Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 02:30:10 AM



Title: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 02:30:10 AM
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/01/debt-ceiling


The debt ceiling

 We could balance the budget via revenue alone

Jan 8th 2013, 15:32 by M.S.





..

THE blogging colossus known as Andrew Sullivan goes a rhetorical step further than my colleague, arguing that Americans are a bunch of "big babies" who refuse to fork over enough taxes to pay for the goodies they ask government to buy for them. The latest twist is a poll showing that Americans also oppose allowing the government to raise its debt ceiling in order to borrow the money to pay for the goodies it has bought for them, in the absence of taxes. By deductive reasoning, we might conclude that Americans want the government to steal things from contractors and not pay for them. But the more likely conclusion, as Jonathan Bernstein argues, is that Americans don't yet understand that "do not raise the debt ceiling" means "default on America's debts, stop cutting Social Security and Medicare checks, don't pay contractors for work performed, and crash the stock market". As the media explains this over the next month or two, public views on this question are likely to shift.

As a side note, though, one point Mr Sullivan makes isn't really correct. Mr Sullivan writes that if Barack Obama "pretends that we can resolve this by revenues alone, he is part of the problem, not the solution." David Brooks echoes that point in an op-ed today, saying "there are no conceivable tax increases that can keep up" with rising Medicare spending. This sounds very hard-headed, but it's not really correct. America has one of the lowest tax burdens of any advanced country. We may not want to fix our debt problem solely by increasing revenues, but if we wanted to, we could.

The Index of Economic Freedom published by the conservative Heritage Foundation (which presumably has no interest in lowballing current US taxation figures) puts the total of US federal, state and local taxes in 2012 at 24% of GDP. In Britain the total tax burden is 34% of GDP. In Sweden it is 46%, in France 42%, in Germany 37%. At the lower end of the spectrum of major advanced economies, Japan is at 28% and Australia is at 27%.

The federal portion of America's tax burden is in the neighbourhood of 18% of GDP. According to the dire long-term budget vision laid out by John Palmer and Rudolph Penner of the Tax Policy Center, federal government spending, currently at 24% of GDP, will rise to about 25% of GDP by 2023 (due mainly to rising health-care costs and interest payments), and may go up to 30% or more by 2037 depending on how much debt we rack up in the meantime.




In other words, by gradually increasing our total tax burden by 7% of GDP through 2023, we could balance the budget; we might eventually have to raise it by perhaps 10% of GDP. That would leave us with a much higher tax burden than we have now, but it would still be only 34% of GDP, as high as Britain's is today. And that's assuming we don't change a penny of our wasteful spending habits on Medicare and defence.

Again, this isn't an argument that we shouldn't cut spending. America spends nearly as much on defence as the rest of the world combined; that can clearly be cut. Medical care in America is absurdly expensive compared to other countries, and the government could certainly get much better deals from insurers and providers if Congress allowed it to bargain effectively. But America is an extremely rich country. If Americans did decide that they liked their defence and health-care policies just the way they are, and were willing to pay British- or German-style tax rates to maintain them, they could do so.

This is all probably irrelevant, because, to go back to Mr Sullivan's point, it's clear that Barack Obama does not actually want to shrink America's long-term budget deficits solely through tax increases. He's spent the past couple of years defending hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare spending growth against Republican opposition, and he was willing to shift to a chained-CPI cost-of-living-increase formula that would have cut Social Security spending significantly as well, in exchange for appropriate GOP counteroffers. To the chagrin of many liberals, there seem to be a lot of cuts Mr Obama would be willing to make if a "grand bargain" were available.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tonymctones on January 10, 2013, 06:59:05 AM
This entire article is filled with flaws and moronic assumptions. It reads as if a student with one economics class wrote it.

I'm on my phone so ill keep it brief for now.

1. This person incorrectly assumes that the GDP will remain the same given larger tax increases.
2. I don't believe we can achieve the % of GDP he wants without hitting the middle class substantially.
3. Compound both 1 & 2 with the fact this person doesn't take into account any other forms of taxation such as state tax etc
4. This doesn't even begin to address the moral aspect of a bloated inefficient and wasteful govt not addressing its problems and extorting its own constituents

Again short list 


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: GigantorX on January 10, 2013, 02:31:05 PM
This entire article is filled with flaws and moronic assumptions. It reads as if a student with one economics class wrote it.

