Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

[lawgator1]

Sorry if this has already been addressed - I didn't read the whole thread.

The current fight is over THIS YEAR'S budget - you know the one that Dem's punted on.

The forthcoming budget from the GOP will address larger, structural issues. I believe Ryan is assembling that proposal now but first the current budget has to be finished since Dem's abdicated their responsibility last fall in an effort to save they arses (and it didn't work).

I keep hearing this.

It is probably the lamest argument of all time because the budget requires 60 votes in the Senate and the D's and R's were never going to pass anything with a deficit, particularly those running against -- or seeking approval of -- the TPers during the last election cycle.

Just because no budget was passed last year doesn't mean that the Democrats thereby waive their right to vote on it as we move forward.

 

[volinbham]

I keep hearing this.

It is probably the lamest argument of all time because the budget requires 60 votes in the Senate and the D's and R's were never going to pass anything with a deficit, particularly those running against -- or seeking approval of -- the TPers during the last election cycle.

Just because no budget was passed last year doesn't mean that the Democrats thereby waive their right to vote on it as we move forward.

Who said anything about waiving their rights to vote?

I'm saying that the efforts currently are aimed at getting the current budget done - a situation necessitated by Dem's punting on their responsibility.

The belly-aching about real deficit reduction is falsely placed because that is coming in the first budget cycle for which the new House has responsibility.

The Rs are trying to cut some bit out of the rest of the current budget but will do the real heavy lifting in the next budget.

Whining that they aren't attacking entitlements is a lame argument because that would not be part of fininshing the current budget.

 

[utgibbs]

Ideas: Misrepresenting Adam Smith

First, the blog's first premise is hogwash. He is not discussing a flat tax. Second, the blog is not focused on the dedicated treatise on taxation Adam Smith gives:

The Wealth Of Nations, Book V Chapter II Part II, Appendix to Articles I&II, p. 861, para. 12.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities...

The Wealth Of Nations, Book V Chapter II Pt II, v. ii, p. 825, para. 3.

The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person...

The Wealth Of Nations, Book V Chapter II Pt II, p. 825, para. 4.

Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay...

The Wealth Of Nations, Book V Chapter II Pt II, p. 826, para. 5.

Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state…

Simple, Transparent, Progressive. :hi:

 

[utgibbs]

i've defended rubin getting $50 mil from citigroup? link?

Yes, yes you have. He was worth every penny for getting rid of Glass-Steagal, in the first instance, and he helped ensure citigroup got bailed out. You have also defended the bonus schemes.

You have defended it; you have defended it all.

 

[MG1968]

Yes, yes you have. He was worth every penny for getting rid of Glass-Steagal, in the first instance, and he helped ensure citigroup got bailed out. You have also defended the bonus schemes.

You have defended it; you have defended it all.

and as a consequence, puppies will die and children will have their candy taken from them.

 

[volinbham]

First, the blog's first premise is hogwash. He is not discussing a flat tax. Second, the blog is not focused on the dedicated treatise on taxation Adam Smith gives:



Simple, Transparent, Progressive. :hi:

You've been wrong about AS before - you conveniently leave out the fact that he was strongly against income taxes and taxing profits. Both he considered highly counterproductive. He preferred consumption and asset focused taxation.

 

[utgibbs]

You've been wrong about AS before - you conveniently leave out the fact that he was strongly against income taxes and taxing profits. Both he considered highly counterproductive. He preferred consumption and asset focused taxation.

Remind me, please, when I was wrong about AS before. It seems rather ludicrous to be told I'm not right after giving citations chapter and verse (with none in retort being produced).

AS did like a good consumption tax. Never said he didn't. I've maintained that he gives as good an orientation to how to develop a tax plan.

As my rock solid citation attest. :hi:

 

[MG1968]

Remind me, please, when I was wrong about AS before. It seems rather ludicrous to be told I'm not right after giving citations chapter and verse.

AS did like a good consumption tax. Never said he didn't. I've maintained that he gives as good an orientation to how to develop a tax plan.

As my rock solid citation attest. :hi:

can you snort coke off of those rock solid citations? If so, Billy C. and you should get together and party with Lindsey Lohan.

 

[volinbham]

Remind me, please, when I was wrong about AS before. It seems rather ludicrous to be told I'm not right after giving citations chapter and verse.

AS did like a good consumption tax. Never said he didn't. I've maintained that he gives as good an orientation to how to develop a tax plan.

