Personal property taxes on my business due by September 14th and

[werepossum]

This statement appears to contradict itself. Progressive taxation by definition takes more from some than others. Since the government provides public goods, you will always have some people enjoying more goods than they put in, thus having money from another 'gifted' to them.

To a degree. I have no huge problem with direct gifts from tax dollars to those who are below the poverty line, to bring them up to that level. But when as the McPaper story showed one can "charity" one's way to more disposable income than someone making far above the poverty level, our system is screwed.

The biggest problem in my eyes is that we can't actually sort out a tax system in a theoretical world that isn't instantly turned around as "class warfare" or "evil conservatives don't care about anyone" or "evil liberals want to take from hard workers for lazy people." In my mind (as some who grew up in a reasonably well off family and fully intends to be quite well off by the time I retire, though I'm not now) the rewards of being rich enough to pay high rates are plenty, and always will be. Material goods are great, but you really only need so much of them. In an article I was reading about Ann Romney convincing Mitt to help with the Olympics, she made basically the same point - he'd made more money than he could ever use already, so did he want to continue making money for its own sake for the rest of his life, or find something to do with his time and talent for the greater good?

Society definitely needs to have big rewards at the top to encourage hard work and some risk taking, but there were obscenely rich people back when our top tax bracket was above 90% (during a period of some of our greatest economic growth, incidentally) and estate taxes were much, much higher. People still invested their money when capital gains taxes were much, much higher, because of course they will, it's still more money just for sacrificing a little liquidity.

Meanwhile there's crushing poverty in this country, despite our enormous collective wealth, and some of the worst health care stats outside of the third world. Cuba has better infant mortality and lifespan stats than us. Despite growing productivity and much shorter vacation hours than elsewhere in the world, our workers have seen a DECREASE in their real wages for decades now, with all of the economic growth going to the top wage earners. Something's wrong with the system - people doing a better job with better technology in a growing economy shouldn't be continually worse off. If there was some kind of non-governmental solution to these systematic issues, I'd love to hear them, because I definitely agree even progressive taxation is an awkward tool that will always have some unhappy consequences even when it works. There was no "free market solution" to the monopoly trusts of the 19th century, though, and I'm not sure there's one for our growing economic problems today.

I agree with much of that, but there is no crushing poverty in this country except for some of the homeless who are too addicted, proud or dumb to get benefits or to effectively panhandle. Check out Asia or Africa or south of our border for true crushing poverty; we have poverty in hundred dollar tennis shoes, poverty that is morbidly obese rather than perpetually hungry and malnourished. Poverty that in many, many cases is comfortable not working because their government largess is sufficient to discourage them from seeking work. (Don't believe Cuban infant mortality stats by the way; most of the world records severely premature and/or handicapped babies as still births. We do not.)

I too don't believe there is a free market solution to our dropping wages. A combination of losing manufacturing jobs and importing millions of cheap illegal workers has drastically dropped the value of our labor. We MAY get some relief when Chinese wages together with shipping costs approach parity. Then again, maybe not, as we import goods from many, many countries besides China. While free trade unarguably increases a society's net wealth over the short haul, I think it also lowers a wealthy society's net wealth while raising a poor society's net wealth over the long haul. And the obvious fears here are three - first, that we will owe so much when that rough parity is reached that we'll be unable to pull ourselves back up; second, that we'll have no commons (severely reduced societal manufacturing expertise) when that rough parity is reached that we'll be unable to effectively compete; and third, that the wealthiest will be able to concentrate wealth and power to the extent they can merely move production from one poor nation to another, thus keeping a sufficient number of poor nations to prevent us from even reaching parity and re-valuing our labor.

I'm personally pretty curious on an intellectual level to see what will happen if Obama wins another term. I mean the right has whipped itself up into such a frenzy over Obama, thinking that he's a Muslim infiltrator commie nazi and all. What will that say about America if they re-elect him?

At least liberals have a choice to flee to Europe or Canada or something. American conservatives already live in the furthest right wing industrialized country on Earth by a wide margin. What will they do?

About the same as when Bush was re-elected, I'd say. Unless you want to posit that Muslim infiltrator commie Nazi is somehow more severe than Adolph Satan Hitler.

 

[fskimospy]

To a degree. I have no huge problem with direct gifts from tax dollars to those who are below the poverty line, to bring them up to that level. But when as the McPaper story showed one can "charity" one's way to more disposable income than someone making far above the poverty level, our system is screwed.

