Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > April > 23 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTaxes and the American Dream
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
While I’ve successfully avoided the label “ultra-rich,” the number of those who are rose sharply last year, according to data gathered by the Chicago consulting company Spectrem Group. For the first time, the number of U.S. households with a net worth of more than $5 million, excluding the primary home, exceeded a million in 2006. That’s up 23 percent in one year. A decade earlier, only 250,000 households fell into that category.
Drive through some intown Atlanta neighborhoods and through the mini-estate communities in prosperous areas outside I-285 and you get a sense that the nation’s wealth is more broadly shared than the class-warfare warriors would have us believe. A lot of folks are living high in the 28-county Metro Atlanta region.
Sunday was the first day in 2007 that Georgians are actually working for themselves and not to pay federal, state and local taxes, according to Tax Foundation calculations. That’s 112 days into 2007.
Who really pays? In the ongoing examination of Internal Revenue Service data by the Washington-based Tax Foundation and by the National Taxpayers Union suggests that those enjoy a decent living pay their fair share — and far more. What’s interesting, though, are the numbers of Americans who have no tax liability. Roughly 40 pecent of the U.S. population falls outside the federal income tax system, the Tax Foundation reports, and 60 percent get more in government spending than they pay in taxes. And it’ll get worse when baby boomers retire.
The point here is that an increasing number of Americans don’t care about tax cuts or the size of the federal governent. A permanent soak-the-rich constituency is in the making. And a permanent political class that sees wealth-transfer as the way to stay in office.
So rejoice that the American Dream lives. But just as there’s a race between government-provided universal health care and free-market alternatives, there’s a race too to define the American Dream. Is it that we earn our way to mini-estates by producing? Or that we elect politicians who will soak the producers to provide us their lifestyle?
Comments
By Mid-South Philosopher
April 23, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
Your essay is very good this morning and addresses a number of issues that should be of concern to us all.
However, this morning, I have just heard a NPR report on forced abortions in China, and I feel compelled to offer the following:
While I am pro-life, I am NOT anti-abortion. I realize such a stand will be difficult for those few limited intellects, who post to the Thinking Right Blog, to grasp. The majority of thoughtful posters will get it. Likely, some with less aptitude will equate my position with hypocrisy, which is the charge inept debaters use when they have nothing of value to argue.
That being said I was not upset with the recent Supreme Court decision itself that banned the infamous procedure of partial-birth abortion.
What upsets me more is the lack of outrage on the part of the pro-choice community at the horrendous conduct of the Chinese government in prohibiting families from having more than one child. Indeed National Public Radio investigative reporters have discovered that dozens of women have been forced to have unwanted abortions of their unborn children by local Chinese government officials. Some of these abortions have been very late term.
To my pro-choice friends, where is hue and cry against this usurpation of woman’s right to choose…to bear that child?
To my anti-abortion, mostly religious friends, where is the hue and cry against this obvious murder of the unborn?
Finally, for the both of you, why does Made in China labels still adorn many of the garments in your closets.
Now, that, Buy Danish, is real hypocrisy!
By Aquagirl
April 23, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
Mid-South, they’re all too busy buying those Made in China lables at the mall to protest.
Frankly, Americans could care less about what happens in other countries. Sad but true.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Lest Jim’s point go over the heads of any, our concern today is whether people who don’t pay taxes should determine how much taxing and spending should take place. For those of us on the right, the strongest arguments are made by Dr. Walter E. Williams, who advocates revision of voting rights to something closer to the American corporate voting model. As Dr. Williams argues, allowing people a say in government who don’t pay taxes otherwise is akin to allowing two wolves and a lamb to vote on supper. One of Dr. Williams’ more imaginative programs would repeal the Baker-Carr judicial doctrine (“one man, one vote”), and give every taxpayer one vote per $10,000 taxes paid in the previous governance period. Thus the people paying the bills would have a greater voice in how the monies are raised and spent, sorta “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” I suppose our leftist friends, so addicted to spending other peoples money, are horrified at the concept, but it makes good sense to me.
By Aquagirl
April 23, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
Call me leftist. I am indeed horrified that under the Williams plan, Paris Hilton would have more votes than a high school teacher.
By Jim
April 23, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
60 percent of us get more government spending than we pay in taxes? How about 100 percent? Apparently the right-wing propaganda organizations that Wooten likes so much don’t include spending on programs by the EPA, FAA, USDA, FDA, CDC, OSHA, NHTSA, FHA, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard and other such programs that keep our (by our, 100 percent of us) air clean, water safe to drink, meat and produce safe to eat, skies safe to fly, prescription medicines safe to take, cars safe to drive, children’s products safe to use, and country safe from terrorists as government spending. Apparently they don’t include the PBGC that guarantees our pensions or the FHA that helps most of us to purchase homes. Did they include the FDIC that insures our checking and savings accounts? What about the subsidies that allows our kids to borrow money for a college education? What about the NIH that finances most of the medical research in this country? Did Wooten’s propaganda organizations include them?
Wooten perpetuates the myth that only the poor (i.e. lazy) benefits from taxes while the rest of us just pay. Nothing could be further from the truth, and anybody who parrots this lie is either a con artist or a chump.
By TW
April 23, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
Talk of tax cuts during a time of war is paramount to treason.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this
It is not a war, it is an occupation for oil.
Raise taxes on Big Oil to help pay for this occupation.
It benefits them greatly.
If the economy is so great, why cut Peachcare and save Social Security?
By Van
April 23, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this
TW,
You’re ignorant. Being able to do that is a tribute to our robust economy. But then again, you are in the bottom 50% that pay only 3% of the tax burden.
To Mid-South Philosopher - can you imagine if Syria tried to meddle in our abortion debate?
Jim, Chill out, the article was referring to direct payments, not indirect. Between SSA payments and other payouts, I would have to agree. With your logic, every flier is receiving more in government payouts than they paid with their plane ticket, and that is just for the air traffic controllers for their flight.
By deegee
April 23, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
How can we talk about taxes and the American dream without talking about debt and the American dream? Here are some frightening statistics and some interesting charts. Notice how Total America Debt vs. National Income has spiked upward since the Reagan years. So much for trickle down economics.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm
I don’t know how anyone can make a better argument against the Williams plan than did Aquagirl.
By Dennis
April 23, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten said, “Drive through some intown Atlanta neighborhoods and through the mini-estate communities in prosperous areas outside I-285 and you get a sense that the nation’s wealth is more broadly shared than the class-warfare warriors would have us believe. A lot of folks are living high in the 28-county Metro Atlanta region.”
