Pelosi: Tax Increases For Those Making UNDER $250,000 On The Table

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

Well you can certainly reasonably argue that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You were talking about consumers and taxes. You were wrong, and I proved it.

I simply stated my opinion to help you understand why people are against it. It's very simple and it has something to do with what you were talking about.

No I wasn't wrong, and you proved nothing. Do you understand what 'proof' is?

You stated that the consumers would not bear the tax burden at all or atleast very little. That's a lie, it depends on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves. This is a fact. You are thereby wrong.

Nice try to deflect with the definition of proof.

So producers would just raise their prices to pass the tax burden on to consumers? Despite the fact that optimal pricing is market determined and raising price beyond that for any reason just further erodes revenue? Not that I'm saying that won't and doesn't already happen considering how many businesses rely on accountants for economic advice.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But all the additional price added on to the cigarettes is removed from the economy, making every other dollar in the economy worth more. I'm still not seeing how this is inflation.

uh, you know those tax dollars go to the .gov and they spend them, right?





maybe you're thinking of dead weight loss?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect. Let me explain it to you in a better way:

Say America's production and property as a whole comes to 100 widgets, and in the whole country we have $200 dollars representing our entire money supply. That means that each widget is worth $2, correct? When the federal government taxes money, it takes it out of circulation. This is why budget deficits lead to inflation, because they have to circulate more money to pay for it. In this case, if the government levies taxes on widgets that end up costing the country $100, we now have the same 100 widgets but only $100 to buy them with. That means that each widget is now worth $1 instead of $2... so your dollars now are twice as valuable as they were before. Government taxation is completely separate from other forms of price increase.

but now only 75 widgets are sold. and there's the deflationary/contractionary pressure. not the tax itself, but the dead weight that happens due to the tax's effect in the market.


pic


and yes, if the .gov were to collect taxes and then not spend to the level of the tax that'd also be deflationary, but that's not the main thrust of the keynesian point.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Just for the record, Obama already levied one of the highest tax increases in history on those making less than $250k when he raised the cigarette tax by more than a dollar-per-pack last Spring.

This would just be more icing on the cake of broken promises.

Fuck Pelosi. She has no business remaining in power, and I can't for the life of me figure out the reason why she's still there... wait, nevermind, it's fucking California. Duh. :|

Only affects people who smoke, and affects those over 250k who smoke as well...so your statement = fail.

I believe his pledge was made for "anyone" making less than 250k per year, and stats indicate that the vast majority of smokers fall into that category.

So the failure is all yours.

We had a thread on this a while back, and your side got destroyed but refused to see it then either. You basically are arguing that if Obama raised the luxury tax on yachts that that would constitute a tax on "anyone" since anyone can buy a yacht (yeah, even pepole making <250k) and be subject to the increased tax. Or people can not buy the yacht and not be subject to the tax. It's an excise tax. When read in context he pledged not to raise payroll taxes, as that's the only thing that makes any sense. Otherwise, one would have to construe his statement as "I will not raise any taxes on anything." Further, the tax was part of the SCHIP legislation which was present in essentially final form during his campaign while he was making his pledge not to raise taxes on <250k families, and he promised to raise the cigarette tax as part of SCHIP to pay for the extended coverage. Yet no one claimed that was a tax on <250k families then, because it would have been dumb, because it's not a payroll tax.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...will-see-any-form-tax/

I think AtomicPlayboy wrote a very succint post explaining the mental gymnastics one would have to go through to reach your conclusion. If I find it I'll respost it.

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
All this takes is a degree of logical processing that people are content to ignore if it gives them an opportunity to be outraged about something (because, let's face it, we all like to be outraged). Let's look at what specifically you said. "People under 250k." Right off the bat, we're making the distinction that this is about how much people earn. The money that people earn is known as income. So I think we can all agree that when Obama said people making under 250k would not pay additional taxes, he was dividing up groups based on income, correct?

