The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Irn-Bru wrote:Your contextualizing was somehow supposed to counter my claim that it's a good thing whenever a plundered people can avoid taxes.

No, I was questioning YOU exempting them from our tax system, I said NOTHING of THEM wanting to avoid taxes at all in any way ever, there was nothing unclear about that.

Irn-Bru wrote:Somehow if we're not poor compared to an ancient Egyptian it's OK to demand that the lowest income earners pay yet another tax, or something like that.

Is that what I said? This would be referred to as "hyperbole."

And how are they "MY" elected officials instead of "OUR" elected officials since we are both Americans and neither of us voted for them?

Oh, I don't know, I was on a roll. Substitute "THEIR" elected officials, if you'd like. . .maybe it was all of your talk about tax-paying responsibility, becoming a stake-holder in government, etc., and all that other crap that no one should be pushing on the poor.[/quote]
I was just yanking your chain. I did at least argue strongly against Obama and I would have frankly voted for a Republican who gave me ANY reason to vote for him, which predictably didn't happen. I was also very disappointed in the Libertarian Party's deciding to bury their heads once again in the lap of the Democrats over Iraq and was very unenthused with Barr as a candidate even though I like a lot of things about him, so I barely mentioned him even though I did in the end vote for him.

JSPB22 wrote:First of all, you always try to paint my posts with fictitious arguments I didn't make, so that you can then respond in a way that you think wins the debate

So since I "always" do this, should be simple to show me an example.

JSPB22 wrote:Secondly, SS is only part of payroll taxes, and is definitely not a welfare program

It's not? Two questions:

- What is the money I pay between the ~40K my benefits are capped at and the ~100K I pay payroll taxes? I get nothing for it, who does? How is what they are getting not "welfare?"

- And NOW you want to refund the little bit they DID pay. And it's STILL not welfare?

JSPB22 wrote:Medicare is a much better example if you want to argue that payroll taxes support welfare programs, although it is not relevant to this argument what government programs the payroll taxes support

Wow, so social security CHECKS from the GOVERNMENT are not a welfare program, but it doesn't matter what payroll taxes go to pay for AND I'm "always" creating "fictitious" arguments to things you didn't say. Got it, thanks for learning me.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:This also assumes, by the way, that the way the government pays for most things is taxes. Government growth has little to do with tax rates.)

Well, this is a reference to borrowing and printing money. I agree that tax rates and government spending are not the same, but to say they have "little" to do with each other, particularly over the long run is stated too strongly.

The more I study economics the more I realize that the real enabler of government growth is simply NOT taxes. That's not to say that they aren't evil, important to deal with, etc. But I find that in conversations about government growth, with conservatives and/or libertarian-minded people taxes (or regulations) are typically the beginning and end of the conversation.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. I agree the government prints and borrows and doesn't just spend what it taxes, I'm just saying particularly in the long run though high tax rates and high spending always go together. BTW, the best way to describe printing money would actually be a "tax." Basically it increases the nominal value of the currency in the economy while decreasing the real value of the currency with the government taking and spending the real value they confiscated by printing more money. I am sure you would agree with that and it isn't what you meant by "taxes," just pointing it out.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Kaz wrote:It's ironic that you beat me up on this point when our policy views are so similar and you give the libs a pass who so completely reject it. Then again my best arguments are with my brother and he and are closer in view then you and I are. He's a Navy grad (I mentioned a few times) and is more in favor of using the military for terrorism and supporting our allies then I am.

I "give liberals a pass" because what's the point of trying to convince them of some disparate, fundamental ideas on a message board? I stick with you on this point because based on other beliefs you've articulated, you should know better.

I know you're yanking my chain in response to my yanking yours. I just wanted to hear you say it. But even though you've winked, the only real disagreement we've had is over whether our tax policy should apply to everyone or some should be exempted from it. Here is why I believe your view on that one issue is not libertarian. I am not saying you're not libertarian, it's THAT view.

Collection of taxes and "welfare" should be separate. The government, by exempting people from the tax system is creating a special class of citizens. Again I'm not debating WHAT system we have here, just whatever system we have. It is NOT the government's job to create special classes of citizens.