And this paragraph right here is your whole problem in a nutshell. You seem to be very reasonable in an abstract sense when it comes to policy, but you are easily taken in by things that are wildly false.

You realize that the 'story' where someone making $60k had less disposable income than someone making $14k or so was completely false, reliant on not only wrong numbers but on an entirely wrong understanding of how our tax code works, how benefits work, etc, right? We had a whole thread on it, one that I think you might have participated in.

So really you should be happy, it turns out our system isn't screwed after all as your example was fake.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

And can we not use 3rd world countries as measuring sticks?

 

[Matt1970]

The biggest problem in my eyes is that we can't actually sort out a tax system in a theoretical world that isn't instantly turned around as "class warfare" or "evil conservatives don't care about anyone" or "evil liberals want to take from hard workers for lazy people." In my mind (as some who grew up in a reasonably well off family and fully intends to be quite well off by the time I retire, though I'm not now) the rewards of being rich enough to pay high rates are plenty, and always will be. Material goods are great, but you really only need so much of them. In an article I was reading about Ann Romney convincing Mitt to help with the Olympics, she made basically the same point - he'd made more money than he could ever use already, so did he want to continue making money for its own sake for the rest of his life, or find something to do with his time and talent for the greater good?

Society definitely needs to have big rewards at the top to encourage hard work and some risk taking, but there were obscenely rich people back when our top tax bracket was above 90% (during a period of some of our greatest economic growth, incidentally) and estate taxes were much, much higher. People still invested their money when capital gains taxes were much, much higher, because of course they will, it's still more money just for sacrificing a little liquidity.

Meanwhile there's crushing poverty in this country, despite our enormous collective wealth, and some of the worst health care stats outside of the third world. Cuba has better infant mortality and lifespan stats than us. Despite growing productivity and much shorter vacation hours than elsewhere in the world, our workers have seen a DECREASE in their real wages for decades now, with all of the economic growth going to the top wage earners. Something's wrong with the system - people doing a better job with better technology in a growing economy shouldn't be continually worse off. If there was some kind of non-governmental solution to these systematic issues, I'd love to hear them, because I definitely agree even progressive taxation is an awkward tool that will always have some unhappy consequences even when it works. There was no "free market solution" to the monopoly trusts of the 19th century, though, and I'm not sure there's one for our growing economic problems today.

The problem is we have been on the decline since the early 70's. We didn't have the tax cuts for the rich AND the middle classes till the 80's. We did however have a massive surge in import products during the 70's and we were warned what buying that crap would do.

 

[fskimospy]

Mitt Romney on Olympians:

"You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!" - Mitt Romney.

LOL.

 

[fskimospy]

I seriously love how there's seemingly no line of attack that conservatives can use that isn't refuted by Romney himself. He truly is amazingly two faced.

 

[werepossum]

And this paragraph right here is your whole problem in a nutshell. You seem to be very reasonable in an abstract sense when it comes to policy, but you are easily taken in by things that are wildly false.

You realize that the 'story' where someone making $60k had less disposable income than someone making $14k or so was completely false, reliant on not only wrong numbers but on an entirely wrong understanding of how our tax code works, how benefits work, etc, right? We had a whole thread on it, one that I think you might have participated in.

So really you should be happy, it turns out our system isn't screwed after all as your example was fake.

I actually don't recall that at all. Link?

By the way, I did a quick calculation when that story came out based on a local mother who rented from a friend. With two children (in rough numbers, as far as I remember her numbers, of which she was quite proud), she was eligible for $500 in Section 8 rent subsidy, $400 in food stamps, $200 WIC, $1800 in welfare & Social Security (two children, one of which had a learning disability and drew a double check), an energy offset to help pay her light bill, a child care subsidy (for school), and a full time student subsidy, to name just the ones I can remember. She was eligible for (though did not use) a once a week cleaner. Now I don't have even a fuzzy recall of the value of a couple of those, but minimum wage for 40 hours is roughly $1,160/month and I'm already at well over double that. The poverty level for a family of four is (I think) around $1,600/month, and Tennessee median household income is only around $3,700/month. If memory serves she was reasonably near median household income with no work expenses and no out-of-pocket babysitting expenses.

Now, obviously this woman wasn't well off, but she presented a pretty solid middle class image. She owned an automobile, had cable TV with HBO and ShowTime, ate well, bought a reasonable amount of clothing for herself and her children. (I presume she still does, but she ran out of her student benefits, got married and moved out.)

