- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is to blame for this alleged disappearance of the middle class?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:38 am to Powerman
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:38 am to Powerman
quote:Then why do you fricker worry about a ruch guy's tax burden?
Why are you worried about the other guy?
quote:Again when one pays for "services" while another doesn't yes.
Do you really feel penalized?
1
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:41 am to Jbird
quote:
Then why do you fricker worry about a ruch guy's tax burden?
Who says I'm worried
And what are you defining as rich?
quote:
Again when one pays for "services" while another doesn't yes.
What if they don't have anything to pay with? What do you expect someone with an income of 18K to pay in taxes?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:42 am to Powerman
quote:
Lower tax revenue can cause fiscal problems.
The debt and deficit of the United States is so close to 100% caused by spending that the difference is statistically ZERO.
We are experiencing RECORD receipts and still run $600b to $1t deficits.
Your play.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
you mean what happens to $1000 if it is taken in varying amounts from 100 people, and then evenly redistributed back to them at $10/person?
The $1000 remains $1000. Did you think it would magically turn in to $2000?
Funny. On this board when it comes to film subsidies there is a magic multiplier effect that creates a thriving economy.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:43 am to Powerman
quote:
Who says I'm worried
quote:Something more than EITC?
What if they don't have anything to pay with? What do you expect someone with an income of 18K to pay in taxes?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:47 am to Powerman
quote:
On this board when it comes to film subsidies there is a magic multiplier effect that creates a thriving economy.
If you cannot discern the difference between giving a person, say $15,000 in housing assistance, food assistance, medical assistance, etc., when they're going to come back next year and ask for more, vice subsidizing a business to start up/operate in your area, when they're going to provide dozens of good paying jobs and increase your tax base, (and I'll admit the payback isn't always certain), then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm against corporate welfare, generally, but to pretend that the effect on the tax base are the same as with poverty programs borders on cognitive dissonance.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 8:48 am
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:48 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
We are experiencing RECORD receipts and still run $600b to $1t deficits.
In an inherently inflationary economy we will almost always be experiencing record receipts or close to that. I'm not sure why you think this means anything.
If you look at tax revenue as a % of GDP you get a different story.
In 2000 individual income taxes made up 10.2% of GDP
In 2013 they made up 7.6%
In 2000 total tax receipts were 20.6% of GDP
In 2013 total tax receipts were 16.7% of GDP
LINK
So despite your meaningless claims and all of the incessant whining about the mythical ever growing tax burden we're not taking in as much as you think. And if you don't think that hurts annual budget deficits then you're sorely mistaken because the difference is substantial. If we had been taking in ~20% of GDP in tax revenue it would have at least mitigated to an extent the fiscal problems we have now. Sure the debt would still be large but we would be in better shape on that front.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:50 am to Powerman
quote:
Sure the debt would still be large but we would be in better shape on that front.
What if we spent less than we took in?
How would that affect the debt and deficit?
(ETA: And inflation has been flat for decades.)
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 8:51 am
Posted on 2/1/14 at 8:57 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
(ETA: And inflation has been flat for decades.)
The inflation RATE has been flat but we haven't had 0% inflation
quote:
What if we spent less than we took in?
Well that's one concept. But hey you're the guy who didn't bail on Bush after Medicare D so why are you even pimping that stance when it isn't your own?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:01 am to Powerman
quote:
But hey you're the guy who didn't bail on Bush after Medicare D so why are you even pimping that stance when it isn't your own?
Because Kerry would have balanced the budget?
Reductio ad absurdum
Big spending Congresses and Presidents (of both parties) have brought us to this point. It is going to take courage and sacrifice to correct things. Neither the American people nor their leaders have demonstrated anything like this courage or capacity for sacrifice. Therefore, all of this is academic navel gazing.
This post was edited on 2/1/14 at 9:02 am
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:02 am to Powerman
quote:Apples and oranges in this instance.
On this board when it comes to film subsidies there is a magic multiplier effect that creates a thriving economy.
German has not the foggiest clue as to what he's talking about in terms of Obamacaid's particulars. Unfortunately, neither do most Americans. In the case of Exchange Insurance Plans, what you think you see is not what you actually get.
From a consumer stance, you find out after the fact that many (in some cases most) physician groups and medical facilities are not covered.
From a provider stance you find out the exchange plans often reimburse at Medicaid Rates e.g., not enough to even cover business overhead
From a hospital stance, you find that for many insured, the deductibles are so high that patients cannot cover them. You find that in contrast to promises everyone would be covered, the number of uninsured has climbed, not fallen.
Now perhaps there is some sort of extrapolation of Obamacaid to subsidies given the Louisiana Film industry. I'm struggling to find one though.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:04 am to germandawg
quote:First - "your" is not the same as "you're" and it's y'all not ya'll.
SO what is going to happen to all of the money that Obama and company is re-distributing?
But to answer your question; not Cleveland Clinics. They are cutting their budgets by $300+ million dollars and cutting staff by a couple of thousand in anticipation of the ACA. They are but one example.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:04 am to Powerman
quote:
Arbitrarily? Why wouldn't they just pay market value?