Damn!, what a piece of propaganda!
What’s going on outside of the areas you mentioned, Mr. Wooten? Would you walk into some of the public housing projects by yourself? Bankhead Rd. or Simpson Rd. by night, by yourself?
I don’t have time, and I’m not going to do it, but with two or three days of research, I believe I could refute almost everything you’ve said today.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dave
April 23, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
Politicians should pay 80% of their income and 90% of their assets just for the privilege of being an elected official. Super rich socialists who want a “progressive” (Marxist) tax system should pay for it, personally!! They want to be the ultra elite who have the good stuff like the former USSR leaders.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim @ 9:19, I respectfully note a logical inconsistency in your post. You affirm that 100% of us receive more in government spending than we pay in taxes. Is this like Lake Wobegon, where the women are strong, the men good looking, and all the children are above average? I think any fair reading of Jim’s essay requires the reader to understand that he is talking about direct transfer payments – “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” When a bandit takes your money, that taking is mere thievery – when the bandit uses the guns of the government to take your money, that thievery is noble from the leftist vantage. If, perchance, I misread your argument, I will join your argument to abolish the alphabet soup in your catalogue, excepting only those entities designed to kill, imprison, and steal under direct orders of the Congress.
Dear TW @ 9:43, clever twist on the conservative argument that “talk of surrender and setting a withdrawal date from Iraq is tantamount to treason.” If I parse your language correctly, you suggest that tax cuts are an insuperable barrier to treason. Strange argument, but I appreciate the sentiment.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
Dear Deegee @ 10:05, you are correct, there is no logical argument against Dr. Williams’ proposal.
By Petey
April 23, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this
Why should Falcons offensive coordinator Hue Jackson cry about aboritions in China? And how do you know he doesn’t?
Seriously, Aquagirl nailed the answer. American’s don’t care about what goes on in China. Hell, them ain’t even Christian fetuses.
By Shar
April 23, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
Should this logic be applied to other areas as well? Should, perhaps, a decision to go to war and subsequent funding and strategic matters be decided only by those who are currently serving in the military? Should health care policy decisions be made only by those who are either patients or doctors?
To suggest that only taxpayers be entitled to vote is to decide that only those who have profitted from the current system be allowed to influence it. People who have not succeeded economically have legitimate points of view and the right and responsibility to express them. A huge strength of America is our heterogeneity and universal suffrage is integral to that. We are already far too close to money buying representation through the lobbying industry.
Mr. Wooten, driving through the semblance of prosperity is not proof positive of affluence. Our national savings rate is in the negative, and our consumer debt is very high. The Palladian windows you are admiring from your car may look in on a family struggling with a foreclosing subprime mortgage or huge medical bills. The people in such homes are just as valuable to the body politic are their neighbors with tax shelters.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
Dear Van @ 9:53, as always seems to be the case, you are quicker on the draw and more precise than I, my compliments.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
Out of touch Rove playing the victim:
As Ms. Crow and Ms. David described it on the Huffington Post Web site on Sunday, when Mr. Rove turned toward his table, Ms. Crow touched his arm and “Karl swung around and spat, ‘Don’t touch me.’ ” Both sides agreed that Ms. Crow told him, “You can’t speak to us like that, you work for us,” to which Mr. Rove responded, “I don’t work for you, I work for the American people.” Ms. Crow and Ms. David wrote that Ms. Crow shot back, “We are the American people.”
Those two beautiful evil liberals can touch me anytime.
By TW
April 23, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
Van - your ability to wear your bloodmoney like a badge is amazing…three cheers for Van…
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
Dear Shar @ 10:27, I would welcome allowing the military to decide when to go to war – no pantywaists there, I assure you.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
Dear TW @ 10:33, your ability to steal without guilt is equally amazing.
By Shar
April 23, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
Dear jbmlaw@10:34 - your welcoming attitude has not served the people living under the South American juntas terribly well to date. Pantywaists are equally important as bombthrowers to a debate on military intervention. One-sided decisions reinforce the status quo and enrich those who already have power. Not a good scenario, particularly when those with the power also have the guns.
By deegee
April 23, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
Very funny, jbmlaw. When you allude to the American corporate voting model you are bound to turn a lot of middle class people off. Cozy relationships between CEOs and Boards of Directors leads to the runaway executive pay packages that have fueled so much anger among rank and file workers in this country. The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and ensure that CEO pay reflects performance. However, at approximately two-thirds of companies, the CEO also chairs the board. When a single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance. This sounds exactly like the wolves and lamb scenario. Additionally, shareholders are helpless to do anything about it as we can only vote on what the Board of Directors places on the ballot. Bob Nardelli won the chutzpah award last year for his handling of the Home Depot annual meeting. He’s gone but he still took over $200 million with him.
By jm
April 23, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
During the time of the founding fathers, (correct me if I am wrong) but I believe only property owners were allowed to vote. I wonder if Dr. Williams is advocating a return to that (might take care of that voter fraud illusion).
Regarding the tax cut mantra, if the amount you spend exceeds the amount you take in, you have a problem. With the exception of a brief period during the previous administration, this country has had a budget deficit. At some point in time, a decision is going to have to be made to either increase revenue (taxes) or reduce services (expenses - which includes boondoggles in middle eastern countries). There was a time in my life when the US was the largest creditor nation in the world, now we are the largest debtor nation.
By liberals are verminous SCUM
April 23, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
I see the haggish eco-whacko Bush hating nutter Stupidcow Crow wants to limit folks to one piece of toilet paper. I suppose this idiotic liberal global whining stalinism would ensure the ever decreasing circulation of the worthless far left NY Slimes, Dixie’s own Al Jeezera Constipation, the L A Turds and other leftist hate sheets were actually used for something worthwile other than just as bird cage liners or house training puppies. Wiping one’s arse with C Tucker’s lies and racebaiting drivel, the d!kelike M Dowd’s unremitting irrational Bush hate and so on would be a marvellous tribute to those that continuously urge the recycling of newsprint.
Mid South penis-puller … cheers for your latest patronising pompous leftist sneers. I am of course much too doltish and obtuse to glean the fiendishly abstruse, completely over the head of every non Nobel laureate position you so cleverly contrived to instantly embarass all of us with this morning, whilst searching for extra toilet paper. Haughty supercilious liberal arrogance like yours is always fun to read - at least your semi-literate bollocks usually strives to be ‘joined up writing’ - unlike the should have aborted maggot brain who just anally pukes up endless vapid moveyourbowels.org slogans.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Raise corporate taxes.
They are represented in our government.