As my rock solid citation attest. :hi:

You were wrong arguing the AS would advocate a progressive tax on corporations based on income or revenue. He was strongly against taxation of income/revenues.

 

[utgibbs]

You were wrong arguing the AS would advocate a progressive tax on corporations based on income or revenue. He was strongly against taxation of income/revenues.

Maybe, since he was against corporations full stop. I suppose he would find it difficult to tax organizations he didn't want to exist.

Again, his maxims on taxation, cited above, give a clear orientation of a taxation policy. Clearly, his maxims can be summarized as simple, transparent, and progressive. It seems rather quixotic to try to deny the citations.

He also believed strongly in tariffs and protectionism - and, as the record shows, these aren't bad policies at all either. :hi:

 

[volinbham]

Maybe, since he was against corporations full stop. I suppose he would find it difficult to tax organizations he didn't want to exist.

Again, his maxims on taxation, cited above, give a clear orientation of a taxation policy. Clearly, his maxims can be summarized as simple, transparent, and progressive. It seems rather quixotic to try to deny the citations.

He also believed strongly in tariffs and protectionism - and, as the record shows, these aren't bad policies at all either. :hi:

I'm not denying anything. However, using his maxims to suggest he would favor a progressive corporate tax system based on income is simply wrong. In another thread you did this by saying AS would favor such taxation - I provided citations showing that view to be wrong.

 

[utgibbs]

I'm not denying anything. However, using his maxims to suggest he would favor a progressive corporate tax system based on income is simply wrong. In another thread you did this by saying AS would favor such taxation - I provided citations showing that view to be wrong.

I honestly don't remember your citations. I will gladly go over them again if you repost.

Also, two things:

1. What does Adam Smith mean in the citations I have cited then?

2. How can Adam Smith argue for taxation on an entity he does not believe should exist?

 

[volinbham]

I honestly don't remember your citations. I will gladly go over them again if you repost.

Also, two things:

1. What does Adam Smith mean in the citations I have cited then?

2. How can Adam Smith argue for taxation on an entity he does not believe should exist?

1. I assume he means that he favors a progressive tax primarily on assets or consumption. He also believes taxation should be minimal. His writings also state the he believes taxing income is counterproductive. I'm sure he would be appalled that people pay more than 1/2 their salaries in some form of income based taxes.

2. Not familiar with his view that corporations should not exist.

Regardless, you are the one that tried to use his taxation views to say how he would feel about corporate taxing - perhaps you should have considered this before trying to justify your views by using his.

 

[volinbham]

Actually, I take part of my answer back. In the maxims you posted the implication is a flat tax rate; not a progressive tax rate. The AMOUNT of tax is tied directly to the amount of revenue someone enjoys. It is a straight proportion which implies a flat tax rate.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities;

that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

The underlined portion is the part of the first maxim you conveniently left out. A proportion taxation is a flat rate taxation.

In some of his other writings he suggests a progressive nature as well (beyond proportional) but it is not in the maxim you quoted.

 

[volinbham]

Smith was most critical of taxes on wages and profits. Both diverted resources from wealth-creating activities, he pointed out, and raised the prices of manufactured goods by more than the amount of the tax. Taxes on the profits of “stock” were destructive of wealth creation because “stock cultivates land; stock cultivates labor,” and a tax on profits diminishes both “the rent of land and the wages of labor.” These considerations remain relevant today as politicians debate the taxation of dividends and capital gains.

Adam Smith on Taxes - by Tom Walton - Budget & Tax News

 

[utgibbs]

1. I assume he means that he favors a progressive tax primarily on assets or consumption. He also believes taxation should be minimal. His writings also state the he believes taxing income is counterproductive. I'm sure he would be appalled that people pay more than 1/2 their salaries in some form of income based taxes.

I'm not sure how you get progressive taxation on consumption, although perhaps a graded "luxury" scale could be implemented.

2. Not familiar with his view that corporations should not exist.

Regardless, you are the one that tried to use his taxation views to say how he would feel about corporate taxing - perhaps you should have considered this before trying to justify your views by using his.

My views are my views. They were never formed from WoN, which I read afterwards. It happens that Adam Smith agrees with my orientation on tax policy which is, frankly, incontrovertible. It is not, I think, any great leap to apply them to corporations, which Smith had little experience with, but did not like with what he did see (East India Co). Jefferson, later, would see their evolution, and he would sharply condemn the institution.