"Welfare" is the responsibility of the people. If someone is "vulnerable" to apply the broadest word used, the people should help them. That since they have a relatively tiny tax liability based on their relatively tiny liability should be a factor in that help provided by the people. Now what help the people provide is another thing. Federal government is and should be blatantly Unconsitutional by the 10th Amendment. I am in fact in favor of having State level welfare where at least there is SOME accountability to the people, though I think that should be AFTER the expectation the people help the "vulnerable" directly and that is only a last resort.

So in my system, everyone is a citizen with a stake in our tax system. If someone can't "afford" the taxes the "vulnerable" are still stakeholders in our tax system and they get assistance from the people without government making them a special class of citizen. That seems to be very libertarian.

In your system, the government has the incredible power of the right to determine WHO is vulnerable and exempt them from the responsibilities shared by the rest of the citizens of the country. This clearly leads to the special class of citizens having no incentive not to vote for the politicians who promise them the most of other people's money, which is clearly what's happening. I see no possible way to spin this as "libertarian."

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Your contextualizing was somehow supposed to counter my claim that it's a good thing whenever a plundered people can avoid taxes.

No, I was questioning YOU exempting them from our tax system, I said NOTHING of THEM wanting to avoid taxes at all in any way ever, there was nothing unclear about that.

I would exempt anyone from our tax system, if asked. The problem is no one asks me. (I know Obama is supposed to "listen to me" even if we "have our disagreements," but at the end of the day he's still going to be sending me the bill for his buddies at Goldman Sachs, GM, Fannie Mae, etc. etc. etc. CHANGE!)

Kaz wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Somehow if we're not poor compared to an ancient Egyptian it's OK to demand that the lowest income earners pay yet another tax, or something like that.

Is that what I said? This would be referred to as "hyperbole."

Like I said, I had to use my imagination, because it wasn't clear what you meant by it.

Kaz wrote:so I barely mentioned him even though I did in the end vote for him.

Ah, then replace the "THEIR" with a "YOUR" once again. I stand by my statement.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Kaz wrote:so I barely mentioned him even though I did in the end vote for him.

Ah, then replace the "THEIR" with a "YOUR" once again. I stand by my statement.

Have you read Harry Browne's book "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World?" It's a great book, I'm reading it right now. I just ask because he certainly supports your contention that voting is a waste of time. Ironic given the number of times after he wrote the book he ran for President...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I know you're yanking my chain in response to my yanking yours. I just wanted to hear you say it. But even though you've winked, the only real disagreement we've had is over whether our tax policy should apply to everyone or some should be exempted from it.

You forgot the third option, which is the one that I choose: all should be exempted from it. If I really hold to that, then I can never complain about those who receive exemptions qua their receiving an exemption. Period. Notice that I'm not making any statements about how unfair it is for others, etc.

If I want to remove an injustice, I think it's best strategically to focus on the injustice at hand. Let's say that this country is taxing one group of people extensively and exempting another group. Since the injustice is the taxing, not the exempting, that's what I would focus on. Hence, my saying "well at least Group B isn't getting the crap taxed out of them" shouldn't register as contradictory.

If you can agree with that then we're basically on the same page, although for the record I think you are articulating this principle poorly.

Kaz wrote:In my system. . . In your system. . .

This strikes me as a strange game to play. "In my system. . . [rosy colored glasses make everything beautiful!]. . .In your system. . .[the worst of the worst happens]"

OK. . .but for the record I don't think your description of "my system" aligns with anything I've said so far.

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Somewhat over half the voters pay no taxes

So I'm clear: where do you get this specific statistic?

Fair enough, to make that statistic, I should have said "virtually" no taxes.