Now, logically, since we've already established that he is dividing these groups based on income, you should carry that with you through the remainder of what he says. Groups in this income bracket will not pay higher taxes. That, to me, doesn't suggest that people who make under 250k will be spared from all taxation that they could possibly see between federal, state, county, municipal and city level taxation. That would be a ludicrous claim for any politician to make and any citizen that believed such a claim probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Obama's statement, to me, suggests that people in a certain income bracket will not see increased taxation in terms of taxes that apply to income brackets; income tax. That's not a difficult leap of logic to make; in fact, it's the only leap of logic that could be considered rational considering how many politicians have discussed this exact same issue in every single election in the past 30 years.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You still haven't admitted you were completely wrong about your whole consumer prices won't increase. Taxation removes money from private industry, which is to put it simply bad. Your analysis of government spending is correct, and that is why it's so disagreeable. The government has unlimited government spending and removes money from private industry while still taxing to reduce inflation. If the government really chooses to use these powers/ then you get socialism, it's absolutely a fact.

Well you can certainly reasonably argue that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You were talking about consumers and taxes. You were wrong, and I proved it.

I simply stated my opinion to help you understand why people are against it. It's very simple and it has something to do with what you were talking about.

No I wasn't wrong, and you proved nothing. Do you understand what 'proof' is?

You stated that the consumers would not bear the tax burden at all or atleast very little. That's a lie, it depends on the elasticity of the supply and demand curves. This is a fact. You are thereby wrong.

Nice try to deflect with the definition of proof.

So producers would just raise their prices to pass the tax burden on to consumers? Despite the fact that optimal pricing is market determined and raising price beyond that for any reason just further erodes revenue? Not that I'm saying that won't and doesn't already happen considering how many businesses rely on accountants for economic advice.

Supply and Demand are market determined... and the cross of supply and demand produce the equilibrium price. There is also an "optimal price" that generates the most amount of revenue, and this is where elasticity equals 1. However, while that may increase total revenue, it may also be below profit.

Here's an example: The demand curve for cigarettes is pretty inelastic. People will continue to spend money on it, even though prices go up. In this way even a large price increase only results in a small decrease in quantity. Thereby it's inelastic and most of the tax burden is on the consumers. The producers lose a small amount of quantity for a large increase in price.

If the demand curve was say elastic, the opposite would be true. If this was the case a small price increase would result in a large decrease in quantity. This causes the tax burden to fall on the producers because they could not raise prices very much without a much larger decrease in quantity, resulting in them losing even more revenue.

 

[Mursilis]

This thread is a waste of time - I simply don't see Obama or the Cong. Dems having the courage to actually raise taxes (aka commit political suicide) to any significant degree (that is, actually pay for most of their promises), so it'll just be deficits as far as the eye can see.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
By the way, I wonder which tax you are referring to? The flat tax? Because that by definition is not regressive. It does not tax the poor more heavily in terms of actual money. And i'm not talking about some convoluted scheme that conservatives or democrats have cooked up, but the definition of a flat tax where noone is excluded from the flat percentage tax. I've already had a discussion or marginal utility in that thread so you can refer to that for my opinion.

I'm referring to this: Wiki on Fair Tax

This VAT tax was proposed by pelosi so far as I know, so I don't think you're calling this tax regressive.

According to Pelosi, there'd be income tax reductions for the middle class (and I assume the lower class) to offset any VAT. Since I have no evidence to the contradict Pelosi's statement, this VAT would be a net tax increase only for the rich, and therefore would in fact be PROGRESSIVE.

Oh btw condescension works best if it isn't so blatant. More fun to make fun of them without them recognizing it. Kinda like Colbert.

Okay, okay. I'll work on my subtlety. Can you give me an example (a rephrasing of something I wrote) that you think is an improvement?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

According to Pelosi

That's where you lose most people.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

According to Pelosi

That's where you lose most people.

The righties hate her because she doesn't bow down to their thug politics.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

According to Pelosi

That's where you lose most people.