 

[fskimospy]

I actually don't recall that at all. Link?

By the way, I did a quick calculation when that story came out based on a local mother who rented from a friend. With two children (in rough numbers, as far as I remember her numbers, of which she was quite proud), she was eligible for $500 in Section 8 rent subsidy, $400 in food stamps, $200 WIC, $1800 in welfare & Social Security (two children, one of which had a learning disability and drew a double check), an energy offset to help pay her light bill, a child care subsidy (for school), and a full time student subsidy, to name just the ones I can remember. She was eligible for (though did not use) a once a week cleaner. Now I don't have even a fuzzy recall of the value of a couple of those, but minimum wage for 40 hours is roughly $1,160/month and I'm already at well over double that. The poverty level for a family of four is (I think) around $1,600/month, and Tennessee median household income is only around $3,700/month. If memory serves she was reasonably near median household income with no work expenses and no out-of-pocket babysitting expenses.

Now, obviously this woman wasn't well off, but she presented a pretty solid middle class image. She owned an automobile, had cable TV with HBO and ShowTime, ate well, bought a reasonable amount of clothing for herself and her children. (I presume she still does, but she ran out of her student benefits, got married and moved out.)

I don't have a link for that thread but I am absolutely certain we had one on it. Basically the guy who made up that claim had some really huge and very basic math errors as well as wildly inflating the value of a number of his different fields. As for your friend, I can't possibly speak to what she was doing with her life, how accurate her description was, or what else might be going on in someone's anecdote.

By the way, do you now hate Romney for telling Olympic athletes that their success was not theirs alone, but the product of their own initiative combined with efforts by the community, same as Obama said?

 

[werepossum]

I don't have a link for that thread but I am absolutely certain we had one on it. Basically the guy who made up that claim had some really huge and very basic math errors as well as wildly inflating the value of a number of his different fields. As for your friend, I can't possibly speak to what she was doing with her life, how accurate her description was, or what else might be going on in someone's anecdote.

By the way, do you now hate Romney for telling Olympic athletes that their success was not theirs alone, but the product of their own initiative combined with efforts by the community, same as Obama said?

No. I am, um, far enough away from an Olympic athlete as to have no tender spot.

By the way, Romney never said "If you're an Olympic class athlete, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

 

[fskimospy]

No. I am, um, far enough away from an Olympic athlete as to have no tender spot.

By the way, Romney never said "If you're an Olympic class athlete, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

He said that the Olympic class athletes were not successful all on their own, but did so with the support of other people. Mitt Romney, your preferred candidate, also believes that people cannot succeed solely by themselves, but require the help of coaches (teachers), venues (roads and bridges), etc.

His quote means the exact same thing as Obama's and you know it. I will not be surprised at your selective lack of outrage.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

By the way, Romney never said "If you're an Olympic class athlete, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

He said that every bit as much as Obama said it about business owners. If you still can't recognize that, I'm afraid you're heading back into "liar or idiot" territory.

 

[sixone]

He said that every bit as much as Obama said it about business owners. If you still can't recognize that, I'm afraid you're heading back into "liar or idiot" territory.

The coaches and venues that Romney was referring to don't use the police power of the state to pay themselves for services rendered. If you can't recognize the difference, I'm afraid you're heading back into "liar or idiot" territory.

 

[fskimospy]

The coaches and venues that Romney was referring to don't use the police power of the state to pay themselves for services rendered. If you can't recognize the difference, I'm afraid you're heading back into "liar or idiot" territory.

Neither of the two quotes had anything to do with police power, they were both entirely about who contributed to someone's success.

It would be fun to watch you guys tie yourselves up in pretzels trying to figure out how to condemn one and not the other, but at this point it's just sad.

 

[sixone]

Neither of the two quotes had anything to do with police power, they were both entirely about who contributed to someone's success.

It would be fun to watch you guys tie yourselves up in pretzels trying to figure out how to condemn one and not the other, but at this point it's just sad.

It's fun watching you do it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The coaches and venues that Romney was referring to don't use the police power of the state to pay themselves for services rendered.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Many venues do use public funds to support them.

However, that's really besides the point. The point is that both politicians made nearly identical speeches pointing out that success is a product of individual success and community support.

 

[fskimospy]

It's fun watching you do it.