According to the IRS in 2006 (the most recent year data is available) 50% of filers paid 3% of all personal taxes and 33% paid absolute zero (or less). The bottom 46% paid under one half of one percent of all federal taxes. The top 17% of the bottom half of filers, who clearly had real income since they are the ones who would be just below the median income paid in aggregate 3% of the taxes. A very low tax rate. Then you add in all the people who didn't even file a return, which obviously includes no one with much income (at least beyond the first year since they are in jail after that). Well over half the adult population of this country either gets welfare from our tax system (more then they paid), zero or negligible taxes.

No, no, I meant about voting. How do you line up people who file vs. voters to talk about 50% (or whatever) voting without paying this particular tax?

I'll use the absurd extreme to make my point. About half of the country votes. According to your stats about half the country meets the "non-paying" status in question. It's theoretically possible that essentially none of them vote. See what I mean?

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I know you're yanking my chain in response to my yanking yours. I just wanted to hear you say it. But even though you've winked, the only real disagreement we've had is over whether our tax policy should apply to everyone or some should be exempted from it.

You forgot the third option, which is the one that I choose: all should be exempted from it. If I really hold to that, then I can never complain about those who receive exemptions qua their receiving an exemption. Period. Notice that I'm not making any statements about how unfair it is for others, etc.

If I want to remove an injustice, I think it's best strategically to focus on the injustice at hand. Let's say that this country is taxing one group of people extensively and exempting another group. Since the injustice is the taxing, not the exempting, that's what I would focus on. Hence, my saying "well at least Group B isn't getting the crap taxed out of them" shouldn't register as contradictory.

If you can agree with that then we're basically on the same page, although for the record I think you are articulating this principle poorly.

Kaz wrote:In my system. . . In your system. . .

This strikes me as a strange game to play. "In my system. . . [rosy colored glasses make everything beautiful!]. . .In your system. . .[the worst of the worst happens]"

OK. . .but for the record I don't think your description of "my system" aligns with anything I've said so far.

This is all still predicated on your statement the "vulnerable" should be exempted from taxes. I keep focusing on your creating that class of citizen as recognized by the government and you keep focusing on that they are an everybody and everybody should be exempted. Had you said that originally I wouldn't have started the debate.

So, answer this question and maybe it clears it all up.

IF we are to continue to have a tax system, should the government "excempt" anyone from it?

I don't care how the government classifies them, I'm going to call a spade a spade. As an advocate of the Fair Tax you know that the average person in the U.S. pays all of those industrial and production taxes, which are wrapped into the product. Inflation typically eats away about 5-7% of their savings every year. The business cycle does enormous damage to their individual careers and ability to pay for their basic needs. Most are in debt. On top of all of this, their government has now taken on over $10 trillion in debt from the recent crisis, to be paid later by the citizens. This on top of of the ~$10 trillion in unfunded liabilities that were already represented by SS and medicaire.

I never brought up 'vulnerable' in the sense that you are using it (i.e., as a government-created class). So let's put aside the straw man. I'm using it in the common-sense understanding of that term. How could anyone not agree that the average American has been royally screwed? So yes, I'm glad that the vulnerable are being exempt from as many taxes as they are; I wish it were more.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:IF we are to continue to have a tax system, should the government "excempt" anyone from it?

As many as possible.

Irn-Bru wrote:No, no, I meant about voting. How do you line up people who file vs. voters to talk about 50% (or whatever) voting without paying this particular tax?

I'll use the absurd extreme to make my point. About half of the country votes. According to your stats about half the country meets the "non-paying" status in question. It's theoretically possible that essentially none of them vote. See what I mean?

Ah. The questioned mentioned voters and taxpayers. I don't have a stat on the voting percents by income. I know you said you were exaggerating to make the point, but the principle you're referring to is certainly true that lower income voters do in fact have lower voting rates, so we do need to get well over 50% having negligible taxes to get to 50% of the people who actually turn up at the polls being welfare whores. Even then it would be skewed by the fact that every office is in fact not elected by the national average of voters.

