Honest to christ, I can't figure how a middle class tax cut became Marxism. And if cutting taxes for the middle class is redistributing the wealth, then why isn't cutting taxes for the rich the same thing? At any rate, I thought conservatives didn't like taxes--a tax cut seems like an odd thing for them to take a stand against.

By the way, Johnny, isn't it true that you've been linked to an organization called The Internets, which provides supports for known pornographers and terrorists?

Do you, or do you not, believe, sir, that a question could be framed in such a leading, front-loaded way as to make a greater impression on the viewer than any reply that could be given? Do you think tossing in "Marxist" really gets us closer to more accurate information about the Democratic platform, or biases us against Biden before he answers? And Johnny, if you deny or disagree with any of the above, it only proves my point more. Have fun responding.

Decadence wrote:

Post-Script:  It doesn't help that I had just read the Ptah neutering thread prior to this one.

Well right there was your first mistake my dear man. I always top off the morning first with a little nip before opening any high street thread. You have to take a pre-emptive approach to the pounding headache this place gives you. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Pip pip

ah297900 wrote:

Honest to christ, I can't figure how a middle class tax cut became Marxism. And if cutting taxes for the middle class is redistributing the wealth, then why isn't cutting taxes for the rich the same thing? At any rate, I thought conservatives didn't like taxes--a tax cut seems like an odd thing for them to take a stand against.

By the way, Johnny, isn't it true that you've been linked to an organization called The Internets, which provides supports for known pornographers and terrorists?

Do you, or do you not, believe, sir, that a question could be framed in such a leading, front-loaded way as to make a greater impression on the viewer than any reply that could be given? Do you think tossing in "Marxist" really gets us closer to more accurate information about the Democratic platform, or biases us against Biden before he answers? And Johnny, if you deny or disagree with any of the above, it only proves my point more. Have fun responding.

Under what logic should someone making over 250,000 pay a higher percent of their wages in taxes than someone making 100,000?

Anytime ANYONE pays a higher percentage in taxes because they are successful, "redistribution of wealth" is happening.

ah297900 wrote:

By the way, Johnny, isn't it true that you've been linked to an organization called The Internets, which provides supports for known pornographers and terrorists?

Do you, or do you not, believe, sir, that a question could be framed in such a leading, front-loaded way as to make a greater impression on the viewer than any reply that could be given? Do you think tossing in "Marxist" really gets us closer to more accurate information about the Democratic platform, or biases us against Biden before he answers? And Johnny, if you deny or disagree with any of the above, it only proves my point more. Have fun responding.

Sirs, I have not now nor have I ever been anywhere on the internets that wasn't linked by The National Review Online. But I can name names of those who have.

ptah13 wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

Honest to christ, I can't figure how a middle class tax cut became Marxism. And if cutting taxes for the middle class is redistributing the wealth, then why isn't cutting taxes for the rich the same thing? At any rate, I thought conservatives didn't like taxes--a tax cut seems like an odd thing for them to take a stand against.

By the way, Johnny, isn't it true that you've been linked to an organization called The Internets, which provides supports for known pornographers and terrorists?

Do you, or do you not, believe, sir, that a question could be framed in such a leading, front-loaded way as to make a greater impression on the viewer than any reply that could be given? Do you think tossing in "Marxist" really gets us closer to more accurate information about the Democratic platform, or biases us against Biden before he answers? And Johnny, if you deny or disagree with any of the above, it only proves my point more. Have fun responding.

Under what logic should someone making over 250,000 pay a higher percent of their wages in taxes than someone making 100,000?

Anytime ANYONE pays a higher percentage in taxes because they are successful, "redistribution of wealth" is happening.

The original point was not about the logic of the tax code. The point is that we've had a progressive income tax scheme since 1913. Obama isn't doing anything remotely new.

"Under what logic should someone making over 250,000 pay a higher percent of their wages in taxes than someone making 100,000? " Speaking to the logic--we have to pay for things (wars, roads, etc.), right? If the money comes from the rich, they lose out on a second yacht. If the money comes from me, I lose out on meat in my diet. The rich can fend for themselves without my help--I'm going to vote for the guy who's going to lower my taxes.


"The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
   --Noted Marxist and anti-American agitator, Theodore Roosevelt

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

back in the glory days of Reagen

The infamous Voodoo Economics?

tojo2000 wrote:

You're missing the most important part of selling this to the middle class.  You see, Joe the Plumber was nowhere near being the rich business owner that he wanted to be, but the idea of a progressive tax system offends him because he's allowed himself to indulge in the delusion that the riches are his, he just hasn't got them yet.  He's fine with paying more taxes now so that when he breaks through and becomes one of the rich he'll be able to keep it all, because he'll have earned the right to be one of the rich through his hard work.

Stepping back and looking at it objectively, of course, the idea is patently absurd, bordering on paint-huffing lunacy.  This is the dream that many people are sold, however.  Rich people are just regular people like you that worked hard and have now earned the right to be rich.  Don't screw it up for them or you'll just be making it harder on yourself when you finally make the big time.

