Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[ScottL]

Diogenes, this is where our views diverge. I believe its the conservative base that has chosen to sit by and watch the middle-class dissolve. Bush's original tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and the middle-class continued to shrink over 8 years. Obama's continuation of the Bush tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and the middle-class has continued to shrink over 4 years. At this point its not enough to say we need to cut spending, but that we need to increase revenue in the form of pre-Bush tax rates while closing loopholes.

[/img]

[ladajo]

There's clearly been a redistribution of wealth in the country over the last 30 years.

In 1980, the top 1% earned 8.46% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 17.68%.
In 2002, the top 1% earned 16.17% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 14.23%.
In 2008, the top 1% earned 20.00% of the total AGI, and the bottom 50% earned 12.75%.

This means the top 1% saw their share of total AGI grow by 136% while the bottom 50% saw their share decline by 29% between 1980 and 2008. That sure looks like income redistribution to me.

Two points.
1. Where do you get these numbers?
2. When you have money, it is easier to make money. You can fund your own capital investments.

ANother key point often missed in all this is the modern pechant to do everything by percentage vice hard numbers.
Case in point is the disparity in income advancement, a (IMO) trick by the upper layer into lulling the lower layer. Think for a moment about pay rasies and cost of living raises, normally always percentage based. If the entire business (or governemnt agency as that is 1 in 100 americans direct income), gives a 2.5% raise, for the guy making say 150K, that is a $3,750 raise, while for the mainstream making say $50K, that is a $1250 dollar raise. Then take this and compound it over for instance 10 years, and you get a net gain of the $150K guy of $42,013 and the $50K guy a net gain of $14,004.

Let's go a little further from national incomes and do $250K and $40K:

Obama says if you make more than $250K you are "rich", and you would have with a 2.5% annual raise a 10 year net gain of $70,021. If you are Middle income family, according to the IRS, at $40K over 10 years you would gain $11,203. A total difference of $59,000 in income increase. That on the surface seems fair, "We all get 2.5%, everyone is equal..."
But on a closer look reveals a major flaw in our national cultural system.

I am all for doing away with percentaged based thinking, but I am also rational enough to know I would be pissing into the wind generated by the top layer.

I am also reflective of Obama's idea that $250K makes you rich. What a crock. So making more than 5 times the national average is the cut? How about 3 times, or twice?

[ScottL]

Then you get into questions like what defines the middle-class. At what points have you entered and/or exited. I could argue that $100k/year is easy to live off of because I don't make that amount, but those making it could feel they are barely surviving. Once the amount is there, people will find a way to consume it and doing without would be....gasp....outragious!

I definitely agree rich is subjective to a point. $250k/yr to someone who makes that doesn't necessarily make them feel rich, but to me at a lowly $52k/yr would view that as rich. I'm sure there's someone who makes $25k/yr and views my wage as rich although cost-of-living barely affords me a car and an apartment

[ladajo]

Yes, and it is also relative to location. This is the dilemma, balancing a good income relative to the area you live. You may earn $50K where you are and barely get by, but by moving somewhere else you may earn less, but live much better.

I earn over $100K, and I am aware that I and my family live well. I worked to get where I am over a number of years, and that is the way it should be. Am I rich, as you said not by what I perceive. Am I well above average? Absolutely in my opinion. My wife may not agree, but that is another discussion

[ScottL]

It's all subjective, but at some point even the general public will have to tighten their belt and pay a little more for the freedoms and lifestyles we wish to continue. This will require raises taxes to rates pre-Bush era as well as cutting from some programs. The longer we wait, the harder it will be.

Side-topic, I remember it being referenced that California is in dire-straights funding-wise. The reasons given were sadly false. California has been in the decline since Reagan was Gov. He managed to put into law the removal of property tax by vote of the majority (greater than 50%). Then he successfully put into a law requiring 2/3 majority to reverse such laws by a majority vote. Pre-Reagan's stupidity on property tax, California had a surplus and the UCs were at one pont free to all California residents.

[ladajo]

I have lived in California twice, and oneof my sister's has lived there for years (San Fran). I will never live there again. I am ok to visit, but living, no freakin way. IMO one of the best arguments going for a "people bomb". CA went in the toilet with greed and leftist stupidity. it is a great example of what happens when you jump on the socialist democratic bus. Intersting given the conservative govenors they have had. My sister almost moved out when Arnold became govenator.

I friend of mine is visiting CA right now and asked me what to do in LA. I told him to take the I5 southbound to San Diego. LA is a Hollywood myth. What a crap hole it has become. My younger sister lived in LA for years, but is now in TX, and when visiting her I did it mostly to take the family to Disney and then get out. Preferably, I would keep heading north to San Fran.