By Robin
April 23, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
The American Dream is for most people is just that - a dream. Quite frankly - a lot of these people are so far in debt - it’s just sickening. Living in the moment is what it is all about - forget about the future and retirement. I think the “Dream” in the end is going to turn out to be a “nightmare” if people don’t wake up - and soon. Stop living a LIE!
By liberals are verminous SCUM
April 23, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Those two beautiful evil liberals can touch me anytime.
just so long as they use a 10,000 volt cattle prod/stun gun or better still a pitchfork dipped in radioactive polonium - 210
smirk
By Craig
April 23, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this
Dennis and Aquagirl - you are correct. It’s always interesting to me that when right wing whiners complain about taxes, they never include the effect of payroll and sales taxes, only income taxes. Those “freeloaders” that so many righties like to complain about are actually paying a good amount.
By Jack
April 23, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
It interests me how those on the left have no problem giving away hard earned money to those who don’t earn it. Why don’t we just give the gov’t all of our money and we can all be lower class. (except for the politicians) Remember libs: What the government gives the government can also take away.
By WTF
April 23, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
I need a program. So tftt changed her name to liberals are verminous SCUM? Are she and the corpse of J. Edgar still an item?
By Jim
April 23, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
Van and jbmlaw,
You’re both horribly mistaken. A “fair reading of Jim’s essay” does not require the reader to understand that he is talking about direct payments.
In developing their bogus (60%) statistic, the Tax Foundation defined “government spending” as “dollar outlays by governments to provide services to households”. Their report did not refer exclusively, as you both state, to direct payments. Of course, you should know that 60 percent of the U.S. population does not receive direct payments from the government. The Tax Foundation simply cherry-picks government spending they wish to categorize as “providing services to households” (it can by almost anything) to support their predetermined conclusion that “of the U.S. population …60 percent get more in government spending than they pay in taxes.”
Using cherry-picked spending (and not disclosing the details of their calculation) is how this con works. I could pay off the national debt if I had a nickel for every Fox News watching target of such cons who said to me, “I pay all this money in taxes and the government never did anything for me.”
So, Wooten uses false Tax Foundation statistics to perpetuate the lie, and the two of you, determined to believe it, come up with your own lie that 60 percent of the population receives direct payments from the government.
Fellas. Please. You’re only lying to yourselves.
By liberals are verminous SCUM
April 23, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
I need a program. So tftt changed her name to liberals are verminous SCUM? Are she and the corpse of J. Edgar still an item?
NOPE … you need a large round flesh wound in the middle of your forehead!!
By WTF
April 23, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
So then you are a verminous leftist afterbirth pondscum feckpig wanker shtick stealer then?
By liberals are verminous SCUM
April 23, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this
So then you are a verminous leftist afterbirth pondscum feckpig wanker shtick stealer then?
NOPE … happily I aint met either of your parents … but keep on with your compulsive, delusional, quaint aspirational dreams of one day actually being worthy of sneakily escaping the abortion bucket!!
By Van
April 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Craig,
The reason the conservatives do not complain about the payroll taxes, we all pay it. It is common to all wage earners, except Social Security does have a cap.
All wage earners do pay a flat tax for the other items, but then again, these items are part of the great lefts plan to pay for the entitlements.
FICA-MED FICA-OASDI FED INC TX withholding GA STATE withholding
By WTF
April 23, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
You got no game.
By CouldItBe
April 23, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
By Jim Wooten | Monday, April 23, 2007, 07:54 AM
Is it that we earn our way to mini-estates by producing? Or that we elect politicians who will soak the producers to provide us their lifestyle?
Could it be, Jim, that some of these “mini estate” owners are not living so high on the hog as you say. Maybe they are living a nightmare of debt. When was the last time that any of us outside of 285 as you say, saw a development of 100K to 150K homes being built. Could it be that Americans are drowning in red ink more so than living high on the hog?
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
By Aquagirl
April 23, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
Call me leftist. I am indeed horrified that under the Williams plan, Paris Hilton would have more votes than a high school teacher
Cudos to you Aquagirl! You just illustrated the lunacy of a viewpoint such as jbmlaw’s and slammed his little pee pee in the door in one fell swoop. YOU GO GIRL!!!!
By Dennis
April 23, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
By Craig April 23, 2007 11:08 AM “Dennis and Aquagirl - you are correct. It’s always interesting to me that when right wing whiners complain about taxes, they never include the effect of payroll and sales taxes, only income taxes. Those “freeloaders” that so many righties like to complain about are actually paying a good amount.”
Wooten and those who share his views love to look at the “rich pay more dollars in taxes bit”, but they conveniently ignore the inequity of the percentage amount of income that a person on the lower end of the spectrum pays.
And he isn’t going to walk the West side of Atlanta at night by himself, either.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw, you are dumber than a box of rocks! Under the plan you spoke of above, a married couple paying tax on 70,770.00 (8,637.00) would not get to vote, but a single person would. (15,145.75) I would bet that you yourself jbmlaw would never get to vote.
By cheese & whine
April 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
Why yes, let’s support raising corporate taxes and watch all the prices for goods and services in this nation go up accordingly. What, do wingnuts on the left think corporations are just going to sponge that expense up and not pass it along to we the consumer? Democrats ==> when you care enough to cost others, be it individual choice or taxation policy.
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
The tax issue could be settled once and for all with the National Sales Tax plans that are out there. Basically a consumption tax. He who consumes the most pays the most. Sounds fair to me, but we all know which segment of the population will never let that happen, now don’t we?
By Laurie
April 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
cheese & whine,
Prices are determined by supply and demand, not “embedded taxes” as Neil Boortz would have you believe.
Be a good citizen and learn economics 101. That way you won’t have to rely on radio talk show con-artists to do your thinking for you.
By Clarification by mediator
April 23, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
If you are going to play, it pays to know the standard condescending references for each side, so here we go:
Leftists: Moonbats
Rightists: Wingnuts
Thank you and have a nice day!
By Power of Light
April 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
Clarification by mediator,
You’re right, so here we go:
Clarification by mediator: Cowardly blogger who is afraid to reveal their normal ID. Person who lives on this blog due to lack of employment and stable human relationship.
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
By Laurie
April 23, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
cheese & whine, Be a good citizen and learn economics 101. That way you won’t have to rely on radio talk show con-artists to do your thinking for you.
Laurie, taking talk radio away from these right wing imbeciles would be tantamount to giving them a lobotomy.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
My bad whine,
I meant the corporations profitting from the blood of our troops and the slaughter of Iraqis.