I have a family member who drives a delivery van; the household grosses about 70k/year. He's not voting for Obama because of that very reason, believing that soon he'll be pulling in $20,000 a month. Makes no fucking sense. Ironically, he's not interested in health care reform because he's not sick right now.

Taint wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Under what logic should someone making over 250,000 pay a higher percent of their wages in taxes than someone making 100,000?

Anytime ANYONE pays a higher percentage in taxes because they are successful, "redistribution of wealth" is happening.

For someone earning 40K a year, 10 percent (to pull a number out of the air) of their income is significantly more than than 10 percent for someone earning 250K a year. I realize this is a simplistic formula, but progressive taxes are far more fair to the general population. Earn lots of money; be as financially successful as you can, but don't expect me to subsidize it.

If I may put a finer point on it: taking 20% of $20,000 is taxing what that person spends on necessities; taking 20% of $500,000 is taxing what that person spends on luxuries. I don't make a lot of money, and I find that I really need the necessities of life.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Better late then never.

Finally the biased "in the tank" mainstream media has the guts to ask the tough questions.

Link to YouTube page

For some reason, I have this disturbing vision of Ptah masturbating furiously to that interview. Sorry for the visual.

hedgewizard wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Stepping back and looking at it objectively, of course, the idea is patently absurd, bordering on paint-huffing lunacy.  This is the dream that many people are sold, however.  Rich people are just regular people like you that worked hard and have now earned the right to be rich.  Don't screw it up for them or you'll just be making it harder on yourself when you finally make the big time.

It's not absurd to believe you can wind up with a decent amount of money by being careful with your finances. 

http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next- … 223&sr=8-1

Buying lottery tickets and borrowing are absurd. 
I'll agree that our federal income tax is out of hand.  Whether it stays progressive or becomes flat is not as important to me as simplification.  If it was easy to figure out and took ten minutes to do your taxes, more people would believe it was fair.

You're right, it isn't.  What's absurd is backing tax policies that are contrary to your own interests in the hope that someday when you become rich you, too, can be a beneficiary.  The lottery is actually a good analogy.

Also, having a lot of money and making a lot of money are not the same thing.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Emmeran wrote:

The lunacy of this tax argument is that income tax is irrelevant to the wealthy.  My company is a good example, of the 70 employees at least 5 have eight figure incomes and another 10 have 7 figure incomes; 20 more are deep into the six figures.  However none of those people have salary's above $200k.

The primary income they receive is capital gains and carried interest which of coure they are currently taxed at the Bush tax cut rate of 15%.  Meaning simply that you, me and everyone else here pays a far greater portion of our income in taxes than Gates, Buffet or Bush, as much as 20% less as a matter of fact.

This is why you don't hear anyone who makes $250k complaining about Obama's statement or tax plans; those complaints are strictly the rantings of the right wing faithful.

Not disagreeing with anything you say but, if history is any guide, a Democratic congress will turn the $250,000 limit into a $25,000 limit.  Obama is going to have trouble reigning in the rampant socialism of his own party.

Taint wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

Not disagreeing with anything you say but, if history is any guide, a Democratic congress will turn the $250,000 limit into a $25,000 limit.  Obama is going to have trouble reigning in the rampant socialism of his own party.

OK, just for fun, back up both of those statements with plausible arguments.

No, Taint, this is a fun game!  Now my turn:

If history is any guide, if the Republicans win, they will drink the blood of innocent newborn babies and rape my mother.

tojo2000 wrote:

You're right, it isn't.  What's absurd is backing tax policies that are contrary to your own interests in the hope that someday when you become rich you, too, can be a beneficiary.  The lottery is actually a good analogy.

Also, having a lot of money and making a lot of money are not the same thing.

Having a lot of money is better than making a lot of money.  It's possible to get to the having a lot faster if you make a lot.  However it's only a little more likely.

ah297900 wrote:

Taint wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Under what logic should someone making over 250,000 pay a higher percent of their wages in taxes than someone making 100,000?

Anytime ANYONE pays a higher percentage in taxes because they are successful, "redistribution of wealth" is happening.

For someone earning 40K a year, 10 percent (to pull a number out of the air) of their income is significantly more than than 10 percent for someone earning 250K a year. I realize this is a simplistic formula, but progressive taxes are far more fair to the general population. Earn lots of money; be as financially successful as you can, but don't expect me to subsidize it.

If I may put a finer point on it: taking 20% of $20,000 is taxing what that person spends on necessities; taking 20% of $500,000 is taxing what that person spends on luxuries. I don't make a lot of money, and I find that I really need the necessities of life.

You all are forgetting a basic premiss of our progressive tax structure. The rich already pay the same tax rate as the middle class on the portion of their income that falls into the middle class tax bracket. In general it is also built in that they get to take the same portion of tax breaks as the middle class on this first portion of their income. Though there have been for some a disparity with the Alt Min tax resulting in much creative juggling of calculations.

