Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

End all the tax cuts.

I'm with you, but I don't see it happening. Nobody has the balls anymore. Too much political hay to be made out of "protecting the middle class". That nebulous term that seems to apply to anyone that has a job.


--- // ---

I found this interesting:

The Post-Employee Economy: Why Sky-High Profits Are Here to Stay

The end of the age of consumption and the decreasing need for labor are more related than you think

Robots have come to destroy our way of life, just as we saw in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, though not as we expected. They're taking our jobs, and are forcing us to reexamine how we value ourselves.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ere-to-stay/259564/?google_editors_picks=true

Once the baby-boomers die off and their set-in-stone way of thinking goes with them, there's going to be a major reckoning among Americans on where we are going to go. Decades of reality is going to be hard to ignore.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm for extending them and establishing a simpler federal income tax system. The question is, how much spine does Obama have to let them expire - I'm guessing very little.

I find this the worst type of politics - you'll have the President out there shouting that a full extension will give top earners a $66,000 tax cut, while the bottom 20% will only get $107. Well, if that is so deplorable, then man up and say we cannot afford to extend the tax cuts and while that means the bottom 20% will have a $107 increase, it will help the federal coffers by top earners paying an extra $66,000 a year.

And raise taxes on the "middle class" along with 50% on the lowest class?!?

There's an election to win.

Pass the Buffet Rule now and we'll never have to worry about taxes again.

Once the baby-boomers die off and their set-in-stone way of thinking goes with them, there's going to be a major reckoning among Americans on where we are going to go.

Straight up, to greater equality.

 

[Kosmo]

There's an election to win.

Like I said, he doesn't have the spine. Class warfare.

 

[thefro]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9397

Romney voter fraud, lol. Same thing Charlie White got busted for in Indiana.

 

[XenodudeX]

Class warfare? Isn't that a well known bullshit republican talking point?

 

[Kosmo]

Class warfare? Isn't that a well known Democratic strategy?

Corrected.

 

[spandexmonkey]

What I hate is a large portion of the electorate paying nothing in federal income taxes and then whining about the people actually paying taxes.

Class warfare.

 

[Beer Monkey]

The class warfare in this country is the über-wealthy destroying the middle class by buying politicians to ensure deregulated financial markets and regressive taxation.

 

[AlteredBeast]

And raise taxes on the "middle class" along with 50% on the lowest class?!?

There's an election to win.

Pass the Buffet Rule now and we'll never have to worry about taxes again.

Straight up, to greater equality.

The Buffett Rule is not enough, unless you are just talking about scoring political points. All brackets should be raised by to pre-2000 levels.

 

[Diablos]

Obama campaign raises only 71 million. Trails Romney on Cash on Hand too now.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/09/obama_fundraising_seriously_trails_romney.html

Fuck.

 

[eznark]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9397

Romney voter fraud, lol. Same thing Charlie White got busted for in Indiana.

where is the birth certificate!!!!

 

[Chumly]

Class warfare? Isn't that a well known bullshit republican talking point?

Actually it's a full on republican strategy to destroy the middle/lower class.

 

[The Technomancer]

Corrected.

Which party actively campaigns on giving those who hold financial power the deregulated freedom to seize even more of it from the populace again?

 

[PhoenixDark]

where is the birth certificate!!!!

.

Saw a headline about Scott Walker's win being fraudulent on that site and left. No thanks

 

[benjipwns]

The Buffett Rule is not enough, unless you are just talking about scoring political points. All brackets should be raised by to pre-2000 levels.

And raise taxes on the lowest class by 50%?!? No!

The Buffet Rule will solve everything by making people actually pay their fair share.

 

[codhand]

What I hate is a large portion of the electorate paying nothing in federal income taxes and then whining about the people actually paying taxes.

This is some grade A bullshit.

 

[eznark]

.

Saw a headline about Scott Walker's win being fraudulent on that site and left. No thanks

It's actually a really, really hilarious article.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9332

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Which party actively campaigns on giving those who hold financial power the deregulated freedom to seize even more of it from the populace again?

 

[Kosmo]

And raise taxes on the lowest class by 50%?!? No!

The Buffet Rule will solve everything by making people actually pay their fair share.

Please define this in quantitative terms.

 

[AlteredBeast]

And raise taxes on the lowest class by 50%?!? No!