Big oil comes to mind.
Geez.
By Silent Majority
April 23, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this
DawgBite,
The working poor can’t choose how much they consume. They MUST spend 100 percent of their income (sometimes more) just to cover necessities (housing, transportation, food, health insurance, medical care). By the way, if you think the poverty line (prebate) covers these expenses — think again.
With consumption taxes, the choice not to consume increases directly with the income level. To cover necessities, low income workers must spend a larger percentage of their income (sometimes more than 100 percent) than those in the middle and those in the middle must spend a larger percentage of their inome that those at the top.
The consumption tax itself would follow the same pattern, resulting in teachers paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes than Paris Hilton. I believe “regressive” is the word you’re looking for.
By cheese & whine
April 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this
Laurie funny you mention Neal Boortz. He has challenged the Ajc nutter Jay Bookman to a debate on the FairTax with his stupid column today. Let’s see if mr. mouth has the nutters to take him up on it. Only an uneducated ingnorant boob doesn’t believe that companies don’t pass on imbedded expenses like corporate taxes on to us. You sure wouldn’t be in business long.
By Van
April 23, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Laurie ,
What remote island did you come in from.
“Prices are determined by supply and demand, not “embedded taxes” as Neil Boortz would have you believe.”
Prices are set to insure that the producers can reclaim a certain amount of profit.
Add together the cost of the raw materials, the cost of manufacturing, all expenses incurred by the company, including taxes and say a 10% profit and you have the cost of the item.
Some might say 10% is too high or too low, it doesn’t matter. This is the basic formula that all businesses use.
With you so-called logic, prices would never rise or fall because the demand would remain constant.
Companies have very little in the way of margin to play with. If the raw material goes up, the cost goes up or the increase is cut from some part of the equation.
Certain expenses are the expense of office help. They product no product but are an essential part of the company, their salaries or hourly wages have to be paid from somewhere. Everyones FICA costs each employer. You pay only 1/2 of the FICA taxes on your paycheck, the company pays the other half. Where does the money come from for Unemployment taxes? Every employer has to pay into that pool.
No, supply and demand only accounts for part of the equation. If you want to supply the demand, your costs have to be low enough for you to stay in business, keep your people working and make a few bucks.
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
cheese and whine, have you ever wondered why Neal Boortz is a bombastic blowhard on talk radio instead of working in his former profession? Just ask Evander Holyfield how well Neal Boortz managed his finances and you will know the answer to that one.
By cheese & whine
April 23, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
So that blood money from General Dynamics is just as bad I presume. As was that blood money from Jeep during World War 2. Too much ignorance from the left here to deal with. Keep it stupid, people.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
Lets see, I was right again about Ganzo, w said he is a keeper.
The wingnuts wrong again, as usual, on a silly haircut:
“Little Joe, as he’s affectionately known, charges $175 for a haircut now. In his shop. When your crazy schedule dictates that he must come to you to cut your hair, his charge is based (he, too, friends, supports a family, helps his extended family and runs a business) on his time out of the shop when he could be attending other heads. Thus, $400 for that particular Edwards’ job.” Norman Lear
Talk about stupid.
Geez.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
whine,
Comparing Iraq to WWII is stupid.
But to be expected from wingnuts.
When have they been right about anything?
By Laurie
April 23, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
Van,
Thanks for the irrelevant lesson in the cost of office help.
If prices were determined by “embedded taxes” and the cost of office help, as you claim, then Delta would simply have raised their fares instead of operating in the red for the last several years.
Prices are set by markets, not cost accountants. If the price that the market will pay for a product or service results sales below a company’s break even point, then the business either operates in the red (millions of companies are operating at a loss right now) or goes out of business entirely (happens every single day).
Sorry friends…your leader Boortz’s embedded taxes theory can apply in limited circumstances with monopolies/oligopolies or with the sale of basic necessities, but in a competitive, free market – nope. It’s supply and deman.
It’s ironic that you right wingers don’t understand basics of capitalism and economics.
By Roger Mathis
April 23, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Power of Light: Sewer sucking doghead whose miserable life is spent in the public library reading this blog all day, except when she isn’t trying to sneak a peek under the 68-year-old librarian’s skirt.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
Now if you want to compare Iraq to Vietnam, that is not stupid.
Just heard a Sgt. in Iraq saying this is our generation’s Vietnam.
He said we are the buffer in their civil war and unfortunately, when we leave, the Iraqis that helped us, will be slaughtered.
This is w’s legacy and his disaster.
God save America.
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
Laurie, that is because Van picks up buzzwords and phrases from his professors on talk radio. A little time in an actual classroom would allow him to apply the words and terminology to the concept. Alas, he can’t. I think it is an absolute hoot that you, who “they” consider a lib, is actually giving these wingwacks an economics lesson today. You totally exposed jbmlaw’s backside today. Keep up the good work Laurie.
By Power of Light
April 23, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
Roger Mathis,
How did you know I liked your mother? Did she tell you?
At least I reveal who I am prick.
By Mark
April 23, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this
Van’s 10 percent argument is bizarre. There are thousands upon thousands of businesses operating at a loss, thousands more operating at profit margins of less than one or two percent (year after year) and others that make profits of 50 percent, 200 percent, etc. Why the wide range? Supply and demand.
If prices were determined by taxes and other costs, as the ever-so-gullible Van believes, then no business would ever lose money or go out of business.
By Sam
April 23, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this
Hey jbmlaw! How about the married couple that pays less than 20K in taxes? Who gets to vote? The husband or wife? Or does the W2 that hit the nut get the vote? Or if neither earned the magic figure that it would take to vote I guess both of them are SOL, huh jbmlaw? Straighten him out Laurie. That was about the dumbest post that I have seen on any blog.
By Shar
April 23, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
Or that the lawyer who does indigent defense and pro bono work disenfranchises him/herself while the ambulance chaser joins Paris and Snoop Dog at the polls? Truly a terrible idea.
By Dennis
April 23, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this
By cheese & whine April 23, 2007 12:00 “Why yes, let’s support raising corporate taxes and watch all the prices for goods and services in this nation go up accordingly. What, do wingnuts on the left think corporations are just going to sponge that expense up and not pass it along to we the consumer? Democrats ==> when you care enough to cost others, be it individual choice or taxation policy.”
If you had a longer range view, it was not that American corporations were not making enough profit, but that they saw a way to make more profit at the expense of the American people, and therefore they moved their industries out of the country - leaving Americans without jobs.
Nor did their sales prices go down after they found cheaper labor, either.
