Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't we tax the poor the most and tax the rich the least, so everyone is motivated to work their hardest and contribute to the economy?  Shouldn't I be rewarded for hard work and competence rather than laziness and incompetence?  The USA already has the highest corporate tax rate on the planet and we wonder why jobs are going over seas.

My sympathies for your SCHIP problem (which I think this bill is supposed to address), but I have to believe you're being facetious.  And as for your link, I'll admit I was wrong, but your link still illustrates what a bullcrap notion "reduce corporate tax = more jobs" is.  The economic power of the countries in that chart are all over the place compared to the differences in their tax rates, that is, there's very little correlation.  And, the United States got by for decades with considerably higher corporate taxes and upper-bracket taxes without suffering on the world market.  The top-and-up personal income tax was about 90% in Eisenhower's days.

Anyway, back on topic.  The bottom line is the Constitution does not allow for the Federal Govt to force someone to buy something, which is what the Health Bill does.  In fact, for those using Federal Highways as an example, they are Unconstitutional as well.  The states are more than capable of funding those, especially if we did not have state funding going toward the government for federal programs.

You'll notice we didn't fight a civil war over highways or abolish the transit department.  What a shocker, laws are passed that appear to contradict the half-remembered theories underlying the Constitution.  But hey, I'm as curious of where this purchase-mandate is going as anyone.

[G-Flex]

If someone gets paid for not working, why should they get a job? Reduce income taxes. This will leave people with more disposable income, and encourage unemployed people to find jobs.

This is so true.  My kids cannot afford health insurance through my company and I make slightly over the limit on the public SCHIP program.  In order for my kids to qualify for insurance I will have to take several vacations from work so I make less money this year.  In other words, the government is telling me to STOP being employed to get their health coverage.  Something is seriously wrong with government if that's the message they are sending us.

The problem with this is one of calibration. Making less money means you can afford less, so the government helps you out more where you need it, but they draw the lines too sharply and in the wrong places fairly often.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't we tax the poor the most and tax the rich the least, so everyone is motivated to work their hardest and contribute to the economy?  Shouldn't I be rewarded for hard work and competence rather than laziness and incompetence?

You are, because you make more money. That's the incentive. The incentive of making more money is to make more money, even if you get into a higher tax bracket.

Again, if there's ever a situation where having a higher gross income results in you having less, that's an issue with how the system is calibrated and how it scales, not an issue with the concept.

Anyway, back on topic.  The bottom line here is that the Constitution does not allow for the Federal Govt to force someone to buy anything, which is what the Health Bill does.  In fact, for those using Federal Highways as an example, they are Unconstitutional as well.  The states are more than capable of funding those, especially if we did not have state funding going toward the government for federal programs.

You might as well say that every government program that ever affects your life is unconstitutional, then.

[lumin]

My sympathies for your SCHIP problem (which I think this bill is supposed to address), but I have to believe you're being facetious.  And as for your link, I'll admit I was wrong, but your link still illustrates what a bullcrap notion "reduce corporate tax = more jobs" is.  The economic power of the countries in that chart are all over the place compared to the differences in their tax rates, that is, there's very little correlation.  And, the United States got by for decades with considerably higher corporate taxes and upper-bracket taxes without suffering on the world market.  The top-and-up personal income tax was about 90% in Eisenhower's days.

Individual tax rates are among the lowest in the US, but corporate taxes are completely different.  Let's not get confused.  You say we didnt' suffer under those high tax rates.  Who said they didn't?

You'll notice we didn't fight a civil war over highways or abolish the transit department.  What a shocker, laws are passed that appear to contradict the half-remembered theories underlying the Constitution.  But hey, I'm as curious of where this purchase-mandate is going as anyone.

Hey, I'm just saying that the guys in Washington swore an oath to "uphold" the thing.  So whether you think it's garbage or not, it's still the "law" of the land.  If the law means anything to anybody anymore I think we ought to enforce it.

I keep seeing people look past it like it's nothing, but just wait till the tables are turned and some "crazy" right-winger gets the majority of congress and the senate and they start forcing everyone to read the bible every day or get fined.  Just sayin'....the door swings both ways here, but don't come crying to me when that happens. 

[lumin]

You might as well say that every government program that ever affects your life is unconstitutional, then.

That's EXACTLY right.  Bravo!  Facts and laws are stubborn things.

However, just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean the majority of the public doesn't like going along with it.

[Aqizzar]

My sympathies for your SCHIP problem (which I think this bill is supposed to address), but I have to believe you're being facetious.  And as for your link, I'll admit I was wrong, but your link still illustrates what a bullcrap notion "reduce corporate tax = more jobs" is.  The economic power of the countries in that chart are all over the place compared to the differences in their tax rates, that is, there's very little correlation.  And, the United States got by for decades with considerably higher corporate taxes and upper-bracket taxes without suffering on the world market.  The top-and-up personal income tax was about 90% in Eisenhower's days.

Individual tax rates are among the lowest in the US, but corporate taxes are completely different.  Let's not get confused.  You say we didnt' suffer under those high tax rates.  Who said they didn't?

I was referring to "we" in term's of America's economy as a whole.  That is, American industry was booming along with low unemployment even when taxes on businesses (and business owners) were higher.  I know there's a lot more economics involved than just taxes (Europe and Asia and so forth), but I was making the point that higher taxes do not equate depression.  And lower taxes do not equate prosperity - ever noticed that American industry has been on the continuous decline since we started electing politicians who enact laws believing "the government is always the problem"?