I'm on my phone so ill keep it brief for now.

1. This person incorrectly assumes that the GDP will remain the same given larger tax increases.
2. I don't believe we can achieve the % of GDP he wants without hitting the middle class substantially.
3. Compound both 1 & 2 with the fact this person doesn't take into account any other forms of taxation such as state tax etc
4. This doesn't even begin to address the moral aspect of a bloated inefficient and wasteful govt not addressing its problems and extorting its own constituents

Again short list 

Doesn't need to be a long one, it was as badly written and poorly researched article.

The Economist is showing their true colors on this one.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 02:46:54 PM
This entire article is filled with flaws and moronic assumptions. It reads as if a student with one economics class wrote it.

I'm on my phone so ill keep it brief for now.

1. This person incorrectly assumes that the GDP will remain the same given larger tax increases.
2. I don't believe we can achieve the % of GDP he wants without hitting the middle class substantially.
3. Compound both 1 & 2 with the fact this person doesn't take into account any other forms of taxation such as state tax etc
4. This doesn't even begin to address the moral aspect of a bloated inefficient and wasteful govt not addressing its problems and extorting its own constituents

Again short list 
your making all kinds of assumptions yourself. its very possible that GDP could actually increase with higher taxes. it happened during the middle of the last century. yes, extenuating circumstances. but so what. with all your bullshit about making assumptions, your mmaking a big one yourself.  most of the wealth in this country and in the world is in the hands of the top few % of earners and its extremely possible to pay off the entire world debt and fund the world governments for decades to come simply by confiscating that wealth.  blah blah blah..  :)


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: Fury on January 10, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
your making all kinds of assumptions yourself. its very possible that GDP could actually increase with higher taxes. it happened during the middle of the last century. yes, extenuating circumstances. but so what. with all your bullshit about making assumptions, your mmaking a big one yourself.  most of the wealth in this country and in the world is in the hands of the top few % of earners and its extremely possible to pay off the entire world debt and fund the world governments for decades to come simply by confiscating that wealth.  blah blah blah..  :)

Great rebuttal. Now just destroy the rest of the industrialized world and maybe GDP will grow again with higher taxes.  ::)

Confiscate the wealth and it won't pay down much of anything.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: GigantorX on January 10, 2013, 03:15:17 PM
your making all kinds of assumptions yourself. its very possible that GDP could actually increase with higher taxes. it happened during the middle of the last century. yes, extenuating circumstances. but so what. with all your bullshit about making assumptions, your mmaking a big one yourself.  most of the wealth in this country and in the world is in the hands of the top few % of earners and its extremely possible to pay off the entire world debt and fund the world governments for decades to come simply by confiscating that wealth.  blah blah blah..  :)

It was a whole lot more than "...extenuating circumstances."

The whole of the industrialized world, quite literally, laid in ruins. The U.S.A. was the only game in town.

"...but so what." Is that the best you have? Gimmie a break.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tonymctones on January 10, 2013, 04:59:08 PM
your making all kinds of assumptions yourself. its very possible that GDP could actually increase with higher taxes. it happened during the middle of the last century. yes, extenuating circumstances. but so what. with all your bullshit about making assumptions, your mmaking a big one yourself.  most of the wealth in this country and in the world is in the hands of the top few % of earners and its extremely possible to pay off the entire world debt and fund the world governments for decades to come simply by confiscating that wealth.  blah blah blah..  :)
LMFAO Ill address the aspect of wealth as others have already set you straight on the other ignorance.

This article was specifically talking about taxes not STEALING assets. Assets are not taxed as income they are generally taxed through property tax etc.

You also have never cited any source to back up your claims that even if we STOLE the assets of the top %(I noticed you didnt give a specific %) we would be able to pay our debt.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 07:59:22 PM
confiscating the wealth from the top 1% wouldn do it??






richest 1% owns 40% of wealth

total wealth = 125 trillion

40% of 125 trillion = 50 trillion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews



global government debt = 49 trillion

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock





... hhhhmmmmm  .......    ;D   ;D   ;D


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tonymctones on January 10, 2013, 09:36:06 PM
confiscating the wealth from the top 1% wouldn do it??






richest 1% owns 40% of wealth

total wealth = 125 trillion

40% of 125 trillion = 50 trillion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews



global government debt = 49 trillion

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock





... hhhhmmmmm  .......    ;D   ;D   ;D
you cant seem to stay on one topic

first you post this article which says taxes, then you go to "confiscating wealth" to take care of the US debt, now world debt.

