The GOP's last chance

#227
#227
therealUT said:
I woul agree with your thoughts; however, I can also envision a logical argument for POTUS power over taxation in the case of a default. I would like to see where the powers during a default are spelled out; if the POTUS has supreme fiscal power during such an epoch, then the GOP could be walking into an ambush.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
President would cut his knees out by doug it to take over purse strings and it would only be temporary. Would be awful if the Rs have any brains whatsoever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#228
#228
BigPapaVol said:
President would cut his knees out by doug it to take over purse strings and it would only be temporary. Would be awful if the Rs have any brains whatsoever.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Is there a possibility that anything he enacts would stick sans a Congressional override (which, presumably could easily be vetoed)?

This is an area I have no knowledge of.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#229
#229
lawgator1 said:
What's your alternative to an income tax?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The FAIR Tax with a few modifications.

That or perhaps a highly progressive flat tax that exempts the first $100K for individuals and $1 million or so for businesses with a 25% and 5% rate for marginal income regardless of source.

That would just about have to be coupled with import tariffs... any flat tax would. One of the FAIR Tax's best benefits is that we would tax the transaction and therefore anyone who consumed or made a profit... to include importers.
 
#230
#230
therealUT said:
Is there a possibility that anything he enacts would stick sans a Congressional override (which, presumably could easily be vetoed)?

This is an area I have no knowledge of.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Don't know, but if he came out with guns blazing after a default, he would be obliterated by most.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#232
#232
LG, if you never learn another new thing here... I would love for you to accept that the income tax is NOT favored by politicians because of its efficiency at raising revenue. It is favored because it empowers them (reward friends/punish enemies) and enables them to manipulate society. Sales taxes like the FAIR Tax are very efficient.
 
#234
#234
therealUT said:
Fortunately, Smith was able to place his maxims in concise terms; therefore, I can easily post all of them for the edification of all readers:



Would you now like to interpret Smith's meaning for us all (aka, invent your own meaning)?

Get AIDS and spread it to GS, please.
Click to expand...

Looks like I touched a nerve. I thought you were made of sterner stuff.

Thanks for posting the maxims and proving me right as rain. :hi:
 
#235
#235
The current convoluted and regressive tax system is a tool for corporate power.

To wit:

Yahoo
GE
ExxonMobil
FedEX
Honeywell
IBM
Dupont
United Tech

This is just the short list. About $200bn profits represented here, and the government not only received no revenues, but actually distributed funds to them (this is in the bourgeois ledgers too. Obviously, they receive a lot more from agencies other than the IRS).

If you want to bring Adam Smith into this, I certainly can....
 
#236
#236
utgibbs said:
The current convoluted and regressive tax system is a tool for corporate power.

To wit:

Yahoo
GE
ExxonMobil
FedEX
Honeywell
IBM
Dupont
United Tech

This is just the short list. About $200bn profits represented here, and the government not only received no revenues, but actually distributed funds to them (this is in the bourgeois ledgers too. Obviously, they receive a lot more from agencies other than the IRS).

If you want to bring Adam Smith into this, I certainly can....
Click to expand...

Yet you continue to oppose freedom and support both political and economic structures that inevitably lead to the abuses you listed above. The answer is freedom. The answer is a "blind" tax code that politicians cannot use for the "good" of the country (aka to manipulate outcomes).
 
#237
#237
It can't be any stupider to pretend our current tax system is regressive. You can't prove your idiocy any further. I know you try hard when you try to ally yourself with guys like Adam Smith, but you still can't eclipse the stupidity displayed in a comment like that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#238
#238
BigPapaVol said:
It can't be any stupider to pretend our current tax system is regressive. You can't prove your idiocy any further. I know you try hard when you try to ally yourself with guys like Adam Smith, but you still can't eclipse the stupidity displayed in a comment like that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Actually, you betray how thoroughly metabolized by "the Man" you are in suggesting we have anything but a regressive tax structure.

On paper we might feign progressivity, but that is good, "honest" obfuscation. The real structure is regressive (note the lack of taxes paid by the most profitable "individuals" (corporations, as legal people) we have discussed already).

We need not discuss Tennessee which is so regressive, it pains me to think about it.
 
