Obama Announces Re-election Bid

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by tw

But anything you might say is not the point.

So.... You discount prima facie anything lookout might ever say? You might want to clarify your meaning.

Also you seem to have changed your argument. Earlier it seemed that you were arguing against R&D cuts. Now you seem to be saying that such cuts would not be possible. Are you changing course, or is that a pile-on?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Ah. there's the rub.

Proposals like the flat tax, Ryan's budget or yours assume they will result in more money coming into the treasury.

But they are based on economic growth assumptions that the incentives will be so great for consumers and businesses to spend and invest that the economy will grow faster and higher than any time in recent history, at rates of 7% or more annually. I think we've only seen a 7% growth rate once in the last 30-40 years.

Reagan's former budget director recently described it as Alice in Wonderland economic assumptions.

Oh and everyone does pay something into the federal treasury, in the form of federal excise taxes (eg gas tax) and payroll taxes (FICA), in which those with wages under $100K pay a higher percentage than those over $100K (since payroll taxes are only on the first $100K).

Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.

Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Either you believe the very wealthy are paying taxes at 35%+ right now or you don't. If you don't then by eliminating the loopholes the treasury must receive more money. If they are paying 35% I'd like to quit hearing about the very wealthy paying nothing.

Personally, I believe the very wealthy pay significantly less than 35% because they have shelters and loopholes. Therefore, I believe 1% on every dollar up to $X0,000 and 25/35/39?% on every dollar over MUST generate more income than 0%on the first $40-50K and Less than 39 on everything over, regardless of the growth rate of the economy.

The real tax rate (all state/federal taxes) for the top taxpayers is in the low 30% range....the lowest they have paid in 50 years.

I've not seen any example where your math works in real dollars in a real economy.

[Pete Zicato]

How about corporations, lookout?

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Wtf has eliminating paper money got to do with anything?

No troops can be brought home if something so simple - elimiante the paper dollar bill - cannot even be done. Why is that so difficult? Why do extremists want more than 20,000 American soldiers stationed permanently in Iraq? They cannot even eliminate the dollar bill. That says why other more difficult solutions cannot happen.

And yes, also eliminate the penny. That is also obvious. It is it not obvious to anyone, then that person could not see the real problem. If the penny cannot be eliminated, then how will any 'power that be' have enough foresight to bring any soldiers home? Cannot happen. A problem directly traceable to a Congress with too many extremists and not enough moderates.

IOW, if Congress had moderates, then obscene spending on a penny and paper dollar bill would be eliminated immediately. Examples of why the problems are not being addressed. And why some American want 20,000 American troops permenantly stations in Iraq.

I really do not see why the bigger picture is so difficult?

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by tw

No troops can be brought home if something so simple - elimiante the paper dollar bill - cannot even be done.

That's got to be the dumbest straw-man argument I've seen, tw. Do you also say, "They put a man on the moon. Why can't they ..."?

Same thing.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

So.... You discount prima facie anything lookout might ever say? You might want to clarify your meaning.

I am trying to identify the real problem. What DanaC only calls a tangent. To step back and see why these details are not solvable, often ignored, and lost in the bickering.

We have a $trillion problem. Our Congress goes to war over a misguided, insignificant, and trivial $38 billion. And cannot even discuss eliminating the paper dollar bill. That (and not those details) are the bigger problem. And that includes a military that is twice the size of what it should be due to hype and fear.

I had a feeling that sentence would not be understood.

[Undertoad]

Paper money's status will be moot soon enough, as the majority converts to card and electronic payments for everything in the next ten years.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Paper money's status will be moot soon enough, as the majority converts to card and electronic payments for everything in the next ten years.

But in the meantime, we should put Reagan's image on the penny instead of the dime (as Republicans proposed several years ago, replace that socialist FDR) and I'll give all my jars of pennies to a socialist cause.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Same thing.

I can appreciate your logic. But the problem remains spending money we do not have. Not about solving impossible social problems (where your quoted argument was often found). The 'we can put a man on the moon... " argument justified spending on other things that were not solvable by government. Our government spending problems are solvable only when we address obvious and simple government inaction first. Like the silly paper dollar bill and the penny.

