Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[Guest]

In fact, we should go a step farther and say the more taxes you pay, the more of a say you get. So if you're super rich and pay like $10 million in taxes, your vote counts like 10000x as much as some guy who paid about $1k.

Never fear, that has been said around here somewhere before.

Some would argue that the $10 myn the guy paid in taxes did ultimatelyrepresent 100k votes in the form of Obama phones. The $10 myn taxpayer might not have wanted the votes to go the way they did but at least he money got spent to "enhance" the electoral process.

On another note, this thread gives me hope that there are plenty of ready and willing volunteers to help run the GOP even farther into the ground.

That's interesting that you find hope because it seems more obvious that there appear to be plenty of ready and willing volunteers (on both sides) to help run the country into the ground.

[338skybolt]

I support tax increases on all tax payers under the right conditions.

I support more tax payers.

[Guest one]

Did any of you read this thought experiment in college? It is interesting.

Quoted from http://www.impel.com...ib/NNLFAQ.html

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?

Edited December 13, 2012 by one

[Fuzz]

Since I'm assuming you want the Senate budget to actually take affect rather than to "pass" it's initial vote and then sit idle, you obviously also want the Senate GOP to get on board and the House to sit down with the Senate in a conference and work out an agreeable budget that can pass both chambers, right? I mean, that's what we're paying them for too.

The reason I don't really get bent out of shape about there not being a Senate budget is because without cooperation with the House or even the minority party, it won't mean jack or squat. I'd want my party to pass a budget they like and then force that conference with the House but apparently the Majority Leader doesn't think that's worth it.

The bigger picture is that people should be upset about a lack of cooperation and it seems like we maybe getting there, finally.

I want the senate dems to pass a budget to see what they actually want (put it in writing) instead of incessantly spewing talking points and rhetoric. At least we have seen the bill the republican house wants to pass (whether you like it or not).

[Butters]

Saw a great comment on another site:

Romney lost the election because of one issue. He said "I will put America back to work!"

51% of Americans said “Fuck that!” and voted for Obama.

[Prozac]

Did any of you read this thought experiment in college? It is interesting.

Quoted from http://www.impel.com...ib/NNLFAQ.html

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialization of labor. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?

What happens to your paycheck when the American people decide taxes are immoral?

[lloyd christmas]

Did any of you read this thought experiment in college? It is interesting.

This ain't college.

[Smokin]

Balanced Budget Amendment would solve this to a degree although you don't want to outlaw all deficit spending because things come up that you as a country will want to do now and pay for later (wars, etc.).

What if that person could loosely control how much money he made? Would he choose to make $50K and spend $50K throughout the year or would he choose $100K, $200K as his earning/spending level? I'm in the camp (and it's a minority, don't get me wrong) that's willing to pay more for better government services, so I support tax increases on all tax payers under the right conditions.

I get your point, but the government can only control its income to a certain extent. If the tax rates are all doubled, the total revenue will not double because people will make and spend less, the economy will slow down, and the national taxable income will decrease. Quadruple taxes and you will have either a revolution, a completely failed economy, or both. So, if you attack my simplification, don't over simplify in your counter-argument.

Have you considered the implications of your idea?

So do you get less of a vote for those months you were deployed and not being taxed on that income? I was gone during 6 months of the last year, I guess I only get 1/2 a vote next election. If you do a 365 do you just have to skip the next election entirely? Do Senators and Representatives have to somehow adjust their voting power based on what percentage of residents in their district or state are paying federal income tax? It's completely unworkable.

On top of being unworkable, the idea is completely wrong, it punishes people who are following the law and takes away what I consider their most fundamental right as a citizen, the right to vote. Almost every single person who isn't paying federal income tax is doing so completely legally. If you don't like government policies that significantly cut federal incomes taxes on the unemployed, the working poor and the elderly, great, encourage your representatives to author different policies, but you can't turn that dislike of current law into mass voter disenfranchisement.