Market value depends on supply and demand. And demand depends in part on the available resources. If you the government or the bank or the insurance company takes away some of your money, you can't spend as much on anything (in this case, labor) because you don't have the money for it.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:04 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Because Kerry would have balanced the budget?
Nice deflection
quote:
Big spending Congresses and Presidents (of both parties) have brought us to this point. It is going to take courage and sacrifice to correct things. Neither the American people nor their leaders have demonstrated anything like this courage or capacity for sacrifice. Therefore, all of this is academic navel gazing.
And I'm sure you voted for Bush in 2004, one of the people that made balancing the budget almost impossible due to the massive amount of unfunded liabilities he added to our balance sheet in the name of Medicare D. Not to mention the Iraq war isn't exactly free.
Way to go fiscal hawk!
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:10 am to Powerman
quote:Meh, one should focus at least a large portion of that blame on Congress. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm sure you voted for Bush in 2004, one of the people that made balancing the budget almost impossible
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:12 am to Powerman
quote:
Way to go fiscal hawk!
I'm not defending Republican spending. You like to change the subject a lot - particularly dragging in a discussion from another thread.
The "progressive" income tax is - quite simply - the single biggest barrier for the middle class to build wealth. That's why there are so many Byzantine rules to try to let them keep some of their money - as long as daddy government approves - (and I'm for home ownership, retirement savings - many of the things for which there are tax incentives).
You don't think we're taxed enough - the poor pay a net negative income tax - the "rich" pay a huge hunk - so the only headspace is to hit the middle class - again...and again...and again.
And even if we do - we're still going to have to address entitlement spending (including Medicare D, which has really got your attention), which the cowards of both major parties simply refuse to do.
(That's my best effort to get this back to the OP...)
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Meh, one should focus at least a large portion of that blame on Congress. Wouldn't you agree?
Sure
But this is legislation that Bush pushed for and signed into law. No different than ACA
Posted on 2/1/14 at 9:16 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
You don't think we're taxed enough
Pump the brakes. I do think we're taxed enough and I agree with you that the problem is spending.
quote:
the poor pay a net negative income tax - the "rich" pay a huge hunk
And that negative income tax invariably finds its way back in the hands of the rich anyway. It's funny how the hypothetical is always brought up (and you specifically have brought it up) that if you divide up all the money equally it will wind up back in the hands of the same people for the most part. Well as it turns out with progressive taxation this still happens. It's amazing that people like you don't apply your own logic to a less progressive game that exists in real life.
quote:
And even if we do - we're still going to have to address entitlement spending (including Medicare D, which has really got your attention), which the cowards of both major parties simply refuse to do.
Yeah. 20 trillion dollars usually gets my attention. And it should get your attention too. Entitlements need to be addressed and they needed to be addressed when GWB came into office. But he ADDED a massive amount of entitlements instead of addressing it in any responsible manner. Even if he would have simply left things as is we would be in much better shape on the fiscal front. But he (with the help of congress) made things much worse.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
you mean what happens to $1000 if it is taken in varying amounts from 100 people, and then evenly redistributed back to them at $10/person?
The $1000 remains $1000. Did you think it would magically turn in to $2000?
No..you are making my point for me, and I thank you. The $1000 is still $1000. It ain't mine anymore, and that pisses me off. But that is all it does...pisses me off. It doesn't dissappear. If ya'll would make the argument that it simply pisses you off I think you would find that EVERYONE who pays taxes would agree....and perhaps do something collectively about it. Pretending that it has some deeper, even some sort of evil effect, is so full of shite that you lose a lot of people who think just like you do, and that is the problem.
No one likes to pay taxes, at least no one I know. I don't know of anyone who doesn't feel that their tax burden is too high and most of feel that our neighbors is also. But when we look for reasons for this dislike other than the fact that it is ours and not someone else's we come off as somehow dishonest and thus set ourselves up for a disappointing result. There is nothing wrong with despising taxes...I think man has always done so....but pretending this is due to the effect on the economy of the nation instead of the economy of the individual is simply dishonesty on a psychotic level....
Posted on 2/1/14 at 11:27 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
What if we spent less than we took in?
How would that affect the debt and deficit?
(ETA: And inflation has been flat for decades.)
If we spent less than we took in we would rule the world....I think it is a grand idea to pay for shite as you go are at least plan for financing it (buying a home with cash is not something that most people can do).
What I think is a terrible idea is to spend money you have no intention of ever having....like going to war and simultaneously cutting taxes.
Social spending is out of control in the US. That is not an over statement. The citizens of this nation demand this spending. That is a fact. We also somehow believe that we can continue to do so without raising the money to do so. This is not a Right/Left issue...we all love our pork as long as it is ours...we just do not like paying for it, adn politicians have found that they can stay in power and make themselves wealthy in the process by catering to this personality flaw.
I would not at all opposed to legislation that forced politicians to finance the shite the give away. Want to build a road to nowhere? Fine...tax the people for that road....raise the money...don't borrow it from the Chinese or future generations. This is the problem and we are all to blame, left, right and center.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News