#240
#240
sjt18 said:
Yet you continue to oppose freedom and support both political and economic structures that inevitably lead to the abuses you listed above. The answer is freedom. The answer is a "blind" tax code that politicians cannot use for the "good" of the country (aka to manipulate outcomes).
Click to expand...

I am for:

1. Simple
2. Transparent
3. Progressive

These are, as Adam Smith said, good maxims for a tax plan. This is a tax plan that could be filled out on a post card.

I never oppose freedom. I have the broadest definition of freedom relative to anyone on the politics forum as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
#241
#241
BigPapaVol said:
Senseless of you to ignore double taxation, but you knew that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It can't be double taxation... these are legal people under the law.

In fact, I didn't get into why investment income (especially on non-productive hogwash) is taxed differently than income full stop.

The system is regressive. It has a veneer of progressivity, but that is not what happens in the real world outside the back door.
 
#242
#242
utgibbs said:
It can't be double taxation... these are legal people under the law.

In fact, I didn't get into why investment income (especially on non-productive hogwash) is taxed differently than income full stop.

The system is regressive. It has a veneer of progressivity, but that is not what happens in the real world outside the back door.
Click to expand...

Just senseless. We have nearly half the population that pays no federal income taxes whatsoever. We have corporate entities that have years in which they pay none for any one of a number of reasons, some legit and some political horsecrap, and you equate that to regressive. Pull your head from your ass and look up the terms as they relate to taxation. You keep providing us a list. Show us historical federal income taxes remitted, then decide that you are a moron for yourself. Oh, and you are still idiotically ignoring the double taxation. The entity crap doesn't hold any water because they have all paid taxes and all have subordinate who get to pay on their pro rata share of the exact same earnings again. How in the hell is that comparable to an individual who is immune from taxes forever?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#243
#243
BigPapaVol said:
Just senseless. We have nearly half the population that pays no federal income taxes whatsoever. We have corporate entities that have years in which they pay none for any one of a number of reasons, some legit and some political horsecrap, and you equate that to regressive. Pull your head from your ass and look up the terms as they relate to taxation. You keep providing us a list. Show us historical federal income taxes remitted, then decide that you are a moron for yourself. Oh, and you are still idiotically ignoring the double taxation. The entity crap doesn't hold any water because they have all paid taxes and all have subordinate who get to pay on their pro rata share of the exact same earnings again. How in the hell is that comparable to an individual who is immune from taxes forever?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Let me just make this easy for you, BPV.

If I hire an accountant from my personal earnings (because I do), you are saying the accountant shouldn't pay tax because that's double taxation!

:epic facepalm:

Moreover, you are in favor of limiting the freedom of real individuals for the sake of an abstract legal entity, given all rights and privileges as real people. And then you have the temerity to argue about why the real world outside the back door is important?

As for regressivity:

Sales and Use Tax

Just to name one. The system is regressive even if it has a veneer of progressivity. Just as I've been saying.

You were certainly right in your first two words: just senseless.
 
Last edited:
#244
#244
Accountant example is below even you, who know nothing of finance. His earnings are for different work than that which earned you the money you pay him with. Nice try, but you again lose. Actually, it wasn't a nice try. It was pathetic.

Continuing your indefensible point about corporate personhood doesn't change that it's stupid, nor does it change that those you listed have paid far more in taxes than the majority of Americans, even grouped, will pay in their lifetimes.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#245
#245
BigPapaVol said:
Accountant example is below even you, who know nothing of finance. His earnings are for different work than that which earned you the money you pay him with. Nice try, but you again lose. Actually, it wasn't a nice try. It was pathetic.

Continuing your indefensible point about corporate personhood doesn't change that it's stupid, nor does it change that those you listed have paid far more in taxes than the majority of Americans, even grouped, will pay in their lifetimes.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Ergo, it is a completely relevant example citing exactly the notion of double taxation which you are trying to push. Thanks. :hi:

Indefensible point? Let's find out why you fail so hard:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - dKosopedia

Shall I list the number of cases, seen by the Supreme Court no less, establishing the guarantees of corporate personhood in just the 21st century alone????????

GSM.