Do you think the rest of the world is going to steal their top 1%'s assets to help us pay our debt down or vice versa?

This has nothing to do at all with the article as well as the articles point was about taxes not STEALING ASSETS


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 09:41:43 PM
Sometimes reading Tbombz bullshit is painful.

The top 1% of the world CRAIG... Like The Saudi's or UAE is gonna give up 40% of their 1%.

BWAHAHAHAHA... FOOL!


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 09:54:40 PM
you cant seem to stay on one topic

first you post this article which says taxes, then you go to "confiscating wealth" to take care of the US debt, now world debt.

Do you think the rest of the world is going to steal their top 1%'s assets to help us pay our debt down or vice versa?

This has nothing to do at all with the article as well as the articles point was about taxes not STEALING ASSETS

theres no significant difference between taxation and stealing assets.

i used the world debt because this is a global issue. if you want me to run the numbers for america..   117 trillion in total wealth..   top 1% own 34.6% of it..    government debt is only 17 trillion..  confiscating only HALF the wealth of the top 1% would be more than enough to pay down the entire debt

Sometimes reading Tbombz bullshit is painful.

The top 1% of the world CRAIG... Like The Saudi's or UAE is gonna give up 40% of their 1%.

BWAHAHAHAHA... FOOL!
see above  :)


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 09:59:15 PM
theres no significant difference between taxation and stealing assets.

i used the world debt because this is a global issue. if you want me to run the numbers for america..   117 trillion in total wealth..   top 1% own 34.6% of it..    government debt is only 17 trillion..  confiscating only HALF the wealth of the top 1% would be more than enough to pay down the entire debt
 see above  :)

So you are ok with thievery... Nice to know.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tonymctones on January 10, 2013, 10:00:39 PM
theres no significant difference between taxation and stealing assets.

i used the world debt because this is a global issue. if you want me to run the numbers for america..   117 trillion in total wealth..   top 1% own 34.6% of it..    government debt is only 17 trillion..  confiscating only HALF the wealth of the top 1% would be more than enough to pay down the entire debt
 see above  :)
LOL my ass there isnt a significant difference one is taking a % of money you make the other is taking what you have...

LOL one is taking a cut of current earnings and one is taking a cut of previous earnings I.E. retroactive


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:01:23 PM
So you are ok with thievery... Nice to know.
nope, im not. but i think you probably are. you do support taxation do you not?


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:03:21 PM
LOL my ass there isnt a significant difference one is taking a % of money you make the other is taking what you have...

LOL one is taking a cut of current earnings and one is taking a cut of previous earnings I.E. retroactive
i thought it was obvious that i was not talking about making the top 1% completely broke, but simply taking away all excess funds/assets/bringing their level of wealth down to the average person.   doing that would be more than sufficient.   as for the theft being retroactive as opposed to only on future earnings.. meaningless detaill... theft is theft..


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 10:04:50 PM
nope, im not. but i think you probably are. you do support taxation do you not?
Let me make sure I get what you are alluding to.

You are saying that I am ok with taxation and that you are not, but you post an article discussing taking in more tax money.

So you're just trolling along.

I now understand that it is a futile effort to engage you on anything.

To answer your question... Yes, I am ok with taxation when I utilize the services that taxes provide... such as infrastructure, defense, and education.

That is not thievery, however when taxes are utilized for things that people do not even utilize, then yes, I do not like them and do consider it stolen money.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:05:04 PM
from an economic perspective "taxing" retroactively instead of on future earnings would be better do to reducing disincentives to production..  theft isnt on what you produce.. its on what you already have... BETTER START PRODUCING!  :D


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:08:20 PM
Let me make sure I get what you are alluding to.

You are saying that I am ok with taxation and that you are not, but you post an article discussing taking in more tax money.