That's bizarre. I wonder what you are watching, as I haven't condemned Romney's statement outside of pointing out the hypocrisy of him attacking Obama for the same sentiment he holds. Both people said something entirely uncontroversial that anyone using basic common sense understands. The conservatives on this board on the other hand...

Oh, and weren't you the guy complaining about the quality of debate in P&N? Glad to see you're working hard to raise it up.

 

[michal1980]

Actually, that's not entirely true. Many venues do use public funds to support them.

However, that's really besides the point. The point is that both politicians made nearly identical speeches pointing out that success is a product of individual success and community support.

Romney never told the athletes they "did not do it" on there own.

Nearly identical does not equal identical.

 

[sixone]

Actually, that's not entirely true. Many venues do use public funds to support them.

However, that's really besides the point. The point is that both politicians made nearly identical speeches pointing out that success is a product of individual success and community support.

Those venues don't use their police power to take money from those unwilling to contribute. They get what they can persuade government to give them, and their budgets are entirely dependent on what they take in. Their support is completely voluntary.

Obama's government, OTOH, apparently doesn't need budgets, or they would have passed one during Obama's term. Instead, they just print more money and borrow from China. Supporting the IRS is anything but voluntary.

 

[fskimospy]

Romney never told the athletes they "did not do it" on there own.

Nearly identical does not equal identical.

All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them.

Are you guys really so pathetic that you're going to try to argue this? You went all in on attacking Obama for this and it turns out Romney said the same thing.

Oops.

 

[werepossum]

He said that every bit as much as Obama said it about business owners. If you still can't recognize that, I'm afraid you're heading back into "liar or idiot" territory.

Actually Obama said something quite different and has a gaggle of followers swooping in to protect his flanks and make everyone agree that he not only meant something else, he actually said something else.

The old "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" lost a lot of validity with the Internet and the instant replay. (Thanks, Algore!)

 

[fskimospy]

Actually Obama said something quite different and has a gaggle of followers swooping in to protect his flanks and make everyone agree that he not only meant something else, he actually said something else.

The old "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" lost a lot of validity with the Internet and the instant replay. (Thanks, Algore!)

This is getting really sad.

Please explain exactly how Obama's statement was 'quite different' than Romney's.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Romney never told the athletes they "did not do it" on there own.

Nearly identical does not equal identical.

Are we reading the same quote? "You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power." He literally says "didn't get here solely on your own." The entire point of that paragraph is pointing out that Olympic athletes have had help from various people in their lives along the way. It absolutely says they didn't do it on their own.

 

[sixone]

Are we reading the same quote? "You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power." He literally says "didn't get here solely on your own." The entire point of that paragraph is pointing out that Olympic athletes have had help from various people in their lives along the way. It absolutely says they didn't do it on their own.

But he didn't credit their success to people who build bridges and roads, either.

 

[sandorski]

But he didn't credit their success to people who build bridges and roads, either.

Bump your head recently?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Those venues don't use their police power to take money from those unwilling to contribute.

They do to the exact same extent as anything else supported by tax dollars.

And you're still missing the point, which is, again, that Romney acknowledged the importance of community support for personal achievement, exactly the same way Obama did.

But he didn't credit their success to people who build bridges and roads, either.

No, he credited their success, in part, to people who build stadiums and arenas and schools. Wow, big difference!

Actually Obama said something quite different and has a gaggle of followers swooping in to protect his flanks and make everyone agree that he not only meant something else, he actually said something else.

The old "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" lost a lot of validity with the Internet and the instant replay. (Thanks, Algore!)

You're a liar or idiot, as I said. No other options available here. I lean towards liar -- you seem too smart to actually believe this tripe, but you appear to have a serious case of ODS as well.

The video shows with 100% clarity that Obama was saying that business onwers didn't build the infrastructure that helps their businesses run. This is made obvious by the emphasis on the word "that" at the end of the sentence - if he was referring to the businesses, he would not have intoned in that manner. Also evident is the fact that he also said "that" before the phrase "you didn't build that".

This video contrasts the tone and language Obama actually used with Romney's misrepresentation of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-z-U57BaSc&feature=player_embedded -- if Obama meant what Romney claimed, he'd have said it the way Romney said it here. He didn't.

Romney's not stupid, so he has deliberately mischaracterized Obama's comments because, like many of his supporters here, he's a lying asshole -- just like the people who have deliberately mischaracterized Romney's comments on the poor and other subjects.