But if you look at our elections, the Democrats represent that strategy in so many ways. First of all as I keep pointing out though we're over half the population now paying negligable taxes, and yet the Democrats aren't satisfied. The top 1% of voters earned about 22% of the income and paid 40% of taxes. The top 5% of voters paid 60% of all taxes. Yet the Democrats aren't satisfied. Who do they target in "get out the voter" campaigns? Why do they keep dredging up that they are targeting the "rich" with continued increased taxes and the "small" percent who they want to raise taxes on. You don't see the message being to get money you didn't pay for to the majority of voters? Who do you think politicians are targeting, the general population or voters?

Irn-Bru wrote:As an advocate of the Fair Tax you know that the average person in the U.S. pays all of those industrial and production taxes

YES! Great observation! No, that wasn't ever lost on me. In fact I originally struggled when I argued against high progressive tax rates exactly because of this. And I'll add to your argument. In fact, even more progressive nominal taxes for the rich are in real terms even more progressive taxes on the poor. So if I hate the poor, why don't I want them? I'm going to go through the complete logic so nothing is lost.

1) All taxes are in the price of the products we buy. Including income taxes. It's nonsense to think companies don't "realize" they are paying taxes and incorporate all the taxes they pay in the price of the product, including debt taxes, capital gains, ...

2) The poor pay more of the taxes because they spend a higher portion of their income, simple math.

3) People are aware as well. I got two masters degrees, I am aware I'm worth more because of that and all the income to get it. I'm not dumb enough to earn more and let the government take it, that means companies have to pay me even more and even more then that every time taxes go up to make up for the higher taxes, those taxes are again put into the price of the product. And by point two are disproportionately paid by lower incomes, I got more income to cover the tax.

In fact the part I mentioned I would add is the higher tax rates go the more people work to shelter it. And who can shelter it the best, the RICH! So in fact, the higher taxes go the more real taxes are shifted FROM the rich because all those additional taxes end up in the price of the product and the rich aren't paying as much of their income for products as the poor are. And the Democratic solution of ever increasing tax rates to account for that tilts it even MORE!

So why do I care? A few reasons, here are the biggest.

1) Even though the poor are paying MORE, they THINK they are paying less and that leads them to vote for politicians who promise them more ending up in the spiral we have of ever increasing government.

2) When taxes are low, people pay them and the dead weight on our economy is low, as it increases, CPAs, tax lawyers and the opportunity cost of tax avoidance strategies create endless dead weight on our economy.

3) Companies and the achievers who drive the economy spend ever increasing attention on taxes instead of productivity which harms our economy internally and in particular in competition with foreign companies.

No, even though the higher progressive tax rates mean ever increasing shifting it to the poor, the incredible power given to government and economic inefficiency created overwhelm that benefit.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:First of all, you always try to paint my posts with fictitious arguments I didn't make, so that you can then respond in a way that you think wins the debate

So since I "always" do this, should be simple to show me an example.

Very easy, indeed. In fact, I did it in the very post you're quoting from here, when I pointed out your claims that I said you hated the poor or had to support particular government programs. I also did it in my last response to you (the one where I said you were stretching), where I gave three examples of you attempting to read arguments into my post that I never made. Every time I debate you, you do this.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Secondly, SS is only part of payroll taxes, and is definitely not a welfare program

It's not? Two questions:

- What is the money I pay between the ~40K my benefits are capped at and the ~100K I pay payroll taxes? I get nothing for it, who does? How is what they are getting not "welfare?"

OK, again I have to ask, are you talking about government welfare here? I ask because that money certainly does not wind up in the pockets of the poor, which you seem to be claiming. Only people who live long enough, or begin drawing benefits at an unusually young age (survivor benefits), ever see more money from SS than they pay into it. As IB/FFA correctly pointed out, SS is a ponzi scheme, not welfare.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:- And NOW you want to refund the little bit they DID pay. And it's STILL not welfare?

I'm assuming you mean low income earners by "they" here. Show me where I say I want that money refunded. (This is yet another example of you putting arguments into my posts which I never made.) My point was that low income earners still have to pay payroll taxes, and for 3/4 of Americans that payment is more than they pay in income taxes. And that "little bit they DID pay" may seem little in relation to your payment, but it is not little in relation to their income, or their net earnings.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:Medicare is a much better example if you want to argue that payroll taxes support welfare programs, although it is not relevant to this argument what government programs the payroll taxes support

Wow, so social security CHECKS from the GOVERNMENT are not a welfare program, but it doesn't matter what payroll taxes go to pay for AND I'm "always" creating "fictitious" arguments to things you didn't say. Got it, thanks for learning me.