So you're just trolling along.

I now understand that it is a futile effort to engage you on anything.

To answer your question... Yes, I am ok with taxation when I utilize the services that taxes provide... such as infrastructure, defense, and education.

That is not thievery, however when taxes are utilized for things that people do not even utilize, then yes, I do not like them and do consider it stolen money.
you dont simply pay taxes only for those services you desire, you are forced to pay the same taxes as everyone else whether you like it or not and if you support that then you support theft. i do not. the purpose of posting the article is to get certain people (cough tony cough) who go around preaching that there arent enough rich people to tax to realize that if the ends justify the means (if you support government)  then its very possible (and IMO desirable) to settle through simple confiscation of excess wealth from the wealthy.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 10:24:52 PM
you dont simply pay taxes only for those services you desire, you are forced to pay the same taxes as everyone else whether you like it or not and if you support that then you support theft. i do not. the purpose of posting the article is to get certain people (cough tony cough) who go around preaching that there arent enough rich people to tax to realize that if the ends justify the means (if you support government)  then its very possible (and IMO desirable) to settle through simple confiscation of excess wealth from the wealthy.

No bumz... I didn't say I supported all taxes. I am ok with taxes on services that I use... For instance, transportation and the like.

I understand that certain things are for the good of our American society, such as education, so I acquiesce to be taxed for it as it is better for us to have educated youth than not, but that does not mean that I support all taxation or even the same rate of taxation as everyone else. Which is actually not how the tax code is written in the first place.

I guarantee you that my base tax rate is much higher than yours. So your idea is already flawed.

Now, if you can come up with a person who does not use ANY of the service that the government provides, yet pays taxes, then certainly THEY are being robbed... No doubt, but your idea of thievery is in fact flawed, as everyone else would be using some services.

Equally, of course not, but as much as I would love to be able to create a consumption tax, we all know that will never work because the more poor of the country, such as yourself, would be  paying a much higher rate by percentage than someone such as I. Many studies have shown this to be true.

Unlike some people, I do understand that a certain amount of taxation is obviously needed to fund some amount of government, however I also realize that government is far too large and that if you give them money, they will never stop using it.

Let me give you a little insight on how government budgets work there Bumz, since I'm sure you do not really know.

Budgets are produced... Let's use round numbers so it's easy to follow... Let's say that I have a budget of 1 million dollars.

FY2012 I am given a 1,000,000 dollar budget.
Throughout the year I spend 900,000 to actually do the job that needs to get done.
Now, it's the last 2 weeks of FY2012 and I have 100,000 dollars left.

What do you do with that money? Any normal person would say, well, I won't spend it... I'll save it and use it next year or put it away.

Government does not do that... You have 100,000... If you do not use it, then your budget next year will only be 900,000 dollars... To government thinking, obviously you do not need 1 million... 900,000 will suffice.

You simply lose that money... It goes no where. It is returned to the big coffer and you do not get to keep it, plus your budget is now shrunk for FY2013.

This leaves zero incentive to save money and is a huge part of why government is spending far more than it should.




Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:35:47 PM
save the lecture for someone who needs it  ;D

you support some level of taxation on everybody for things such as education which you believe to be for the general good of society, therefore you support the robin hood notion of stealing from people in order to serve the greater good. you believe the ends justify the means, at least in regards stealing from people to pay for education.


period.

now, that being said...  17 trillion in debt. how to pay for it? confiscate 1/3 of middle class income over the next 30 years ? or one time wealth confiscation from the country's mega wealthy ?


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 10:39:58 PM
save the lecture for someone who needs it  ;D

you support some level of taxation on everybody for things such as education which you believe to be for the general good of society, therefore you support the robin hood notion of stealing from people in order to serve the greater good. you believe the ends justify the means, at least in regards stealing from people to pay for education.


period.

now, that being said...  17 trillion in debt. how to pay for it? confiscate 1/3 of middle class income over the next 30 years ? or one time wealth confiscation from the country's mega wealthy ?

This is why you are foolish, because you think that the world works in black and white... It does not... There are many shades of grey, but again, you are another young kid with no real job and no real world experience who thinks he knows it all.

Just like every other little kid on the planet.

You are not special.

Confiscate no ones money... Shrink the spending drastically.