Unfortunately as is noted above the classification of various types of income with vastly different rates has been corrupted to result in a system that is antithetical to a progressive tax stucture. For the right to cry that the current system or even Obama's proposed changes are unfair to the upper class is blatant obsfucation of the reality of how the rich are benefitting under the current system. Even Obama's plan does very, very little to lessen the disparity of how the upper class pay less then middle.

I have watched the capital gains rates go through massive restructuring in my lifetime. I am quite surprised that it has ended up to be at its historical low with no thought given to how it has impacted proportional tax disparity between the wealthy and the middle class.

I remember how many of my friends started recieving the majority of their income in stock options. Many forget the reason this became so common. It was pure genius how the corporate accountants had figured out that by paying employees in such instruments they could reclassify pay as a diferent type of expense and deduct more from the taxes the company owed.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-10-27 00:47:49)

Marxism also has merits.  Don't forget about uncle Karl

Phreddy - You are very easily shocked.  Much of our domestic politics since about 1932 has revolved around the question of how much redistribution we should have.  The debate about whether or not there should be any redistribution was long ago settled.  He characteizes the Warren court accurately as never having been so radical as to impose, from the bench, economic redistribution.  I understand his comments about the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement as an argument that the movement generally failed to address economic inequality as it focused on litigation strategy, i.e., an field in which the courts were not going to play. 

He answers the question as to how it would best be accomplished by saying it should be done through the legislature.  That shocks you?  I thought even Scalia would agree with the latter proposition.

Ah Phreddy... so how is your brutalized Poster Child of The Scarlet Letter Doing?  Has she related anymore Negro Tales that you want to promulgate?  I am sitting here in rapt attention!

phreddy wrote:

Our tax codes have always taken more from the wealthy to fund our country's budget.  Actual redistribution goes beyond that to making payments to those who do not earn them.  I fear that an unfettered tribunal of the White House, and both branches of Congress will simply run amok and use redistribution to buy votes to retain power.  There are diminishing returns to this policy.  Employers and investors back off and truely rich people (the 5% in Obama's target area) will redirect their investments to avoid taxes, causing the term "rich" to be applied to ever lowering incomes.  The middle class will always get fucked in these deals.

It's a serious jump to say that he's proposing taking money from the rich and just cutting checks to poor people. I could see how, from the point of view of somebody who is predisposed to hate everything he says, one could read those comments like that. It's more likely, though, that he's just talking about structuring the progressive tax code to strengthen the middle class. For the past hundred years, the health of the middle class has been the driver/indicator of the health of the nation as a whole.

The idea that taxing rich people makes them middle class and makes middle class become redefined as rich has no basis in history. It also assumes tax loopholes as a constant. Lowering the poverty line, however, to lift people out of poverty is something we tried a few years ago.

I hate to agree with you on anything Ph, but you are generally correct about the AMT.  Year by year, it is becoming the most prominent featuyre of income taxation.  Last year it affected a pretty hefty swath of the middle class (over $115,000 in income for single filers, $150,000 for married filing jointly).  The dems pushed a bill last year that would have raised the threshold for AMT to $250,000 per couple.  To satisfy "pay-go" they would have raised taxes on incomes over $500,000.  I believe the repubs opposed it because of the tax increase side of it, and it failed.

One of the perverse effects of the Bush-era tax cuts is that the AMT problem was greatly exacerbated.  Just check out the tables in this link.  One interesting argument I've heard is that the AMT is much like the "flat tax" of Forbes's wet dreams, with high exemptions (so that the less-well off are not taxed) and very few deductions, exclusions or credits.

phreddy wrote:

Obama, in his own words.  In a 2001 radio interview he laments that the Supreme Court has not gone against the wisdom of the founding fathers and redistributed the wealth.  He actually says this in the interview.  He goes on to say it will best be accomplished through legislation and administrative order.  This is the real Obama.

Link to YouTube page

REAL OBAMA?  You think the man hasn't revised his opinions since 1991?  Back in 1991 I was much more liberal than I am today.

And don't get me started on McCain and his shifting opinions.  He voted with Bush 90% of the time but wants us to think that he's different?  He started out his campaign a different person than he is today, and that was just a year ago.

Trying to hold Obama to something that he said as academic discourse in 1991 is patently ridiculous, especially when you disregard McCain's shifting opinions.

phreddy wrote:

Headkicker wrote:

Trying to hold Obama to something that he said as academic discourse in 1991 is patently ridiculous, especially when you disregard McCain's shifting opinions.

This was a 2001 interview.

My bad.  The point remains the same, though.  It was said as academic discourse.  He was still a lecturer at U of Chicago Law School at the time, which is known for being theory-oriented.

Fled wrote:

Doesn't matter.  What he said was pretty mainstream.  You just have to think about what he is saying.  Redistribution by government is not just by tax policy, or welfare policy.  It includes education plolicy, non-discrimination policy, infrastructure, many grants, afgricultural policy, military recruitment -- you name it.   And he was saying it must be done through the legislature.

Exactly.  It was an academic discussion.

Man, will I be glad when the election is over.  I wish I was one of those chicks that completely ignored politics.  I'd probably be a lot happier.