The Buffet Rule will solve everything by making people actually pay their fair share.

The lowest class don't pay anything as far as income tax goes.

Everyone paying their fair share should inherently mean that everyone actually pays something, in my opinion. I know I get dirty looks from all the bleeding hearts here saying things like that, but whatever. If you think the Buffett Rule is enough to make people pay their fair share, then you are deluded.

 

[eznark]

Which party actively campaigns on giving those who hold financial power the deregulated freedom to seize even more of it from the populace again?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Hey kosmo, what about the executives that pay 0% in payroll taxes because their compensation is entirely in stocks? Or the hedge fund managers that get to classify their incomes as capital gains? Or the corporations that use accounting tricks to classify 99% of their billions of dollars of income as being earned in Bermuda, avoiding almost all income tax? (Do NOT bring out the "But their shareholders are taxed!" card on this.)

 

[benjipwns]

Please define this in quantitative terms.

Anyone who makes more than what is required.

The lowest class don't pay anything as far as income tax goes.

The lowest bracket, they should go from 10% to 15%

 

[The Technomancer]

EDIT: Nvm. For some reason I was under the impression that there was a 0% income tax bracket

 

[codhand]

Raise tax on the poor, cut tax on the rich, got it.

 

[eznark]

The lowest bracket, they should go from 10% to 15%

How much revenue does that generate?

 

[empty vessel]

I'm for extending them and establishing a simpler federal income tax system - even if that means higher rates on higher incomes. What I hate is a large portion of the electorate paying nothing in federal income taxes and then whining about the people actually paying taxes. It can be as simple as 15% on everything up to $200K and 25% over that (just throwing those out as examples).

How about 20% on everything up to $250,000, 40% on everything between $250,000 and $1,000,000, and 85% on everything over $1,000,000? And repeal payroll taxes. (I'll even throw in a repeal of corporate income taxes provided it is accompanied by a ban on all corporate political activity--including lobbying.)

I find this the worst type of politics - you'll have the President out there shouting that a full extension will give top earners a $66,000 tax cut, while the bottom 20% will only get $107. Well, if that is so deplorable, then man up and say we cannot afford to extend the tax cuts and while that means the bottom 20% will have a $107 increase, it will help the federal coffers by top earners paying an extra $66,000 a year.

We can always afford tax cuts. That is never the relevant question. Taxes ought to be raised on high income earners because it will improve the society and enhance democracy to reduce income inequality.

 

[benjipwns]

EDIT: Nvm. For some reason I was under the impression that there was a 0% income tax bracket

You were technically right in your original answer that I can't quote or anything to prove, there are payroll taxes and such.

 

[Kosmo]

Hey kosmo, what about the executives that pay 0% in payroll taxes because their compensation is entirely in stocks? Or the hedge fund managers that get to classify their incomes as capital gains? Or the corporations that use accounting tricks to classify 99% of their billions of dollars of income as being earned in Bermuda, avoiding almost all income tax? (Do NOT bring out the "But their shareholders are taxed!" card on this.)

What about them? Seems like you should be pushing for a simpler tax system.

How about 20% on everything up to $250,000, 40% on everything between $250,000 and $1,000,000, and 85% on everything over $1,000,000? And repeal payroll taxes. (I'll even throw in a repeal of corporate income taxes provided it is accompanied by a ban on all corporate political activity--including lobbying.)

You lost me there. I'll never agree to the government taking more than 50% of one's earnings.

 

[benjipwns]

Taxes ought to be raised on high income earners because it will improve the society and enhance democracy

Exactly, the state knows how to perfectly direct these funds unlike individuals.

Also democracy. Somehow.

 

[The Technomancer]

You were technically right in your original answer that I can't quote or anything to prove, there are payroll taxes and such.

My original answer was based on AlteredBeast's statement that the lowest bracket don't pay any income tax, which doesn't appear to be true. Or is it? It doesn't seem true, it seems like its 10%, but some people in here are acting like they don't

 

[GaimeGuy]

The lowest class don't pay anything as far as income tax goes.

Everyone paying their fair share should inherently mean that everyone actually pays something, in my opinion. I know I get dirty looks from all the bleeding hearts here saying things like that, but whatever. If you think the Buffett Rule is enough to make people pay their fair share, then you are deluded.