 

[milohimself]

Bottom line for me in this particular issue is that the R's at least have some of the idea in their sight, there needs to be a lot of cuts. I don't agree with all of them, but some of them definitely need to be done. What I'm not hearing enough about from anybody is how, exactly, to increase tax revenue.

 

[utgibbs]

Actually, I take part of my answer back. In the maxims you posted the implication is a flat tax rate; not a progressive tax rate. The AMOUNT of tax is tied directly to the amount of revenue someone enjoys. It is a straight proportion which implies a flat tax rate.



The underlined portion is the part of the first maxim you conveniently left out. A proportion taxation is a flat rate taxation.

In some of his other writings he suggests a progressive nature as well (beyond proportional) but it is not in the maxim you quoted.

Methinks you are stuck in a vocabulary loop again with people trying to find a flat tax where none exists. From your own link:

The first of Smith’s tax maxims, equity, reflects his belief that the wealthiest benefit most from government and can most afford to pay. “The rich should contribute to the public expense not only in proportion to their revenue,” Smith believed, “but something more than in that proportion.” Equity, according to Smith, requires progressive taxation. That principle is firmly embedded in the U.S. tax code today.

From your own link: Adam Smith on Taxes - by Tom Walton - Budget & Tax News

Might want to reconsider your stance. :hi:

 

[utgibbs]

Bottom line for me in this particular issue is that the R's at least have some of the idea in their sight, there needs to be a lot of cuts. I don't agree with all of them, but some of them definitely need to be done. What I'm not hearing enough about from anybody is how, exactly, to increase tax revenue.

Simple, Transparent, Progressive. Cuts should largely be taken from the biggest part of the discretionary budget - Defense (and we can include the off budget War spending too).

 

[CSVol]

Bottom line for me in this particular issue is that the R's at least have some of the idea in their sight, there needs to be a lot of cuts. I don't agree with all of them, but some of them definitely need to be done. What I'm not hearing enough about from anybody is how, exactly, to increase tax revenue.

Let the tax cuts expire?

 

[volinbham]

Methinks you are stuck in a vocabulary loop again with people trying to find a flat tax where none exists. From your own link:



From your own link: Adam Smith on Taxes - by Tom Walton - Budget & Tax News

Might want to reconsider your stance. :hi:

Methinks you can't read. The maxim you are so fond of implies flat tax. In other writings he says beyond proportional which implies progressive.

I acknowledged both in my post - you apparently missed that.

 

[volinbham]

My views are my views. They were never formed from WoN, which I read afterwards. It happens that Adam Smith agrees with my orientation on tax policy which is, frankly, incontrovertible. It is not, I think, any great leap to apply them to corporations, which Smith had little experience with, but did not like with what he did see (East India Co). Jefferson, later, would see their evolution, and he would sharply condemn the institution.

In the other thread you claimed AS views would agree with your views. You were wrong and left out key parts of AS views which clearly disagreed with yours.

AS's views on corporations was that they were inefficient due to an Agency issue (separating managers from owners). That in no way suggests he would favor taxing them progressively based on profits which is the claim you made.

 

[utgibbs]

Methinks you can't read. The maxim you are so fond of implies flat tax. In other writings he says beyond proportional which implies progressive.

I acknowledged both in my post - you apparently missed that.

Apologies for missing your acknowledgment. :hi:

I'm still trying to figure out how it goes against my maxims:

Simple, Transparent, and Progressive.

Maybe we should just restart there.

How does AS disagree with my maxims exactly?????

 

[utgibbs]

In the other thread you claimed AS views would agree with your views. You were wrong and left out key parts of AS views which clearly disagreed with yours.
AS's views on corporations was that they were inefficient due to an Agency issue (separating managers from owners). That in no way suggests he would favor taxing them progressively based on profits which is the claim you made.

How, exactly, do the AS maxims disagree with my maxims:

Simple, Transparent, and Progressive.

Moreover, I haven't tried to write a dissertation on AS taxation. He was for tariffs and protectionism (I agree / you don't I presume.). He was for consumption taxes (largely disagree / you agree I presume). But I've always found this tit-for-tat argumentation counter-productive. And it becomes especially quixotic given you just admit AS would not favor the corporation as incorporated today.

That's why I stick to the maxims.

 

[volinbham]

Apologies for missing your acknowledgment. :hi:

I'm still trying to figure out how it goes against my maxims:

Simple, Transparent, and Progressive.

Maybe we should just restart there.

How does AS disagree with my maxims exactly?????

He disagrees with what you believe should be subject to taxation.