I lived in San Diego and Seaside.

[ScottL]

I currently live in Northern Cal and will be moving to L.A. against my better judgement, however; that doesn't erase the fact that what has happened in California is the direct result of the removal of property tax.

[Jccarlton]

Diogenes, this is where our views diverge. I believe its the conservative base that has chosen to sit by and watch the middle-class dissolve. Bush's original tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and the middle-class continued to shrink over 8 years. Obama's continuation of the Bush tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and the middle-class has continued to shrink over 4 years. At this point its not enough to say we need to cut spending, but that we need to increase revenue in the form of pre-Bush tax rates while closing loopholes.

[/img]

It seems the data doesn't support your argument.:
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... h-tax-cuts
In fact the data seem to follow the expected path of a grownig economy, with higher income and capital gains tax revenues. This is the pattern that has prevailed every time taxes have been cut from extrotionate levels. If there is no reward nobody takes any risks and you have a flatlined economy.

[Jccarlton]

Of course higher taxes will simply mean that those who can will simply Galt themselves out of the game:
http://cafehayek.com/2010/12/taxes-in-t ... world.html
You don't collect any taxes from economic activity that doesn't happen. When people can opt out raising taxes just causes a death spiral. Of course you can alaways put people in chains to make them cooperate. that works really well too.

[palladin9479]

*Munch's popcorn*

These discussions are always fun to watch. Depending entirely which adjectives you chose to use, mixed with which facts you decide to accept, one can paint either party as demonically evil or as saintly angels.

Both sides will go at it, lambasting the other side, twisting words and playing semantics. And the whole they they've each rationalized their own groups dark deeds and played hypocrite.

BOTH parties are currently bad, both desire to accumulate more power, more wealth and more control. We would fare no better under Republican's then under Democrats. And while the Democrats publicly make themselves look like greedy idiots, the Republicans would just classify it and privately make themselves look like greedy idiots. Both parties spread FUD and the objective of each is to hold onto power.

The objective of the current Republican party isn't to make the USA better nor is to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Democratic party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

The objective of the Democratic party isn't to make the USA a better place nor is it to save money or balance the budget. Their objective is to win the 2012 Presidential election, and failing that they desire to weaken the Republican party. If doing these things requires them to hurt the average American citizen, then so be it, its acceptable loses. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

Everything else after this is just talking points based on what their power base and donations come from. The GoP is usually MIC, Healthcare, Financial services and Religious institutes as their power base. They will cater to these groups and vigorously nod their head to whatever makes those groups give more money. The Dems are educational institutes, law firms, social groups, media groups, environmental groups and various "equality" groups. They will cater to these groups and vigorously nod their heads to whatever makes those groups give more money.

About the only difference between these two parties is that the Dems tend to be well intentioned but horribly misguided and thus easily controlled by special interests. The GoP is after power and they don't even pretend to not be and thus their easily manipulated by special interests.

That about sums things up.

You certainly have a warped view of History. While there is SOME merit in what you say, the notion that the parties are equivalent is complete crap. I cannot begin to give you a complete run down of the History of both parties, but I will mention a few things.

The Democrat Party was founded by Andrew Jackson, Most famous as President for Stealing the land from the Five Civilized tribes and giving it to whites to turn into slave plantations. This man FOUNDED the modern DNC. (Democratic National Committee)

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin for the Express purpose of outlawing Slavery.

Get the picture? The Democrats were the party of Slavery, i.e. people working while THEY collect the money? Sound Familiar? Abraham Lincoln was the First Republican President. After Slavery, the Democrats went straight to Jim Crow and other forms of racial oppression. Democrat Nathan Bedford Forest Founded the Ku Klux Klan, to oppress blacks, while Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to eradicate them. She referred to Blacks and Asians as "Human Weeds."
President Wilson oversaw the abandonment of the Specie Currency in exchange for "Fiat Currency" thereby making financial game playing by the Feds far easier and common place; A necessary step in creating the financial mess we have now.

Wilson Got us into World War I; a Conflict which was really none of our business. He also created the useless and pathetic "League of Nations" which evolved into the worse than useless and corrupt "United Nations." He followed the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, which were the fiscal equivalent of Keyne's Homosexual lifestyle. (Party hard and die.) He pushed for the 16th amendment. Direct Taxation of Citizens. Virtually All the current financial mess the US Government is involved in stems from the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, Ivy League Idiot too smart by half.