Had they stayed in this country, you’d not be paying more for, say a shirt, than you’re paying now. It’s just that the corporate profits wouldn’t be as much. But the U.S. would still have its much needed factories. And if we ever get into a really big war, we don’t have the manufacturing capacity to produce what we need to fight with.
Prior to all of this shifting industry out of the country, when prices went up, so did salaries. It was all pretty much equaling out until the corporations got greedy.
What we really need to do it to tax the hell out of them until they find it cheaper to manufacture in this country instead of wherever they are.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By George W. Bush
April 23, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this
How is the screen name Power of Light revealing who you are she-devil? Weren’t you also the shtick stealing liberals are verminous SCUM earlier? You’re wasting all your valuable “debating” time picking at this insignificant piece of bellybutton lint.
By Mid-South Philosopher
April 23, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
To liberals are verminous SCUM@10:45
Wow!
I never dreamed that my @8:39 post would send someone into such a state of multi-phrased etymological asperity. Never have I been insulted, chasten, and complimented so effectively in a three sentence paragraph! I don’t know whether to cry, applaud, or just go flush!
By Jack
April 23, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
A lot of our jobs are going overseas because of taxes and you want to tax the Hell out of them. Brilliant. TLC.
By getalife
April 23, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this
Jack,
That is bulls-hit.
Cheap labor.
By rarringt
April 23, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
Afternoon all,
jbmlaw, your first post of the morning was much more provocative than usual.
Williams’ argument is one that has been tried, and failed, previously. As you know, upon ratification, only free white men over 21 who were property owners were able to vote, effectively disenfranchising the vast majority of people in the nascent union.
It could be argued that much of the history of the following 200 years was in large part an effort for the masses of folk who didn’t fit into those categories to become (more) fully enfranchised within the system, beginning with the right to vote.
Williams’ suggestion would put 95% of the electoral power into the hands of 5% of the population. As you might imagine, I disagree fervently with this, despite the fact that you and I and many in our profession would likely be beneficiaries.
Yes, this is a capitalist society, but we also live within a quasi-democracy designed to give each of us the privilege and responsibility of participating. We do that at the booth.
Williams’ “vision” is actually an economic autocracy (aka corporatism), and I’m not sure if we want Exxon determining environmental policy via direct voting authority.
At least not any more.
But then again, you already knew that.
P.S. Whatever happened to Redneck Convert?
By Power of Light
April 23, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
To the coward that is afraid to ID himself,
I am always in the form of Light on this blog. You are dancing from ID to ID because you are to much of a pu$$y to let us know who you really are. The answer to your other question is no. The Light does not engage in liberal homosexual propaganda.
By Jen
April 23, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Jobs are moving out out of the country because of greed. Indian programmers work for a lot less than American programmers. Child labor in Asia and South American is cheaper than American workers. Those children work much longer hours in squalid conditions for less money than we do. Not that it matters to “it’s my money” creeps like you who blame taxes for all suffering in the world.
WAKE UP!!!
By Shar
April 23, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
Dennis@1:17 - While I agree with your sentiment, in fact corporations will lard whatever they possibly can into the prices of the goods and services they provide. They will also write off taxes, manufacturing costs little and big and anything else they can buy politicians into letting them. And it is not just the bosses who are greedy, although the disparity in earnings between floor personnel and c-level managers is at a record level and beyond anything remotely resembling value to the shareholder. The workers saw the disparity and the corporate profit levels and insisted that they, too, get in on the action, with the result that they priced themselves out of a world labor market that was irrelevant to the generation before them.
I’d like to see enormous tax penalties for any corporation with significant presence in the United States but incorporated and/or banking in an offshore tax haven.
By Dennis
April 23, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
By Jack April 23, 2007 1:27 PM “A lot of our jobs are going overseas because of taxes and you want to tax the Hell out of them. Brilliant. TLC.”
Jack, the corporations didn’t move out of the country because of tax, but because of cheaper labor. NOR, did the prices of their goods go down because of that cheaper labor.
There has NEVER been a downturn in consumre prices that you and I pay because a corporation moved out of the country because of cheaper labor.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Jack
April 23, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this
More TLC. All this time I could have gotten my fill of TLC here instead of the editorial page.
Call me anything you wish Jen if it makes you feel better. I love you too.
By Andrew
April 23, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this
The comment above that the Tax Foundation’s numbers are “phoney” or “biased” or not transparent is total nonsense. Try reading the actual study before launching into a partisan tirade, for once:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf
By Chadworth
April 23, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this
-What we really need to do it to tax the hell out of them until they find it cheaper to manufacture in this country instead of wherever they are.- Start first with an garment manufacturer having to handle paying a livable wage policy of say $20 per hour with full benefits first and then increasing corporate taxes next. The product manufactured and sold are t-shirts for $1.20 each at the wholesale level. I challenge any bizwhiz lefty here to manage any small business, medium business, or large business on that model and even com close to breaking even. Obviously some people have never owned a business and had to deal with a breakdown of expenses. For the record, supply and demand are not an imbedded expense like taxes, transportation costs in fuel and regulation compliance, energy costs, labor costs, and countless other things in the manufacturing and distribution costs. Supply and demand is a market driven law, not a market driven expense.
By Jack
April 23, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
Chadworth. Dennis can do it. He is really smart.
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
There is a direct correlation between who pays for the study and the result of the study. Common sense 101. Maybe folks should try thinking for themselves instead of cherry picking some study they know fits there political agenda. Alot of folks, especially the ones on the right just hate what there their lying eyes tell them.
By Dennis
April 23, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
By Shar
April 23, 2007 1:34 PM Dennis@1:17 - “While I agree with your sentiment, in fact corporations will lard whatever they The workers saw the disparity and the corporate profit levels and insisted that they, too, get in on the action, with the result that they priced themselves out of a world labor market that was irrelevant to the generation before them.”
Certainly the influence of unions to protect its workers had an influence in corporations moving out. But, would you agree we are back where we were in regard to corporate heads making the big bucks and the workers getting the chicken feed? And even more now that worker benefits and retirements are being cut out completely.
I don’t know how Jack, above, earns his living, and hopefully this will not happen to him, but he need not be too assured that his salary and benefits will meet his needs in the future.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Chadworth
April 23, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
-Jack, the corporations didn’t move out of the country because of tax, but because of cheaper labor.- That’s half true. Remember, US companies aren’t just selling to Americans.