Apparently that prospect is lost on you.



Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:45:44 PM
you still have the issue of how to pay for the reduced spending. you still have existing wealth confiscation (taxes). you still have the 17 trillion in existing debt to pay off.

get rid of all wealth confiscation and get rid of all spending.. still left with 17 trillion to pay back.

get rid of all wealth confiscation and reduce spending.. left with 17 trillion that grows larger and larger as time goes by.


gonna have to confiscate wealth to pay off that debt, unless you think donations could cover it.  and gonna have to get donations to cover any spending you want.. unless your willing to confiscate wealth.


 :)  (some thing really are black and white)


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 10:47:40 PM
you still have the issue of how to pay for the reduced spending. you still have existing wealth confiscation (taxes). you still have the 17 trillion in existing debt to pay off.

get rid of all wealth confiscation and get rid of all spending.. still left with 17 trillion to pay back.

get rid of all wealth confiscation and reduce spending.. left with 17 trillion that grows larger and larger as time goes by.


gonna have to confiscate wealth to pay off that debt, unless you think donations could cover it.  and gonna have to get donations to cover any spending you want.. unless your willing to confiscate wealth.


 :)  (some thing really are black and white)


That's not true at all man.

If you spend less than you bring in, you pay off that debt.

You don't even have a checking account do you?


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:50:34 PM
spend less than YOU BRING IN

how does the government bring in money?

thats right.. say it with me.... WEALTH CONFISCATION (AKA TAXES)..   if its not "pay-as-you-go" or completely funded via volunteer donations then it is STEALING..

what dont you get about that?    YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY MONEY TO PAY FOR AN EDUCATION PROGRAM, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO FUND FOR "THE GOOD OF HUMANITY"!!!   got it????


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 10:52:51 PM
spend less than YOU BRING IN

how does the government bring in money?

thats right.. say it with me.... WEALTH CONFISCATION (AKA TAXES)..   if its not "pay-as-you-go" or completely funded via volunteer donations then it is STEALING..

what dont you get about that?    YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY MONEY TO PAY FOR AN EDUCATION PROGRAM, OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO FUND FOR "THE GOOD OF HUMANITY"!!!   got it????

Pay attention bumz... you said the 17 trillion will grow... which it WILL NOT, because you are spending less than you bring in.

Trust me kid, no one is taking YOUR money... you have ZERO.

As a matter of fact, you're a college kid right? You went to school right? I already PAID for YOUR education... YOU ARE SIMPLY PAYING BACK WHAT YOU ALREADY FUCKING USED... YOU USED MY FUCKING TAXES TO PAY FOR YOUR EDUCATION AND YOU OBVIOUSLY WASTED IT.

NO ONE IS STEALING SHIT FROM YOU.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 10:56:10 PM
i said the 17 would grow if you kept on spending without confisscating enough wealth to pay for that spending..   and that is a FACT unless you are going to pay for the spending yourself or get others to donate voluntarily


as for your argument about whether or not i personally pay taxes...  its completely irrelevant and also blatantly untrue therefore i wont address it..

balls in court and you have yet to realize that theft is theft


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 10:59:31 PM
i said the 17 would grow if you kept on spending without confisscating enough wealth to pay for that spending..   and that is a FACT unless you are going to pay for the spending yourself or get others to donate voluntarily


as for your argument about whether or not i personally pay taxes...  its completely irrelevant and also blatantly untrue therefore i wont address it..

balls in court and you have yet to realize that theft is theft

No, you didn't say that, you said it would grow... you did not define why or how.

Now... Since you are amending your statement, which is fine... Why do you insist that it should be taken from the rich and not everyone?

You're saying that somehow the rich deserve to have the money they earned less than someone else?

If you truly are worried about paying it down, why not just take 90% from EVERYONE?



Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 11:04:44 PM
No, you didn't say that, you said it would grow... you did not define why or how.
read it and weap



get rid of all wealth confiscation and reduce spending.. left with 17 trillion that grows larger and larger as time goes by.



 :)

Now... Since you are amending your statement, which is fine... Why do you insist that it should be taken from the rich and not everyone?

You're saying that somehow the rich deserve to have the money they earned less than someone else?