Apparently my idea of a general principle in civil government participation was taken alternately as a 'this is a law we should pass' and a "softball" approach. I said nothing about combat zone tax exclusions; obviously if you are risking your life for your country, you should have a say in how the country is run. But contrary to Joe's swing and a miss at my softball pitch, I also never said anything about amount of taxes paid other than zero or greater than zero. It just pisses me off that we currently have people in this country who are physically and mentally capable of work yet chose to instead live off the the government. If unemployment went back to how it started under King FDR where people who wanted an unemployment check were put to work building roads and such, I bet we wouldn't have to extend unemployment benefits to TWO YEARS. You want a check? Here's a shovel, get to work. Strange, unemployment claims just dropped by 90%.

All I'm saying is that people should contribute to the governance of their country before they're able to vote themselves more benefits at someone else's expense. If you break into your rich neighbor's house and steal his wallet, you're a criminal. But vote for a politician who does the same thing with taxes simply because the rich guy is successful and works harder and it is perfectly fine.

[pawnman]

Does it matter that almost everyone in America pays some form of taxes? A majority of those not paying federal income taxes do pay payroll taxes. Of those who may neither federal income taxes or payroll taxes, everyone pays sales taxes, gasoline taxes, many pay local property taxes, etc. How do you view those contributions to the governance of their country?

Well, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and local property taxes aren't exactly helping to balance the federal budget, are they?

[Fuzz]

f we're really talking about closing the federal budget deficit though, you're not gonna do it with some perfunctory minimum tax on poor people just like you're not gonna do it with a small increase in rates on the top 2% of earners.

Then why the fuck are the democrats so keen on raising the tax rate for the top 2%? Everybody and their brother knows that isn't going to do jack to close the deficit or reduce debt. The only explanation that makes sense is idealogical need to fix income inequality (aka "redistribute wealth").

[joe1234]

Then why the fuck are the democrats so keen on raising the tax rate for the top 2%? Everybody and their brother knows that isn't going to do jack to close the deficit or reduce debt. The only explanation that makes sense is idealogical need to fix income inequality (aka "redistribute wealth").

You want to talk "ideological need"?

I think a better question is, why does the GOP consider this such a sacred cow that they're willing to go over the fiscal cliff just to keep taxes from being raised on the top 2%? Even if that meant that taxes would be raised on everybody? I don't think Democrats seriously expect to achieve any of this without spending cuts, but even Mitt Romney himself said that he would refuse to accept even $1 of new taxes if it meant $10 of spending cuts.

[pawnman]

Yes, you're right that those taxes I mentioned that damn near everyone pays don't directly affect the federal budget, but they do give people the joy of "having skin in the game" in terms of funding their government. Wasn't that the point...that people don't really know the hit-you-in-the-wallet burden of being a citizen if they're not paying federal income taxes or something like that? Unless someone wants to establish that we can raise a whole lot of revenue by increasing taxes on the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, etc. I think we're talking small, symbolic gestures here. If we're really talking about closing the federal budget deficit though, you're not gonna do it with some perfunctory minimum tax on poor people just like you're not gonna do it with a small increase in rates on the top 2% of earners.

If you want to do that, A) foster economic growth (multiple theories on how to skin that cat), and B) consider some kind of balanced budget amendment or tie appropriations to an economic measure (and get rid of the debt ceiling as a bonus) so Congress can't appropriate more money than it allows Treasury to borrow.

It doesn't give anyone "skin in the game" if they are paying these local taxes using money they got from the federal government in the first place.

[Fuzz]

You want to talk "ideological need"?

I think a better question is, why does the GOP consider this such a sacred cow that they're willing to go over the fiscal cliff just to keep taxes from being raised on the top 2%? Even if that meant that taxes would be raised on everybody? I don't think Democrats seriously expect to achieve any of this without spending cuts, but even Mitt Romney himself said that he would refuse to accept even $1 of new taxes if it meant $10 of spending cuts.

The party that wants to let people keep their money because its not going make a bit of difference is the one that's wrong? Oh yeah I forgot democrats feel entitled to everyone's money.

[TreeA10]

Interesting tax rates for the Greeks due to their overspending.

Greeks earning 42,000 Euros to be taxed at top rate under plan

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greeks earning more than €42,000 ($55,000) per year will now be taxed at a new top rate of 42 percent, under a major new tax reform bill submitted to the country's parliament late Thursday.