U.S. corporations doing business overseas are able to defer tax payments on income earned abroad until such earnings are “repatriated” to the U.S. If the income earned abroad never comes back to the country and is instead held in foreign subsidiaries or invested back in the corporation overseas, those tax payments are permanently deferred. http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2004/election_outsourcing.html
By liberals are verminous SCUM
April 23, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this
mid south penis-puller
errrr … just go flush (yourself) bubba!!
By Jack
April 23, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this
“but he need not be too assured that his salary and benefits will meet his needs in the future.”
Who’s on first?
By Yo mama
April 23, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
Oh, yeah, Power of Light used to be Doom, er, rather, Dumb. I’m not afraid of revealing my ID if I had one. I pretty much have never used the same ID twice in months of eviscerating ignorant turds like yourself on this blog. It’s more fun for me. Has nothing to do with courage, or not since you, nor anyone on this blog, other than Wooten, gives their real name.
By Dennis
April 23, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
By Chadworth April 23, 2007 1:45 PM
Chad, certainly with the figures you’ve posted you can’t stay in business. But if you don’t pay a “living wage” who can afford to buy your product?
This may or may not include you, but for whatever reasons, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
I don’t have the figures I want at my fingertips, but I think I could make a good case for you to see the other side. Some small percent of the people in this country own about 80% of its corporations. Yet, even the big corporations are cutting wages and benefits simply because they refuse to give a damn about their workers.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Ragga Muffin
April 23, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
Power of Light is dim.
See, did it again. Ha. What fun for me. What maddening frustration for you.
By Power of Light
April 23, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this
Wrong again Chicken Head. The power of Light compels you , The power of Light compels you, The power of Light compels you, etc.
Please get a job.
By liberals are verminous SCUM
April 23, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this
So the pandering to queers and grasping mexican type illegals mayor of San Fran Sicko pukes up yet another illegal rant in defence of freeloading parasitic illegals … this sh!thole of city should be denied ALL federal funding until they obey the laws of the land.
If EVER a depraved, corrupt, treasonous, military hating, law breaking, queer loving city deserved to be completely trashed by an earthquake - Sicko is that city.
Anything over 8.0 on the Richter Scale will do very nicely!!
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/22/BAGADPDGNF18.DTL
By getalife
April 23, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this
Just got this email:
Subject: Fw: I think our country is in trouble
A Washington, DC, airport ticket agent offers some examples of why our country is in trouble!
I had a New Hampshire Congresswoman ask for an aisle seat so that her hair wouldn’t get messed up by being near the window. (On an airplane!)
I got a call from a candidate’s staffer, who wanted to go to Capetown. I started to Explain the length of the flight and the passport information, then she interrupted me with, “I’m not trying to make you look stupid, but Capetown is in Massachusetts.” Without trying to make her look stupid, I calmly explained, “Cape Cod is in Massachusetts, Capetown is in Africa.”Her response - click.
He replied, “Don’t lie to me, I looked on the map and Florida is a very thin state!” (OMG)
I got a call from a lawmaker’s wife who asked, “Is it possible to see England from Canada?” I said, “No.” She said, “But they look so close on the map.” (OMG, again!)
An aide for a cabinet member once called and asked if he could rent a car in Dallas. When I pulled up the reservation, I noticed he had only a 1-hour layover in Dallas.
When I asked him why he wanted to rent a car, he said, “I heard Dallas was a big airport, and we will need a car to drive between gates to save time.” (Aghhhh)
An Illinois Congresswoman called last week. She needed to know how it was possible that her flight from Detroit left at8:30 am got to Chicago at 8:33 am. I explained that Michigan was an hour ahead of Illinois, but she couldn’t understand the concept of time zones. Finally, I told her the plane went fast, and she bought that.
A New York lawmaker called and asked, “Do airlines put your physical description on your bag so they know whose luggage belongs to whom?” I said, “No, why do you ask?” She replied, “Well, when I checked in with the airline, they put a tag on my luggage that said (FAT), and I’m overweight. I think that’s very rude!” After putting her on hold for a minute while I looked into it (I was laughing). I came back and explained the city code for Fresno, CA is (FAT - Fresno Air Terminal), and the airline was just putting a destination tag on her luggage.
A Senator’s aide called to inquire about a trip package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked, “Would it be cheaper to fly to California, and then take the train to Hawaii?”
I just got off the phone with a freshman Congressman who asked, “How do I know which plane to get on?” I asked him what exactly he meant, to which he replied, “I was told my flight number is 823, but none of these planes have numbers on them.”
A lady Senator called and said, “I need to fly to Pepsi-Cola, Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer planes?” I asked if she meant fly to Pensacola, Fl. on a commuter plane. She said, “Yeah, whatever, smarty!”
A New Mexico Congress woman called to make reservations, “I want to go from Chicago to Rhino, New York .” I was at a loss for words. Finally, I said, “Are you sure that’s the name of the town?” “Yes, what flights do you have?” replied the lady. After some searching, I came back with, “I’m sorry, ma’am, I’ve looked up every airport code in the country and can’t find a Rhino anywhere.” The lady retorted, “Oh, don’t be silly! Everyone knows where it is. Check your map!” So I scoured a map of the state of New York and finally offered, “You don’t mean Buffalo, do you?” The reply? “Whatever! I knew it was a big animal.”
Now you know why the Government is in the shape that it’s in.
By Van
April 23, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this
Mark,
Yes, many companies do operate at a loss, but they can not keep that up for a long period of time. If the expense of producing a product is greater than the price it is sold for, what do you think will happen? Where do you think the difference is made up from?
If the $1.20 in raw goods costs $11 and is sold for $10 the company would not stay in business for long. Delta had to go into bankruptcy because the costs were greater than the income.
Many companies are cutting costs by laying off, outsourcing or firing people
By Lord Doom
April 23, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
Do not soil my name by connecting me with that pedophaelic nose picker Powder Lite.
By K-Squared
April 23, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this
“…supply and demand are not an imbedded expense…Supply and demand is a market driven law, not a market driven expense.”
Huh? Nobody claimed that supply and demand is an expense. What is this “bizwhiz” talking about?
Please, as previously suggested, go to your local community college and purchase the Econ 101 book.
You’re just making a*******es out of yourselves when you blindly parrot the BS spoon-fed to you by Boortz and friends.
By Jack
April 23, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this
I see our fine mayor is going to Asia on our dime. What a great way to spend our money.