I'm going to stop with him, but rest assured that Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton have ALL wreaked havoc on this nation socially and financially. The nation is much the worse for having had these horrible Presidents.

Umm did you forget to take your meds when you wrote that? At no point in any of my post did I mention slavery, homosexuals, or Jim crow, hell all the crap you spewed actually agrees with what I wrote about depending on what you chose to believe you can demonize either party and anoint the other.

Also you'll notice that I don't go for either party, their both full of complete horse sh!t. You just tried to demonize a party and paint your own as somehow better, yet the Nixon tapes alone dispel that notion. The GOP doesn't care about you, your brother, your family, or anyone on this board. They don't care about the country, nor about the citizens within it. They only care about how much power and control they have and their ability to enrich themselves and those who ally with them. The exact same can be said about the Democratic party so don't think I'm playing favorites. The only difference is that Dem's tend to be "do gooders" who are duped into supporting bad people. And Rep's tend to be people concerned with "getting theirs"

And BTW no president in the last 100 years has done anything. Their political parties have done everything. The PoTUS is merely a figure head, they sit there and sign what their party leaders tell them to sign. Anyone who would of stood up and actually done something would of never made it past the nomination. The leadership of both parties isn't elected and they don't hold public office. Instead they meet with other party heads inside lavish mansions and plot out their strategy to defeat their enemy (the other party) and amass more power. The ideological lines are merely a means to an end. The leaders of the GoP are conservative like the Taliban leaders are devote. Same can be said about the Dems.

[TDPerk]

"that doesn't erase the fact that what has happened in California is the direct result of the removal of property tax."

Ridiculous payments to public employees--spending levels that are exactly insane--that couldn't have anything to do with it.

Front line firemen and cops are pulling down $150k/year.

That's the biggest problem.

[TDPerk]

"You just tried to demonize a party and paint your own as somehow better, yet the Nixon tapes alone dispel that notion."

Worse than the election Kennedy literally stole from Nixon makes the Dems look? Nevermind how it largely justifies Nixon's later paranoia?

The Democratic Party has been a disaster for the country since it's founding. It has never had redeeming qualities offsetting the harm it has done as policy.

Jefferson's model of an agricultural society was consciously created to put the large southern plantation holders at the apex of American society, socializing the costs of maintaining slavery to the greatest extent possible--"Fugitive Slave laws"--while permitting that slave holding class to personalize the profits. That course as a goal deliberately prevented the generation and exploitation of non-slave related American capital, suppressing social status competition with the southern oligarchs.

It did lead to the Civil War, brought on by the threat to the slaveholding class and southern society which the rise of the Republican party foretold, and it was the avowed party of the KKK until the late 50's.

Then it threw the CSA's remnants under the bus, and in the 1960's adopted another constituency on whose behalf it would labor against the constitution, the descendants of former slaves to whom the Dem's would grant de-facto quotas and race based income redistribution second hand, buying votes--simultaneously keeping the credentialed but not wise technocrats whom imagined themselves to be Progressive.

But there's no progress they've made.

We are enjoying the predicted results of the government dominating the economic sphere now, just exactly what Libertarian economic theory predicts.

Keynes was wrong, FDR wrong, Obama was wrong to do four time worse at best what Bush got wrong. Their should have been no TARP, their should have been no QE, their should be no increased economic regulation.

I shouldn't have to read when I'm putting up a ceiling fan, that federal law prohibits the light fixture in it from developing more than 190W...which regulation I'm sure doesn't trouble Al Gore, and I'm also sure he doesn't get his junk groped when he gets on a plane.

It boggles the mind the way the Dems are proving the adage the limits of tyranny are found in what the people will tolerate, as opposed to what they actively approve of.

[Diogenes]

Umm did you forget to take your meds when you wrote that? At no point in any of my post did I mention slavery, homosexuals, or Jim crow, hell all the crap you spewed actually agrees with what I wrote about depending on what you chose to believe you can demonize either party and anoint the other.

No, you didn't mention it, and that's why I felt it needed to be mentioned. The roots of sheer evil run deep in the Democrat party, and I don't think people are aware of just how deep they run.

Also you'll notice that I don't go for either party, their both full of complete horse sh!t. You just tried to demonize a party and paint your own as somehow better, yet the Nixon tapes alone dispel that notion.

Now this I just don't understand. (I didn't understand it at the time either.) A bunch of Nixon's "plumbers" decided to bug the Democrats (supposedly without his knowledge) and got caught. He wants the issue to just go away, and this is somehow comparable to slavery, Jim Crow, Homosexuality and baby murder? Well guess who taught Nixon his dirty tricks?