I keep seeing people look past it like it's nothing, but just wait till the tables are turned and some "crazy" right-winger gets the majority of congress and the senate and they start forcing everyone to read the bible every day or get fined.  Just sayin'....the door swings both ways here, but don't come crying to me when that happens. 

Ha, beat you to it.  Don't come crying to me now, after we had a President and rubber-stamp Congress who said the executive branch has the authority to nab people off the street without trial by unilaterally declaring them enemy combatants.  Turnabout is fair play and so forth, but at least left-winger dictatorialism nets you cheap healthcare.

[lumin]

Ha, beat you to it.  Don't come crying to me now, after we had a President and rubber-stamp Congress who said the executive branch has the authority to nab people off the street without trial by unilaterally declaring them enemy combatants.  Turnabout is fair play and so forth, but at least left-winger dictatorialism nets you cheap healthcare.

So you admit then that you're happy swinging punches back and forth each election cycle, the Constitution and laws be damned?  God help us if that's the hell we're in for.

[Aqizzar]

Burrrns don't it?  Welcome to the world you created.  I hope you enjoy being a shat on minority of child-killing traitors for four-to-eight years.  Don't worry, you'll learn to tune it out soon enough, and enjoy a counter-cultural revolution in television and net-culture.

[LegoLord]

You might as well say that every government program that ever affects your life is unconstitutional, then.

That's EXACTLY right.  Bravo!  Facts and laws are stubborn things.

If you believe that, then you'd believe the US constitution outlines an anarchy, which only ever works on a small scale in which the people are very selective of it's members.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, it sounds to me like someone hasn't actually read the constitution in quite a while. It's pretty silly to think that government programs shouldn't exist if you've actually read the damn thing.

Article I, Section 8 comes to mind.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Tax the poor the most, tax rich the least.

There's so much wrong with that statement.

First off, reaganomics or trickle down economics has been shown to fail, repeatedly. Not only with Reagan but with George W - oh yeah that economy under Bush was amazing.

The rich do not spend their money or boost the economy that much, they use it to maintain their riches. To stimulate the economy it's best to give breaks to those who spend it. IE: the poor and middle class that need to buy consumer goods.

Also, it's something like the top 10% of American families own more than 40% of it's total wealth. They're not the ones suffering. The funny thing is that conservatives that think they are middle class and that the breaks the Republican s made work for them when really it's for those making millions. I still remember the look of surprise on McCain's face when Obama proved during the debates that his tax plan was better off for a majority of the middle class. McCain was shocked.

[Leafsnail]

Ok, I'm curious.  I'd like an explanation as to how cutting the top rate of tax is going to motivate ANYONE to do ANYTHING else.  I've never heard a decent reason why cutting the tax rate would help.

Let's say that in some fictional country you're earning, I dunno, $200,000 a year, and are taxed 40% a year (for the sake of easy maths, we'll say that covers everything).  This means you take home $120,000 every year.  Now, let's say your rate is halved.  You take home an extra $40,000 a year... but how does that motivate you to work harder?  If anything, it allows you to work a bit less and still earn the same amount.  Sure, you could earn more money if you worked harder, but it was exactly the same under the old system.

I suppose the argument that's trotted out is that it'll allow small businesses to employ people.  Well... using basic economic theory, it won't.  The calculation you should do before employing someone is how much they'll make for you vs how much they'll cost, not how much money you already have in your bank account.

And let's go back to the $200,000 example.  What are you going to do with your extra 40k a year?  Are you going to be able to spend it all on consumer goods and reinvestment?  Generally not.  Generally it'd just be thrown on the pile in your bank account, where it isn't going to be doing the wider economy much good.

As a final point, I propose that, when society has become too unequal, an economic crash is inevitable.  After all, CEOs aren't going to be buying thousands of consumer goods from each others' companies.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, the thing about having more income is that there's an extremely diminishing level of returns in terms of quality of life.

An extra $10,000/yr for a poor person is a hell of a lot more than an extra $10,000/yr for a rich person.

In fact, it diminishes so much that this even works with percentages.
A man who makes $20,000/yr getting a 25% raise means he now gets $25,000/yr. That's a very significant amount for someone of that economic status, who probably has to pinch pennies regularly often.
A man who makes $400,000/yr getting a 25% raise means he now gets $500,000/yr. Yes, that's a lot of money, but... so what? At $400k/yr, it's not like any extra money is actually going to go towards living expenses that make a serious impact. It's going to go towards luxury goods, which the person will surely have a ton of already at that kind of pay rate.

Having two summer homes instead of one costs orders of magnitude more money than, say, eating better or having better dental care, or being able to go out to eat every once in a while or see a movie more often, yet the actual impact on the person's life is much, much less pronounced.

[Jude]

Can I just say I <3 aqizzar in this thread

[RedKing]

Burrrns don't it?  Welcome to the world you created.  I hope you enjoy being a shat on minority of child-killing traitors for four-to-eight years.  Don't worry, you'll learn to tune it out soon enough, and enjoy a counter-cultural revolution in television and net-culture.

Four-to-eight?? Too little ambition...I figure if forty years in the wilderness was good enough for the Jews, it's good enough for the GOP. I don't care if the Democratic Party goes tits-up tomorrow and we're left with an Italian-style democracy with seventeen political parties...as long as the Republican Party, in its current fevered and leprous state, is kept far away from the levers of government for a generation or two.

[Jude]

Unfortunately, instead of doing penance and becoming sensible during their time in the desert, the GOP is reacting by turning into a bunch of whiny children and/or complete fucknuts who actually idolize Glenn Beck. GLENN BECK. I SHIT YOU NOT. He is a hero of the Teabaggers. GLENN BECK. Unreal.