Under the new guidelines, the 42 percent top tax rate and earnings threshold replaces the previous level of 45 percent for incomes above €100,000 ($130,770). The new rate is part of a simplification of the country's tax rules. There are currently eight tax bands ranging from 18 percent to 45 percent. These will be replaced by three tax rates: 22 percent, 32 percent and 42 percent.

Greeks earning less than €25,000 ($32,700) a year are set to benefit from the new system in spite of the raise in the basic tax band as the government is proposing to raise the threshold on which income is taxed.

The new tax rates, part of the austerity measures demanded by the country's international rescue lenders, were submitted to parliament hours after the finance ministers from the 17 European Union countries that use the euro agreed in Brussels to restart rescue loan payments. Greece is in line to get €49.1 billion ($64 billion) between now and March, with €34.3 billion of that amount due in the coming days.

Greek finance minister, Yannis Stournaras, presented his colleagues form the other 16 European Union details of his country's long-awaited tax overhaul before the bill was submitted.

In return for the rescue loans, Greece's international lenders have insisted on a series of reforms, tax raises and spending cuts.

But the successive hikes in taxes, required to meet deficit-cutting targets, have hammered the economy, pushing unemployment up to 26 percent, and with more than 20 percent of the population now officially living in poverty — earning less than €7,200 ($9,420) per year.

Conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras promised the speedy settlement of state debts and the recapitalization of the country's troubled banks with the money from the new loan installments, while spending €11.3 billion ($14.78 billion) on a debt buyback scheme.

"Today ends a long and difficult period of anxiety for Greece," Samaras told Greek reporters in Brussels.

"It ends the rumors, blackmail and pressures on our country to exit the euro. Today, Greece gained a great opportunity to stand on its feet and get out of the crisis — standing, not kneeling."

Samaras' center-right New Democracy party lost ground to its main rival, the left-wing Syriza Party, according to an opinion poll released late Thursday.

The Public Issue survey for private Skai television gave Syriza a 4.5-point lead, on 30.5 percent, while the extreme right Golden Dawn was in third place with a projected support of 10.5 percent.

It found that more Greeks now have a negative view of the European Union: 50 percent compared to 46 percent with a positive view — a major shift from the respective positions of 37 and 61 percent six months ago.

[Guest]

Multiplier effect.

[pawnman]

What do you mean by this? Does that fact that you receive money from the government mean that your tax contributions are meaningless? What's your view of tax credits that can and often drive a person's federal income taxes to zero or below?

What I mean is, if they aren't using their own money to pay the taxes you claim gives them "skin in the game" in the first place, it's meaningless. If I give you a hundred dollars, and the local government collects twenty dollars in taxes, do you really care? No, because you're still up eighty bucks.

People who aren't paying into the system, but are collecting from the system, have no incentive to cut the spending. They don't care that politicians are wasting billions of dollars, because it's someone else's money.

[joe1234]

The party that wants to let people keep their money because its not going make a bit of difference is the one that's wrong?

The same party that lost the Presidential election? Yes, they're in the wrong. It will be so pathetically easy to spin the GOP as abandoning the middle class if we go over the fiscal cliff because they couldn't give up a tax cut to the richest 2%.

All Democrats really need to do is fire up the spin machine and sit by as the GOP continues to self-destruct and alienate vast segments of the voting population in its quest to remain ideologically pure.

[pawnman]

Is there anything out there to back that up other than your gut feeling on it? Do people really care less about government spending when they pay no federal income tax? I mean, if we're just going off of anecdotal thoughts, the elderly make up a sizable chunk of those not paying federal income tax and they vote pretty strongly Republican, supposedly the party of fiscal conservatism that wants to cut spending in Washington. How does that fit with your theory? Doesn't necessarily disprove it, but it's your theory, the burden of proof is on you.

What do you say to my proposal to have everyone pay at minimum $1 plus the cost of processing the claim they otherwise might not have had to file (say $6.90). Bar napkin math said that brought in an extra $500 million in revenue per year. Does that satisfy the need for people to have "skin in the game," with the game being narrowly defined as federal income taxes? Do you think that will change people's opinions on public policies that drive deficit spending?

