying for oil (because the prices get too high). We have government policies that support unions, and others that encourage exports. Fundamentally we live in a mixed economy that is neither conservative nor socialist. It is liberal capitalism.

Many liberal ideas have failed -- that is what is so irritating. We tried them and they do not work yet they stay on the books.

I guess it depends what you mean by 'work'.

bbauska
What total percentage of ALL TAX would you like to see. Please include all taxes and make a total percentage or total amount. Please keep it the same to make it equal. I know how much equality means to you...

There is no magic number. (Why do you think there is one?) However one has to arrive at a taxation rate, and expenditures, that ensures that the budget runs a surplus when the economy is running positively. And that surplus needs to be used to reduce the deficit.
Happily for the US thats the policy that was followed from 1946 through 1980. Tax rates then were much higher than now... (Perhaps you neeed to look at history for this magic number you seem to think exists...?)
If the US had followed that policy through the 1980s your debt would have been eliminated completely by the early 90s. And that would represent real economic freedom.
The proflligate ways of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush lead you to this unhappy day. That and the lack of heed to the lesssons of financial calamity (1929 and 1989) caused by surrendering to the notion that the financial sector could conduct business without effective regulation.
Today, I think that the economy suggests that only the wealthiest can accept previous levels of taxation without the economy suffering... You depend too much on domestic spending by the middle class for growth. .
By the way, since its inception in 1913, the income tax has always had increasing marginal rates. Apparently since its inception that has been seen as "fair". When did it stop being fair?
And if one assume that the marginal rates universally apply to everyone, (the first X$ are y% and the next Z$ are XY% and so on) then I don't quite understand how this universality is unfair? If one year I make only enough money to hit th third marginal rate, but then the next I'm make enough to reach the fifth marginal rate, why is this unfair? And would I choose to make less money because of what you think is "unfair"?
It's really a privilege of success to be able to pay the higher marginal rate. (In a perverse way....)

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I will look for data for the % of self made wealthy.

Cheers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

This shows 91%, 90% and 98%. for an average of 93% are self made. Would this percentage be acceptable. I hope so. Sounds about right. Also interesting is the wealthy inheritance is going down considerably.

Given the choice of your two options, I choose 'b'.

RickyP,
You did not surprise me. I knew you would not provide a number of equality. You never do. You are like the person who, when asked, "how much money does it take to be rich?" Answer? Just a little bit more.

How much should the wealthy pay? Just a bit more. It is never enough for you. If there is one person who is not equal to the rest, you want to change the world regardless of the reason for this inequality.

Do you really think it is a good thing that the marginal tax rates have been increasing? When the marginal tax rate is 90% would that be acceptable? Maybe 95%, Perhaps 98%?

I agree that government should not be in debt, and Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and II AND OBAMA (since you forgot him) have increased the debt. Do you agree that we should not have debt now?

That should be a change in you that I would agree with.



And yes, there should be a number. The fact that you refuse to give one says volumes,