It's ironic that you try to use sarcasm to refute my point, and then make my argument in the same sentence. I didn't say it didn't matter what government programs payroll taxes pay for, I said it wasn't relevant to the debate. Anyway, it's my pleasure "learning" you, but it does grow tedious.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:No, no, I meant about voting. How do you line up people who file vs. voters to talk about 50% (or whatever) voting without paying this particular tax?

I'll use the absurd extreme to make my point. About half of the country votes. According to your stats about half the country meets the "non-paying" status in question. It's theoretically possible that essentially none of them vote. See what I mean?

Ah. The questioned mentioned voters and taxpayers. I don't have a stat on the voting percents by income. I know you said you were exaggerating to make the point, but the principle you're referring to is certainly true that lower income voters do in fact have lower voting rates, so we do need to get well over 50% having negligible taxes to get to 50% of the people who actually turn up at the polls being welfare whores. Even then it would be skewed by the fact that every office is in fact not elected by the national average of voters.

But if you look at our elections, the Democrats represent that strategy in so many ways. First of all as I keep pointing out though we're over half the population now paying negligable taxes, and yet the Democrats aren't satisfied. The top 1% of voters earned about 22% of the income and paid 40% of taxes. The top 5% of voters paid 60% of all taxes. Yet the Democrats aren't satisfied. Who do they target in "get out the voter" campaigns? Why do they keep dredging up that they are targeting the "rich" with continued increased taxes and the "small" percent who they want to raise taxes on. You don't see the message being to get money you didn't pay for to the majority of voters? Who do you think politicians are targeting, the general population or voters?

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant. Can you distill that into a couple of sentences or a pointed question? Because I'm not sure what idea you're trying to highlight in contrast to anything I've said.

Irn-Bru wrote:I'm not sure how any of that is relevant. Can you distill that into a couple of sentences or a pointed question? Because I'm not sure what idea you're trying to highlight in contrast to anything I've said.

I was addressing the point I quoted, that taxes are baked into the price of products. I was agreeing with you on that. If you want Readers Digest version.

- All taxes are built into the price of products
- The higher percent of income spent the higher your real tax rate, the poor, who spend 100% of income have the highest real tax rates.
- There is no fixed pie, when nominal tax rates go up, companies pay the higher skilled more because they are not going to accept the same net paycheck as a lower skilled worker, they aren't dumb. This means the higher taxes on the rich end up back in the price of the product which again is disproportionately paid by the poor.
- The higher the tax rate, the more they are avoided, who can avoid them best, the rich!

So higher progressive taxes on the rich are higher progressive taxes on the poor, the more rich you are the more you can avoid them, the poorer you are the more you can't.

I'm saying even though that part is good, the ignorance of the poor thinking they are getting a free lunch electing politicians endlessly growing government as well as the economic inefficiencies created by the dead weight of the tax collection and avoidance infrastructure and focus on taxes over productivity still makes it a bad thing.

Sorry, wrong post. I only realized afterward that it was separated from the original, so I edited it to include the text I was responding to.

KazooSkinsFan wrote: the principle you're referring to is certainly true that lower income voters do in fact have lower voting rates

Doesn't that directly refute your point that people who voted Obama in, were the ones who paid no taxes and expected welfare payments from him?
And this too:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:the ignorance of the poor thinking they are getting a free lunch electing politicians endlessly growing government

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: the principle you're referring to is certainly true that lower income voters do in fact have lower voting rates

Doesn't that directly refute your point that people who voted Obama in, were the ones who paid no taxes and expected welfare payments from him?

Um...no. First of all, I was discussing general Democrats, in fact Comrade Obama won BECAUSE the "poor" DID turn out. But just in general, I'm arguing the politicians targeting people who pay taxes tax cuts and politicians targeting those who don't welfare. How does the rate of effectiveness of getting them to the polls contradict that argument?