Or do you actually want to specifically raise federal income taxes on the poor to some kind of noticeable level? Do you think that's a good policy for economic growth? Maybe you want to raise rates on all earners?

Yes, I really, truly believe people who aren't paying any taxes not only don't care about government spending, they want to see the spending increase because it directly benefits them.

And when was the last time the republicans were the party of "fiscal conservatism"? Sometime right after Clinton's first election? Neither party has been fiscally conservative for a LONG time.

What I'd really love to do is force everyone to pay something. And I would completely stop payroll deductions. People don't even realize they're paying taxes. Force people to write a check, and let them see just what they are really paying.

I'm not especially in favor of raising taxes, but I'm not seeing a lot of alternatives to generate the sort of revenues we're going to need to pay off any portion of our national debt and get back to a balanced budget. If we are going to raise taxes, I see no reason NOT to raise them for everyone instead of declaring class warfare and attempting to stick the rich with the entire bill.

[joe1234]

Yes, I really, truly believe people who aren't paying any taxes not only don't care about government spending, they want to see the spending increase because it directly benefits them.

And when was the last time the republicans were the party of "fiscal conservatism"? Sometime right after Clinton's first election? Neither party has been fiscally conservative for a LONG time.

What I'd really love to do is force everyone to pay something. And I would completely stop payroll deductions. People don't even realize they're paying taxes. Force people to write a check, and let them see just what they are really paying.

I'm not especially in favor of raising taxes, but I'm not seeing a lot of alternatives to generate the sort of revenues we're going to need to pay off any portion of our national debt and get back to a balanced budget. If we are going to raise taxes, I see no reason NOT to raise them for everyone instead of declaring class warfare and attempting to stick the rich with the entire bill.

A bad reason to raise taxes on everyone is because it feels "fair".

A good reason to not raise them on everyone is that it allows the government the ability to simultaneously reduce the deficit, but also keep 98% of the country spending on consumer goods, cars, homes, and such. Things that help with an economic recovery. Raising taxes on the rich, keeping them the same for the middle class, and making smart, effective cuts that become more pronounced over a period of time, instead of instant dramatic cuts that throw things into disarray, is the logical and sensible compromise for putting the U.S. back on the right path.

This is what a smart fiscal conservative would do, because a smart fiscal conservative realizes that it's not an all or nothing approach. It's a balanced approach that requires compromise on some parts to reach a final goal. A stupid fiscal conservative digs his heels in for the sake of ideological purity and completely fucks their own party right out of existence because of a refusal to compromise.

But hey, at least you and your family can go to sleep in your cardboard box knowing that you were ideologically pure.

[raimius]

What happens when the Republicans give in on the top rate hike, and get little in return. What is their next move to get the budget closer to the black?

[Guest]

A bad reason to raise taxes on everyone is because it feels "fair".

Is fairness a bad reason to raise taxes on anyone then?

A good reason to not raise them on everyone is that it allows the government the ability to simultaneously reduce the deficit, but also keep 98% of the country spending on consumer goods, cars, homes, and such. Things that help with an economic recovery.

Why not simply broaden the base?

Raising taxes on the rich

Here is the root of the problem. We're not talking about a mathematical formula anymore when using words like "the rich." Doing so seems like an ideological judgement is being made and a selective group is being singled out for punishment.

Punishing a selected minority of the population is not how we should decide on how to raise revenue, is it?

Think about the danger of going down that road.

And consider the difficulty using that language contributes to finding a compromise. It is unnecessary unless your motives are more political than fiscal.

[Guest]

Has anyone read this yet?

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102808/Defying-Gravity.aspx

[pawnman]

What happens when the Republicans give in on the top rate hike, and get little in return. What is their next move to get the budget closer to the black?

Passing a budget would be a reasonable start.

[matmacwc]

Passing a budget would be a reasonable start.

HA! The Senate is going to block this all day long. Easier to spend on random crap when there is no budget. (And yes, I'm baiting).

Edited December 16, 2012 by matmacwc

[congressman]

Passing a budget would be a reasonable start.

Been done every year. Your beef is with the Senate...and Harry Reid