By Brad
April 23, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
For the record, I read Boortz’s FairTax book cover-to-cover with a highlighter in hand. I wrote in the margins, and I ran the numbers. Also, in addition to reading the House Bill (H.R. 25) this book is promoting, I spent hours reviewing data on the FairTax site and both of the author’s websites. I also committed that I would apply my education and experience to thoughtfully consider the authors’ confidently-optimistic predictions about the impact of this tax proposal rather than accepting the authors’ claims at face value. Unfortunately, I found that the authors of this book made numerous assertions that are contrary to basic economics, human nature and grade-school arithmetic. Here are just a few examples of what I’m talking about:
The authors claim that their 23% FairTax plan is revenue-neutral because the federal government will collect the same amount under this tax (essentially a 30% federal sales tax) as it collects under the current income tax structure. This 23 percent figure was calculated by assuming that taxpayers who cheat on their taxes today will not cheat under the FairTax plan. In fact, since the FairTax is to be applied to both products AND services (ex: haircuts, car repairs, child care, doctor visits), and because the immediate savings from avoiding this tax would be so great, it’s possible that more people, otherwise honest, will find ways to avoid paying this tax. At least two states, Florida and Massachusetts, actually tried imposing state sales taxes on services and later rescinded these taxes because they turned out to be counterproductive. Also, I found studies online that indicated that when sales taxes exceed 10%, efforts to avoid such taxes increase. So, contrary to the author’s assertions, there seems to be significant evidence that taxpayers are very likely to seek ways to avoid paying the sales tax proposed by the FairTax plan. If so, the FairTax rate proposed by the authors would not be revenue-neutral, as they claim. (FYI - If you look at the actual H.R. 25 bill, the 23% figure is fixed only for the first year and adjusted every year thereafter).
Currently, in addition to the amounts taken out of paychecks, employers must contribute an amount equal to 7.65% of each employee’s gross pay for Social Security and Medicare. The authors write that when their FairTax eliminates these employer contributions, management will pass the savings to employees by giving them a corresponding 7.65% raise. Although employers aren’t required to provide such pay raises, the authors believe that business management is generous and, as a result, will forgo keeping any such savings to benefit the company, stockholders and themselves. Experience and common sense tells us that this assumption is unrealistic. Generally speaking, management is likely to retain any such savings for the company and such pay increases are unlikely to materialize for most working taxpayers.
According to this book, when the FairTax eliminates corporate income taxes, prices overall will drop by more than 20%. The truth is, once again, that business is likely to keep any savings realized in order to increase profits. Business doesn’t lower prices when they save money on taxes, payroll or anything else for that matter. Prices are influenced by supply and demand, not “embedded taxes” as the authors believe. When demand rises, then prices rise; when demand falls, then prices fall. This assumption also ignores the numerous businesses with no profits (at least on paper) or thin profit margins, and therefore, realize no tax savings to pass on to consumers.
The authors write that the word regressive', is a "buzzword" used by opponents of the FairTax to manipulate the debate. Despite the authors' attempts to redefine it,regressive’ is an economic term with a precise definition - when a tax is regressive, the higher one’s income, the lower the proportion of that income that actually goes to paying the tax - and vice versa. Either an apple is “red” or it isn’t. And, either a tax is “regressive” or it isn’t. The FairTax is regressive. Low income workers will pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than middle class workers, and middle class workers will a larger percentage of their income the high income earners. That’s economic suicide. (Critics might reply to remind me about the FairTax prebate — which I’m happy to discuss.)
Most people don’t know the difference between their household’s “effective” tax rate, “average” tax rate and “marginal” tax rate (i.e. tax bracket). Each term has a specific definition that the authors, no doubt, are familiar with. An individual’s or family’s “effective” tax rate is always lower than both their “average” tax rate and their “marginal” tax rate. Keeping this in mind, I noticed that the authors frequently used “effective” tax rates when discussing the FairTax plan. On the other hand, when giving examples about the current income tax structure, they always either referred to “average” tax rates or tax brackets - again, higher figures. For apples-to-apples comparisons, readers need to familiarize themselves with the distinctions between these three terms (which the authors don’t define) and then compare their current “effective” tax rates (via their income tax returns) with their projected “effective” tax rates under the FairTax plan. With such comparisons, most households are likely to find that they would pay more under the FairTax plan - not less.
The authors ask the readers to look at their paychecks to determine how much they pay in federal income taxes. However, the amounts deducted from our paychecks are estimates. These estimates are reconciled when we file our tax returns and are frequently too high (resulting in tax refunds). That’s why it’s important for readers to look at their tax returns to determine their “effective” tax rates, not their paychecks as the authors suggest.
Interestingly, the FairTax plan does not exempt the federal government from paying federal sales taxes when it purchases goods and services from the private sector. As a result, the government would effectively pay taxes to itself. When portraying the 23 percent figure as “revenue-neutral”, the authors include government collections from itself as revenue. That’s like taking a ten dollar bill out of your left pocket, putting it into your right pocket, and thinking “I just made ten bucks”.
Using such language, scattered throughout this book, is a common radio talk-show tactic (one of the authors is a radio talk jock) intended to preempt readers from listening to or analyzing another point of view. Since any and all who oppose or question this FairTax are dishonest, jealous or stupid, the authors imply, the reader shouldn’t consider anything they have to say.
I agree with the authors’ diagnosis of many of the problems with our current tax system, but their prescription, a major overhaul of the strongest economy in the world, is likely to be disastrous for us and our standard of living. In addition, this plan is being sold using the same approach used by a stereotypical used-car salesman. We deserve better.
By deegee
April 23, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
Van is an expert in economics because he has been selling lemonade from a stand at the bottom of his driveway for the last 25 years.
By liberals are verminous SCUM
April 23, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
and heebeegeebee is an expert at leftist bollocks because its been drinking koolaid for 25 years!!!
By DawgBite
April 23, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
I wonder if Ken Lay needed a tax break so he could buy a 7th vacation home?
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
Dear Dawgbite @ 11:57, sorry, you lose, I would get two votes, but not quite three, per year, excluding FICA. For all your moronic posts, however, your 12:06 reflects true wisdom. To answer your question there, it is the people who pay not taxes now who will oppose the Fair Tax.
Dear Laurie @ 12:06 and 12:47, except for the fact that you ignore the effect of “embedded taxes” on willingness of supplier and demander, you are correct (perhaps more precisely, you pretend embedded taxes have no effect.) The embedded tax works as an inherent inefficiency, or an artificially higher cost, reducing both quantities of supply and demand at the net market price.
Nevertheless, the embedded taxes do less damage to the economy than income taxes, which work equally as an embedded progressive sales tax, with a bonus embedded capital tax at the same marginal rate.
By harold
April 23, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
rich types like paris hilton and jim wooten would never go for “one vote per $10,000 taxes paid” because people who are that rich don’t pay income taxes. duh.