Actually, the reason the poor turn out in lower numbers in general is the same reason they earn less to begin with, can you guess what that is, JSPB22?

Irn-Bru wrote:Sorry, wrong post. I only realized afterward that it was separated from the original, so I edited it to include the text I was responding to.

I'll be back to address this, I was having too much fun debating you Irn-Bru, I have to do some other stuff though.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: the principle you're referring to is certainly true that lower income voters do in fact have lower voting rates

Doesn't that directly refute your point that people who voted Obama in, were the ones who paid no taxes and expected welfare payments from him?

Um...no. First of all, I was discussing general Democrats, in fact Comrade Obama won BECAUSE the "poor" DID turn out. But just in general, I'm arguing the politicians targeting people who pay taxes tax cuts and politicians targeting those who don't welfare. How does the rate of effectiveness of getting them to the polls contradict that argument?

Actually, the reason the poor turn out in lower numbers in general is the same reason they earn less to begin with, can you guess what that is, JSPB22?

So now you're saying that the majority of the voters in this last election are poor? Obama won the popular vote, remember? But I thought the section of this country you consider poor is relatively low, by historical and current western standards? And now you're asking me to make the judgement that the poor are in that condition because they are "lazy?" Or am I reading your question incorrectly?

And you were speaking of Democrats in general, but you also said:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:the ignorance of the poor thinking they are getting a free lunch electing politicians endlessly growing government

So you equate Democrats with being poor?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Now let me give my views on politics. First of all it is the workers of America that make this country great. Every factory worker, small business owner, Lawyer, doctor, tech guy etc.
We make this country great. Not the politicians.

Obviously it's not the politicians, we agree on that. Politicians were parasites, i.e., lawyers in their previous lives gaining by leaching off the achievement of others, and they are even greater parasites as politicians consolidating their greed for power and money. Lawyers are leaches who set out on a career of destroying rather then creating value and the most successful at it spend the rest of their lives in Washington DC doing it on a grander scale then anyone else.

But when you say our greatness is the "workers" I disagree. Not in a disrespecting way to workers, but that our greatness was the opportunity to make more of yourself. Yes, many people do this by being good workers. But it is the guy who creates a business and provides a job who makes it great, not the guy who puts in his eight hours and goes home. It is the construction worker who achieves and becomes a supervisor of a group of construction workers, then starts his own company who makes this country great. Work leads to achievement, it's not just about being a "worker."

I agree.

The opportunity to be pretty much whatever you want in this country is just one of the reasons America is the greatest country on earth. Freedom , Liberty etc.. I am all for ambition and ingenuity. The Benjamin Franklins, Alexander Graham Bells, Bill Gates, Michael Jordans and Tiger Woods are all included.

I myself am a business owner. I have a small business located at a local community college. I choose not to say right now because I do not need the competition. I have been lucky enough to still be making a good profit.

But, there are a vast number of Americans who do not care to be rich or not even thought of starting there own business. There are hundreds of millions of Fathers who just want get paid a decent wage and make sure there wife and children have a roof over there head. To them there job is there life. Getting up nine to five just for there families. The love of there families being the main reason for them even going to work. Just getting up everyday putting forth the effort.
In that I see greatness as well.

HEROHAMO wrote:I myself am a business owner. I have a small business located at a local community college. I choose not to say right now because I do not need the competition. I have been lucky enough to still be making a good profit.

Do you grow it yourself, or just sell it?

(just kidding, I just couldn't resist)

JansenFan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I myself am a business owner. I have a small business located at a local community college. I choose not to say right now because I do not need the competition. I have been lucky enough to still be making a good profit.

Do you grow it yourself, or just sell it?

(just kidding, I just couldn't resist)

JansenFan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:I myself am a business owner. I have a small business located at a local community college. I choose not to say right now because I do not need the competition. I have been lucky enough to still be making a good profit.

Do you grow it yourself, or just sell it?

(just kidding, I just couldn't resist)