The bottom 50% own less than 1% of the wealth in the country. If things were truly fair, they'd pay less than 1% of the taxes. But they don't. And focussing on income taxes alone is like pointing at a women's locker room and saying it shows a growing disparity between the # of men and women in the country.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's actually a really, really hilarious article.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9332

Exit poll obsession. 2004/Diebold all over again lol

As a vet of far left forums during the Bush years, I think people forget just how crazy the far left was/is

 

[benjipwns]

My original answer was based on AlteredBeast's statement that the lowest bracket don't pay any income tax, which doesn't appear to be true. Or is it? It doesn't seem true, it seems like its 10%, but some people in here are acting like they don't

Well it's not the income tax officially but I consider 12% to be a big chunk out of my income.

 

[eznark]

The bottom 50% own less than 1% of the wealth in the country. If things were truly fair, they'd pay less than 1% of the taxes. But they don't. And focussing on income taxes alone is like pointing at a women's locker room and saying it shows a growing disparity between the # of men and women in the country.

So you want a tax on wealth. Seems a lot easier than trying to tax income to achieve your desired redistribution.

Exit poll obsession. 2004/Diebold all over again lol

As a vet of far left forums during the Bush years, I think people forget just how crazy the far left was/is

I don't see how, people still go to Kos don't they?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Pass the Buffet Rule now and we'll never have to worry about taxes again.

.

lol

The Buffet Rule would raise about 5 billion a year. Generous estimates put it at 62 billion over a 10 year span.

If Obama makes the Bush Tax Cuts permanent (aside from the rich) it will cost the federal government 3 trillion dollars in revenues over the next 10 years.


--- /// ---

The idea that the average American is overtaxed is a nice piece of populist pandering. In fact, federal taxes as a percentage of the economy are at their lowest level since the Truman administration. Chuck Marr and Gillian Brunet of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have calculated that a family of four at the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.6 percent of its income in taxes. Remember, almost half of the country pays no income taxes at all. The top 2 percent of Americans contribute almost 50 percent of federal income taxes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103287.html

 

[GaimeGuy]

What about them? Seems like you should be pushing for a simpler tax system.

Don't dodge my question.

 

[empty vessel]

Exactly, the state knows how to perfectly direct these funds unlike individuals.

Taxes do not fund government spending. So, that's irrelevant. The point of taxation is not to provide the federal government with dollars to spend (it creates those at will), but to accomplish substantive ends, including enhancing egalitarianism, which in turn improves quality of life, civic life, and democratic governance.

And I'm not sure why you'd require perfection anyway. Do you refuse to eat food on the ground that it isn't perfectly cooked? Silliness.

 

[Kosmo]

My original answer was based on AlteredBeast's statement that the lowest bracket don't pay any income tax, which doesn't appear to be true. Or is it? It doesn't seem true, it seems like its 10%, but some people in here are acting like they don't

46% of Americans pay no federal income tax. (Cue the "but, but, but, they pay payroll taxes and other taxes! crowd). The tax cuts we are talking about are FEDERAL INCOME TAXES - so let's keep the discussion there.

The bottom 50% own less than 1% of the wealth in the country. If things were truly fair, they'd pay less than 1% of the taxes. But they don't. And focussing on income taxes alone is like pointing at a women's locker room and saying it shows a growing disparity between the # of men and women in the country.

The discussion is on taxing INCOME, not WEALTH. Now, you will bring up capital gains taxes, to which I'll say - that money was already taxed before.

 

[eznark]

And I'm not sure why you'd require perfection anyway. Do you refuse to eat food on the ground that it isn't perfectly cooked? Silliness.

I never pegged you as a "five second rule" guy, EV. Rough times?

Refusing to eat food on the ground is not silly.

 

[benjipwns]

Taxes do not fund government spending.

Neat.

The point of taxation is not to provide the federal government with dollars to spend (it creates those at will), but to accomplish substantive ends, including enhancing egalitarianism, which in turn improves quality of life, civic life, and democratic governance.

Or to enrich those in power while destroying quality of life and restricting self-rule.

But we already know we disagree. You trust those with power, I don't.