By harold
April 23, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this
then again in just 4 or 5 more presidential votes minimum wage workers will pay $10,000 a year in taxes
taht’s the problem with basing things on dollar values. the value of the dollar is constantly decreasing.
see AMT
By jbm fan
April 23, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw wrote, “…the embedded taxes do less damage to the economy than income taxes, which work equally as an embedded progressive sales tax, with a bonus embedded capital tax at the same marginal rate”
Sounds good jbmlaw. Like most of your posts, this jibberish makes no sense whatsoever, but it sure sounds good. You can BS with the best of them.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
Good afternoon rarringt @ 1:51, thanks, I agree that my post prompted a bit more commentary than usual. Unfortunately not much thought before yours, but that’s ok.
If you wade through the various critiques - yours excepted - most take exception with the level at which there is a vote. I think Dr. Williams’ idea is that everyone gets a vote, but everyone who is truly contributing to the tax load will be heard more loudly than those who contribute nothing. I cannot imagine why a thief’s voice should count at much as someone who contributes true wealth to the country, but clearly there are shrill voices that disagree with that view.
I don’t have a problem with Paris Hilton or a rap music star getting more votes than a history teacher - clearly the former know what America truly wants and is willing to pay for; I suspect even Dennis will begrudge me that observation, as he always bewails the “underfunding” of government indoctrination centers. I do have a problem with bloggers who assert they have a right to the money earned by somebody else.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
Apologies to Getalife @ 2:18, I’ve previously accused you of lack of humor. You proved me wrong. I thought these were funny.
By jbmlaw
April 23, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this
Dear jbmf @ 3:34, read it again when you sober up and you will understand. All income has two uses: (1) consumption and (2) savings. The income tax is applied indiscriminately against both. The tax on consumption is oft called a “sales” tax. A tax levied against capital (aka the “Wealth of Nations”) is truly consumption of the next generation’s seed corn.
By RP
April 23, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
Great post Brad. I hope you don’t mind if I piggyback on your FairTax review and add a couple of points of my own.
The implication here is that money spent on tax-prep software (ex; TurboTax), tax-prep professionals (ex: H&R Block), accountants and lawyers falls into a black hole never to be seen again. Once the FairTax goes online, according to the authors, the black hole will disappear and the economy will immediately grow by leaps and bounds. Contrary to this implication, employees of Turbo Tax and Jackson-Hewitt buy cars and take their children out to eat too. Accountants and tax-attorneys go on vacations and buy houses too. An argument could have been made that expenses associated with complying with the income tax system are inefficient, but the authors hype their tax plan by acting as if such expenses vanish from the economy only to return with the advent of a consumption tax. Of course, that’s entirely false.
Also — not likely. Canada has a consumption tax that they call the Goods and Services Tax (GST). This tax did not replace their income tax, but it supplements it. Despite this fact, the GST is fraught with complexities (loopholes, exemptions, etcetera) that the FairTax authors claim their consumption tax is inoculated from. In truth, with our current system of campaign financing, lobbyists are just as capable of manipulating a consumption tax as they are of manipulating an income tax.
Recent experience should have taught us that unquestioningly accepting assertions because they’re made with confidence and accepting optimistic projections (again, made with absolute confidence) can get our country into a heap of trouble. The fact is that, like the war in Iraq, the FairTax plan is a right-wing con that enriches a few at the expense of the rest of us.
By Ashley
April 23, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw at 3:50,
You’re just repeating the double-talk that you repeat nearly every day and is debunked nearly every day.
regressive tax Low income earners pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than middle income earners. Middle income earners pay a larger percentage of their income than high income earners.
flat tax All earners pay exactly the same percentage of their income in taxes.
progressive tax The opposite of a regressive tax. Low income earners pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than middle income earners (and so on).
In an ideal world, we would live with a flat tax system. But, those at the bottom of the income ladder are struggling to pay for the basics and can afford little or no taxes (and therefore, it would be counterproductive to tax them). As a result, those of us in the middle and at the top (i.e. those of us who benefit the most from our economic infrastructure) make up the difference. That’s the reason behind our progressive tax system.
jbmlaw wants to move in the other direction. A consumption tax is regressive. Under such a scheme, most of the tax burden falls to low income and middle income families (measured as a percentage of income) and high income earners pay a lower percentage (because they can afford to save more and consume less when measured as a percentage of income).
The FairTax plan is regressive (despite the prebate), immoral and counterproductive, and we’d be both idiots and jerks to let it pass.
By deegee
April 23, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
Anyone that truly believes that the fair tax on consumption is going to eliminate the income tax is dreaming. You can bet that if the Fair Tax is enacted it will be a supplement to the income tax and we will have Boortz and Van to thank.
By the stopper
April 23, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
Drive through some intown Atlanta neighborhoods and through the mini-estate communities in prosperous areas outside I-285 and you get a sense that the nation’s wealth is more broadly shared than the class-warfare warriors would have us believe.
Where “get a sense” = “I have absolutely no data to back up this latest series of scribblings, and I sure hope nobody calls me on my BS”
By Dennis
April 23, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this
By the stopper April 23, 2007 4:46 PM quoting Jim Wooten. “Drive through some intown Atlanta neighborhoods and through the mini-estate communities in prosperous areas outside I-285 and you get a sense that the nation’s wealth is more broadly shared than the class-warfare warriors would have us believe.’
As I said earlier, let him walk down Bankhead and Hollywood Rd, and get a “sense” of reality.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Producer
April 24, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
The part about Walter Williams’ idea about people getting more than one vote for the amount of taxes they pay is brilliant. Boortz has also been saying this for years. Those of us who pay the bills SHOULD have more of a say in how our taxpayer money is spent than someone who contributes nothing to our society. Tax Takers versus the Tax Makers. Should the vote of someone who has no stake in the game count as much as one who’s efforts are confiscated to pay the bills? No way in hell. Kudos to Williams and Boortz!
By GaNative
April 25, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
I’m all for the FAIR TAX. I’m also for FAIR WAGES. We should round up all these SAND SQUATTERS from India and send them back to their homeland. They have killed the American economy. Take a look at this company, this is what America has sold out to.
http://www.tcs.com/AboutUs/BoardofDirectors.html
By GaNative
April 25, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
I’m all for the FAIR TAX. I’m also for FAIR WAGES. We should round up all these SAND SQUATTERS from India and send them back to their homeland. They have killed the American economy. Take a look at this company, this is what America has sold out to.
http://www.tcs.com/AboutUs/BoardofDirectors.html