If you truly are worried about paying it down, why not just take 90% from EVERYONE?


its not about who deserves to pay its about how can we pay it down while causing the least amount of inconvenience/suffering.  we are going to have to steal money from people, so who would it be better to steal from? people with tons and tons of money? or people just getting by living modestly?  ???


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 11:10:55 PM
read it and weap

 :)
its not about who deserves to pay its about how can we pay it down while causing the least amount of inconvenience/suffering.  we are going to have to steal money from people, so who would it be better to steal from? people with tons and tons of money? or people just getting by living modestly?  ???

I guess your idea of wealth "confiscation" and mine are different as you started out talking about confiscation in the term of 90% and logic dictated that when you said removing that confiscation, it reduced it to a normal tax rate.

I see how I am incorrect in how you were phrasing it.

Fair enough.

It is not better to take more from one group than another... No.

If we are all in it together, and as citizens we are, then the percentage of burden should be as close to even as possible.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 11:42:47 PM
normal tax rates are still confiscation of wealth.


% of burden should be as equal as possible?   $1 is worth 100 times more to someone who has $1000 compared to someone who has $100.     ;)


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 11:43:54 PM
normal tax rates are still confiscation of wealth.


% of burden should be as equal as possible?   $1 is worth 100 times more to someone who has $1000 compared to someone who has $100.     ;)

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean that the percentage isn't skewed... It's called math.

I don't care how the individual values it... a dollar is worth a dollar. The value of goods that the dollar buys is equal.





Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 11:49:31 PM
Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean that the percentage isn't skewed... It's called math.

I don't care how the individual values it... a dollar is worth a dollar. The value of goods that the dollar buys is equal.




your method of distributing the burden equally is extremely flawed and doesnt result in anything remotely resembling even distribution of burden.    people with no savings and living pay check to pay check get enough of their income taken away so that it means the difference between living poor and living modestly.. living modeslty and living well.. living well and living good..   etc...       people with billions in savings get their income taxed at a percentage that doesnt effect their lavish lifestyle one little bit...   equal sharing of burden?  i dont think so.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 10, 2013, 11:53:02 PM
your method of distributing the burden equally is extremely flawed and doesnt result in anything remotely resembling even distribution of burden.    people with no savings and living pay check to pay check get enough of their income taken away so that it means the difference between living poor and living modestly.. living modeslty and living well.. living well and living good..   etc...       people with billions in savings get their income taxed at a percentage that doesnt effect their lavish lifestyle one little bit...   equal sharing of burden?  i dont think so.

That's a feel good idea but again. The fact is that the value of the dollar is not changed based upon how many of them you possess.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 10, 2013, 11:59:09 PM
That's a feel good idea but again. The fact is that the value of the dollar is not changed based upon how many of them you possess.
there is such a thing as comparative value


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 11, 2013, 12:18:02 AM
there is such a thing as comparative value

Too bad that buying power doesn't care about that.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tbombz on January 11, 2013, 12:42:23 AM
Too bad that buying power doesn't care about that.
buying power has a point of diminishing returns.. in both ability to pruchase goods and services and more importantly in terms of happiness/satisfaction it brings the individual..


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: tu_holmes on January 11, 2013, 01:24:00 AM
buying power has a point of diminishing returns.. in both ability to pruchase goods and services and more importantly in terms of happiness/satisfaction it brings the individual..

Who are you to say what makes others happy?


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: whork on January 11, 2013, 04:13:27 PM
save the lecture for someone who needs it  ;D

you support some level of taxation on everybody for things such as education which you believe to be for the general good of society, therefore you support the robin hood notion of stealing from people in order to serve the greater good. you believe the ends justify the means, at least in regards stealing from people to pay for education.


period.

now, that being said...  17 trillion in debt. how to pay for it? confiscate 1/3 of middle class income over the next 30 years ? or one time wealth confiscation from the country's mega wealthy ?

The last 2 lines is interesting.

I would prefer the last but it would involve violation of human rights.

Therefore it is not a option at this point.


Title: Re: we can balance the budget via revenue alone - economist.com
Post by: bears on January 15, 2013, 09:07:50 AM
there is a great need for a lot of people on this board to take a college level course in tax policy.  my god.  talk about living in a dream world.