The righties hate her because she doesn't bow down to their thug politics.

That may be. I'm not a "tie", but I do know that I don't trust a politician who talks about implementing a tax but says it will be a break. Chances are that I've been around longer than most puppies here and I've never seen that happen. There is too much in her agenda which costs a ton of money. She can't afford to do anything but raise taxes and a VAT is one of the most insidious. It's perfect.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
So where does this money come from? The government accepts tax payments in dollars, so where do you get a dollar to spend? The US government is the sole entity with the authority to create dollars, so how does one get a dollar? (the federal reserve acts with the government's authority, but it is still acting as an agent of the government) The government can't take your $100 without having created $100 worth of currency first.

The government most certainly does create money when it borrows, because that borrowing is not backed by any existing asset, nor need it be. In fact the issuance of securities is one of the primary ways to inject more money into our system. The government creates demand for its currency through taxation, thus ensuring that the money injected is actually useful. Now in this case we're just arguing different theories of money creation, and I'm not really interested in doing that. (it's most certainly not my area of expertise.) Regardless, your flat statement that one theory is right and the other wrong is an overstatement at a minimum.

So while I'm not really trying to get into economics arguments that I'm not particularly well equipped for, my only point originally was that taxation removes money from the system. If someone disagrees with that, I would like to know why.

You're asserting that the Fed is a government entity, and the two are acting as one entity in the economic environment. Where did the government get money before the creation of the central banking system? The Fed is a separate system from the government, and the government borrows money from the Fed at an interest rate. The Fed controls the money supply, but it is separate from the government entities that borrow and spend the money.

 

[piasabird]

Higher taxes mean less spending. Just what the economy needs.

 

[piasabird]

One of the reasons for the revolutionary war was taxation without representation. Does Pelosi represent working people or the power hungry elite? You decide. Just start firing government employees.

 

[piasabird]

So what is being taxed that we are adding value to? This is term that use to refer to work being done overseas from raw materials made in the USA like the garment industry.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: shira
According to Pelosi, there'd be income tax reductions for the middle class (and I assume the lower class) to offset any VAT. Since I have no evidence to the contradict Pelosi's statement, this VAT would be a net tax increase only for the rich, and therefore would in fact be PROGRESSIVE.

i guarantee you the VAT paid by middle class families with multiple kids and a relatively recent home purchase would not be offset by an income tax reduction. nearly half the country doesn't pay income tax already, how much more of a reduction can there be?

as a (relatively) young single person without my own house i should probably be for this as it's really people like me who are getting the shaft on income taxes.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: shira
I'm a little confused here: Conservatives for years have been pushing their so-called "Fair Tax," which is essentially a VAT of 30%. To be fair, conservatives want their "Fair Tax" in place of the income tax, which they'd do away with. But if I were a conservative, I'd be behind Pelosi's proposal as a first step toward a "Fair Tax" system.

But what do we see in this thread: Conservative posters are opposed, presumably because its origin is a liberal politician.

So tell me, conservatives, how come a "Fair Tax" won't ruin our economy, yet a "VAT" will be fatal?

The answer is bolded. Cons don't think Dems would ever swicth over to a sales tax only system. Happy Wednesday.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
..the government destroys money by taxing.

Hey guys, I think we're losing sight of the forrest for the trees...


Eski, you seem to want to view "inflation" in strictly in terms of monetary supply.

Inflation generally defined as "The overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy" can be caused by things other than the money supply. The huge increase in fuel prices a year or so ago caused inflation in consumer goods prices and was not a monetary supply thing - for us consumers this is inflation whether or not it meets some academic definition. So lets agree not to quiblle over terminology.

Similarly, a VAT will cause a price increase in goods and is not necessarily a monetary supply issue. I fail to see how there can be any disagreement that a VAT will drive a price increase.

Likewise, the assertion that any VAT would negatively impact the economy vis-a-vis less consumer spending (money drained off by VAT) seems to be something we can agree upon - seems to me your statement that taxes "destroys" is essentially the same thing.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: NeoV
here we go - another 'hypothetical' evil action the dems are planning - remember when they were going to - ............insert horrific sounding Democratic plan here..........