In addition, your specious argument that "they pay more" is, well, pathetic even for GoF standards. The corps et al paying more in absolute dollars has nothing to do with progressivity. Here is a picture to help you understand:

champagne_glass.gif
 
#246
#246
Entire response was idiotic. The Supreme court has not granted corporate personhood.

You forgot to address the distinct work generating distinct earnings in your absurd response to double taxation, but I forget that bothering with things that makes sense isn't your way.

The absolute dollars point might work for you in a single year. It makes no sense over time. None. At all. Ever. Proportion, which was Smith's point, will murder you in this.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#247
#247
utgibbs said:
Ergo, it is a completely relevant example citing exactly the notion of double taxation which you are trying to push. Thanks. :hi:

Indefensible point? Let's find out why you fail so hard:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - dKosopedia

Shall I list the number of cases, seen by the Supreme Court no less, establishing the guarantees of corporate personhood in just the 21st century alone????????

GSM.

In addition, your specious argument that "they pay more" is, well, pathetic even for GoF standards. The corps et al paying more in absolute dollars has nothing to do with progressivity. Here is a picture to help you understand:

champagne_glass.gif
Click to expand...

Nice graph; can you explain why a country that has very little "progressivity" (compared to the world) in its tax system, contains an overwhelming majority of individuals who all fall within the Top Fifth of World Wealth?
 
#248
#248
BigPapaVol said:
Entire response was idiotic. The Supreme court has not granted corporate personhood.

You forgot to address the distinct work generating distinct earnings in your absurd response to double taxation, but I forget that bothering with things that makes sense isn't your way.

I did. I said it was complete nonsense regarding corporations, which it is. Another, I'll make it easy for BPV: a corporation's work (whatever field) is to deliver profits to the bourgeoisie. Ergo, every other distinct piece of work (accounting, drilling for oil, designing products, programming code) generates very distinct earnings. It's all too easy.

The absolute dollars point might work for you in a single year. It makes no sense over time. None. At all. Ever. Proportion, which was Smith's point, will murder you in this.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Proportion wasn't Smith's point at all. I have already taken you behind the woodshed on this, but will happily do so again:

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country."
Click to expand...

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, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Book V, Chapter 2, Article I
Click to expand...

But in every improved and civilized society this is the state [a state of mental torpor and inexorable tedious underpaid labor] into which the laboring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it."
Click to expand...

Adam Smith - promoting the General Welfare through PROGRESSIVE tax maxims.
 
#249
#249
Here are the individual tax stats for the last 28 years
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data 2009 and 2010 have not been compiled yet. The most the top 10% have collectively paid was in 2007when they paid 71.20% of the total taxes paid. In 2008, they paid almost 70% of all taxes.

Now take a look at Table 8. Even if Obama achieves a higher marginal rate, those in the top 10% will in all liklihood not pay appreciably more as a percentage of total taxes paid. When the top 10% were paying their highest average rate (2000) they were paying appreciably less than when their average rate was lower.

The take away: If Obama really wanted to collect more from the wealthy instead of scoring political points with his base, he would leave the rates where they are now or lower them.
 
#250
#250
utgibbs said:
I am for:

1. Simple
2. Transparent
3. Progressive

These are, as Adam Smith said, good maxims for a tax plan. This is a tax plan that could be filled out on a post card.
Click to expand...
For my part, you can drop the convenient cherry picking of Adams. He is not infallible nor does he speak for everyone who opposes statism and centralized economic models.

The "progressive" income tax is not good economically nor socially. It penalizes hard work and is contrary to the notion that all men should be equal under the law. Further as the last 100 years in the US have sufficiently proven, it is easily and inevitably corrupted by those seeking to gain and retain political power or access to it.

This isn't just an unfortunate and preventable diversion. When you centralize that kind of power to control people... corruption is going to follow.

I never oppose freedom. I have the broadest definition of freedom relative to anyone on the politics forum as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is so broad that it can include a society where all property is either owned or controlled by the state thus negating any REAL possibility of property or civil rights. You do not oppose freedom in the same way the old Soviets claimed that their people were "free".

Every single time you advocate your centrally controlled economic model, you oppose freedom.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top