 

[Blergmeister]

I'm for extending them and establishing a simpler federal income tax system - even if that means higher rates on higher incomes. What I hate is a large portion of the electorate paying nothing in federal income taxes and then whining about the people actually paying taxes. It can be as simple as 15% on everything up to $200K and 25% over that (just throwing those out as examples). Clean and simple. The question is, how much spine does Obama have to let them expire - I'm guessing very little.

I find this the worst type of politics - you'll have the President out there shouting that a full extension will give top earners a $66,000 tax cut, while the bottom 20% will only get $107. Well, if that is so deplorable, then man up and say we cannot afford to extend the tax cuts and while that means the bottom 20% will have a $107 increase, it will help the federal coffers by top earners paying an extra $66,000 a year.

So you are attacking Obama from the left. Just so you know, I'd recomend you vote Obama for President and (generally) straight democrat down your ticket as this party shares your world view more than Mitt Romney and most of the rest of the Republican ticket. While the democrats may be to the right of where you are, more votes for the left most party will only drive all parties left and to more where you want to be.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

The tax cuts we are talking about are FEDERAL INCOME TAXES - so let's keep the discussion there.

Do you know how much revenue payroll taxes generate compared to how much revenue income taxes generate?

I bet you don't.

 

[The Technomancer]

46% of Americans pay no federal income tax. (Cue the "but, but, but, they pay payroll taxes and other taxes! crowd). The tax cuts we are talking about are FEDERAL INCOME TAXES - so let's keep the discussion there.

In that case I'll post my original comment again: I'd be fine with requiring that 46% to pay income taxes to uphold the spirit of "everyone contributes" as long as the taxes are designed with the knowledge that what they can afford to pay may not be very much.

 

[benjipwns]

So you are attacking Obama from the left. Just so you know, I'd recomend you vote Obama for President and (generally) straight democrat down your ticket as this party shares your world view more than Mitt Romney and most of the rest of the Republican ticket. While the democrats may be to the right of where you are, more votes for the left most party will only drive all parties left and to more where you want to be.

There are people on the ballot other than Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

 

[Kosmo]

So you are attacking Obama from the left. Just so you know, I'd recomend you vote Obama for President and (generally) straight democrat down your ticket as this party shares your world view more than Mitt Romney and most of the rest of the Republican ticket. While the democrats may be to the right of where you are, more votes for the left most party will only drive all parties left and to more where you want to be.

Other than the simpler tax brackets (which would also tax those who currently pay no federal income taxes), I'm not supporting ending the cuts simply to raise taxes - only offering analysis of Obama's lack of spine to do so.

EDITED for clarification

 

[empty vessel]

I never pegged you as a "five second rule" guy, EV. Rough times?

Refusing to eat food on the ground is not silly.

Ha.

Or to enrich those in power while destroying quality of life and restricting self-rule.

The ones with high incomes are those in power. And I don't think allowing somebody who makes $10,000,000 in a year to live off of $2,000,000 for that year will "destroy" his or her "quality of life" or restrict his or her "self-rule" (whatever that word salad means).

But we already know we disagree. You trust those with power, I don't.

It's quite the opposite, friend. In fact, I am quite sure you are entirely unable even to articulate who it is that you believe are those "with power." When you try to do so, you will find you are unable to do so coherently.

 

[benjipwns]

I am quite sure you are entirely unable even to articulate who it is that you believe are those "with power." When you try to do so, you will find you are unable to do so coherently.

The ones with high incomes are those in power.

So you're saying that you're unable to do so coherently? And unable to articulate who is in power?

 

[GaimeGuy]

So you want a tax on wealth. Seems a lot easier than trying to tax income to achieve your desired redistribution.



I don't see how, people still go to Kos don't they?

The problem is the more wealth you have, the easier it is to increase your income, but the more wealth you have, the less useful each additional dollar becomes.

One relationship is exponential. One is logarithmic.

Our economic system is designed around the flow of money, so a tax on wealth would be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Taxing the flow of money (estate transfers, sales, incomes) makes more sense. But because of the relationship between wealth, income, and marignal utility, in order to be truly fair, you need progressive taxation. Anything less than that will disproportionally burden the poor and middle class

 

[kehs]

Other than the simpler tax brackets (which would also tax those who currently pay no federal income taxes), I'm not supporting ending the cuts simply to raise taxes - only offering analysis of Obama's lack of spine to do so.

EDITED for clarification

Kosmo is going to be economy equivalent of Gaborn soon.