Meanwhile, if people who put 'a man on the moon' were the 'powers that be', then even the paper dollar bill, the penny, and other spending problems would be solved. The problem is a Congress so full of extremists. So extremist as to not even put a man back on the moon - the foolish Constellation and Aries program.

How's that for irony.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

How about corporations, lookout?

There has to be a balance there and I couldn't begin to tell you what the percentage should be. (as I've also tried to be clear I don't know what the percentage should be for personal income)

I believe we should cut out sweetheart deals that pay companies to do business for a period of time while the profits go elsewhere. I also believe we have to be sensitive to the fact if we tax to heavily companies relocate their operations outside the country. Like the wealthy, businesses spend billions on armies of accoutants trying to milk the tax code for every penny. If the tax code is essentially (revenue - capital expenses) x X% = tax obligation I believe the companies will spend more in taxes but less in tax avoidance. There is a huge cost to tax avoidance and the regulation and audits are hugely expensive. I believe there is a point in there somewhere where the public coffers and the corporations would benefit. (just as I've said about the wealthy)

For me the discussion is less about the percentage charged than it is the game that is played. The elected, the IRS, and the accounting industry have a vested interest in keeping things complex. If we don't understand it then we need them. They get to keep using taxes to stir the idea of class warfare. We remain divided and they remain in Washington in their castles.

***
All that combined with massive cuts in spending (not for the sake of just accounting games but for the sake of acknowledging the government can't keep printing money and they can't keep funding every little boondoggle and pork barrel project someone wants) are needed if we are to keep this country afloat for years to come. A family can't survive for long by spending more than they make and neither can a country.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

For the record, Spexx - this is the type of post that interferes with discussion on the issues.

Dude, what do expect when you post something like:

Originally Posted by lookout123

Would you care to address that or do you want to educate us on the 70 hp/L engine for awhile?

Again: the above statement is the kind of comment that starts a flame war. It's your style. You can't seem to help yourself. Someone posts some benign comment, and there you are with a snide

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'll wait.

You recently pointed the finger at me for causing the problems. Look at yourself.

[Undertoad]

Corporate tax loopholes for political $upport is driving politics the wrong way. As long as we're throwing shit out there, let's have zero corporate tax, zero personal income tax, and 20% federal sales tax or VAT. Leave in place capital gains, as a form of VAT on investments.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

For me the discussion is less about the percentage charged than it is the game that is played. The elected, the IRS, and the accounting industry have a vested interest in keeping things complex.

That is a problem. However it is not the IRS that makes things complex. IRS only execute the laws. Laws that create 10,000+ pages. Nobody in the IRS can understand it. Congressmen cannot even understand their own taxes.

No different than a GM executive who does not even have a driver's license.

It is no longer a game when men who make the rules must also live by the consequences. Currently rule makers do not. Making them do their own taxes by hand would not solve the problem. But let them know how bad things really are.

Iacocca said he could make Chrysler more profitable by turning it into a finance company. Playing finance games was more profitable than being productive. Today it is even worse. Games created by Congress to both with spending and taxes. So, yes, that really is the problem. Not the taxes or spending. The people who continue to make these problems and who cannot do anything to solve them. People who do not even understand the consequences of their actions.

Spending and tax laws are not the problem. Those are only symptoms. We have a government now dominated by extremists. That means solutions - even eliminating a paper dollar bill - are almost impossible.

Who lost most in the last Congressional elections? Moderates lost by a landslide. Therein lays the loss of our best problem solvers.

[tw]

What they pay according to the Economist of 30 April 2011.
General Electric 3.6%
Mereck 12.5%
HP 20%
Johnson and Johnson 22%

Propaganda says corporations pay 35%. They forget the complex nonsense (games) that lookout123 discusses. And the reason why many in the Fortune 100 pay no taxes.

These are not problems. These are only symptoms of the problem. The existence of the penny and paper dollar bill are also symptoms.