How did JFK’s campaign obtain this incriminating evidence? By paying the contemporary equivalent of $100,000 to a Los Angeles accountant named Phillip Reiner, one of the Hughes middlemen used to conceal Nixon’s role in the deal. Reiner was a Democrat who recently had had a falling-out with his partners. With his attorney, Reiner had contacted Robert Kennedy, his brother’s campaign manager. Soon after, a break-in occurred at the accountant’s old office – and the Kennedys suddenly acquired a thick file filled with secret records documenting Nixon’s shady deal. (Reiner’s estranged partner filed a burglary report with the police, but the crime was never solved.)

Nixon always believed he was the true winner of the 1960 campaign. He called the Kennedys “the most ruthless group of political operators ever mobilized” and said they “approached campaign dirty tricks with a roguish relish” that “overcame the critical faculties of many reporters.”

The GOP doesn't care about you, your brother, your family, or anyone on this board. They don't care about the country, nor about the citizens within it. They only care about how much power and control they have and their ability to enrich themselves and those who ally with them.

This is very likely true with the North Eastern Party establishment and constituency, (limousine liberals) and somewhat true with a lesser amount of the party's constituency scattered through the rest of the country. However, the party's rank and file are mostly middle class patriots that are motivated by a love of country and a concern for the future. They are often swindled by their own party's leaders, and elected officials (some of which who start out good.) who gain their support all to get to Washington and be changed by the kleptocratic mindset of the place. What kind of Money does the party gain by pushing social issues?
(A prominent Democrat constituency makes a huge amount of money by opposing the social issue of Abortion, just as they did from opposing the social issue of slavery.) I dare say it is a money looser for everyone involved, and that is probably why party officers and officials are often so reluctant to push it. The other side is funded by blood money, Government money, Free Media Advertising and Duped Union members, but our side is not. Money in opposition has to be worked for.

The exact same can be said about the Democratic party so don't think I'm playing favorites. The only difference is that Dem's tend to be "do gooders" who are duped into supporting bad people. And Rep's tend to be people concerned with "getting theirs"

Far worse can be said about the Democrat party, and I have only touched the surface of it. Misguided "do gooders" is accurate to describe some of them, but the rest are idiots, dupes, nuts, and kooks, with a large vein of crooks bent on serving themselves pork at the public hog trough. I have for years made a study of the constituencies of both parties because I always wanted to know what made the opposition tick, and what made my side tick. The Democrat party is made up mostly of spoiled children who think everything should be freed and don't like being told "No!" As P.J. O'rourke said, We believe in God while they believe in Santa Clause.

And BTW no president in the last 100 years has done anything. Their political parties have done everything. The PoTUS is merely a figure head, they sit there and sign what their party leaders tell them to sign. Anyone who would of stood up and actually done something would of never made it past the nomination. The leadership of both parties isn't elected and they don't hold public office. Instead they meet with other party heads inside lavish mansions and plot out their strategy to defeat their enemy (the other party) and amass more power. The ideological lines are merely a means to an end. The leaders of the GoP are conservative like the Taliban leaders are devote. Same can be said about the Dems.

I think you are somewhat mistaken about this. Certainly much of what they do is at the urging of their party, but not all of it. Reagan Dragged the party and the nation where he wanted it to go. So did Carter, and the consequences of both were readily apparent to anyone with sense who was watching.

[Diogenes]

"that doesn't erase the fact that what has happened in California is the direct result of the removal of property tax."

Ridiculous payments to public employees--spending levels that are exactly insane--that couldn't have anything to do with it.

Front line firemen and cops are pulling down $150k/year.

That's the biggest problem.

Yeah, I didn't respond to that message. With anyone that believed what he said, I didn't even know where to start. A lot of people are simply unaware of the fact that Every place in the nation run by Democrats in accordance with their philosophy is a financial basketcase which is about to collapse.

Of COURSE from their perspective, the problem is that they don't have enough MONEY to spend! They CAN'T be out of money. They still have CHECKS!

[Diogenes]

Amazon ends deal with 25,000 California websites

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law California's tax on Internet sales through affiliate advertising which will immediately cut small-business website revenue 20% to 30%, experts say.

The bill, AB 28X, takes effect immediately. The state Board of Equalization says the tax will raise $200 million a year, but critics claim it will raise nothing because online retailers will end their affiliate programs rather than collect the tax.

Amazon has already emailed its termination of its affiliate advertising program with 25,000 websites.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/amaz ... ornia.html


Yeah, insufficient taxes are the problem. Look how much better things work when they increase them!