Have any of these things actually made it past this fear mongering stage? Get some new tactics, this is getting boring

This.

I've had so many absolute FUD Emails passed to me where I just /facepalm when I read them.

/facepalm X2

You guys are priceless. How the h3ll is this merely a "hypothetical" when a powerful Dem leader is running around publically speaking about it? Who do you think you're kidding?

I seem to recall a lot posts here by Dems (and even some news articles or blogs) about how GWB was going to pull some stunt to remain in office after his term expired - now that was hypothetical. Had he spoke of doing so - that would not have been hypothetical (similarly to how this isn't)

Fern

 

[DesiPower]

why don't you start paying more taxes to begin with Miss Nancy C Pelosi? Why don't you increase taxes on prostitution?!?!?!

 

[thegimp03]

"The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans."

Uhhh, really? She doesn't think companies will raise prices on their goods to pay for this VAT? Wow! What the fuck is she on?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
"The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans."

Uhhh, really? She doesn't think companies will raise prices on their goods to pay for this VAT? Wow! What the fuck is she on?

Funny. The Democrats just voted to keep a tax cheat on the committee that writes tax codes TODAY.

He should not be in congress because he was either too stupid to realize his net value was 2x that of what he reported or should not be in congress because he thinks he is above the law.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
"The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans."

Uhhh, really? She doesn't think companies will raise prices on their goods to pay for this VAT? Wow! What the fuck is she on?

Yes.

VAT is, by it's very nature, a "pass-through tax" borne by the final purchaser (consumer) of goods. Same as sales tax. Any talk of companies not raising prices, or we consumers not paying more for any given product, is dead wrong.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: NeoV
here we go - another 'hypothetical' evil action the dems are planning - remember when they were going to - ............insert horrific sounding Democratic plan here..........

Have any of these things actually made it past this fear mongering stage? Get some new tactics, this is getting boring

This.

I've had so many absolute FUD Emails passed to me where I just /facepalm when I read them.

/facepalm X2

You guys are priceless. How the h3ll is this merely a "hypothetical" when a powerful Dem leader is running around publically speaking about it? Who do you think you're kidding?

I seem to recall a lot posts here by Dems (and even some news articles or blogs) about how GWB was going to pull some stunt to remain in office after his term expired - now that was hypothetical. Had he spoke of doing so - that would not have been hypothetical (similarly to how this isn't)

Fern

It is October, maybe some of the October surprise threads need to be bumped? It'd be fun to see which the correlation of who was posting in those threads and who now accuse others of FUD?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DesiPower
why don't you start paying more taxes to begin with Miss Nancy C Pelosi? Why don't you increase taxes on prostitution?!?!?!

She can not legislate taxes that apply to within a state only.
Now if there was interstate commerce ...

Such as at the SuperBowl where they are imported with every limo.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wait- you are saying that if I have to pay 5k more I'm not paying 5k more? I've just had money taken out of my pocket and didn't at the same time? Is this Schroetengers cat thing?

No, taxes levied by the government are not the same as businesses raising their prices.

Uh, youre fail. To the consumer, its the same.

To the consumer of that specific product it is the same, but it is not inflation. Technically every time you pay a dollar in taxes everyone else's dollars become more valuable. Taxes exert DEFLATIONARY pressure, not INFLATIONARY pressure as they take money out of circulation.

Huh? Your statement(s) only hold water if you assume that every dollar taken in by the government is permanently removed from the economy as a whole, that it is not put back in the economy. That simply isn't the case. Every tax dollar is in fact spent right back into the economy by the government. The end result of a VAT or sales tax is in fact strong inflationary pressure. This pressure can be offset because the economy as a whole slows down when taxes are raised significantly, so overall inflation in the short run might not be as significant, but in the long run, it's most definitely tax-driven inflation.