• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The fundamental difference between a Democrat and a Republican and...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,368
7,149
146
Entitlements and transfer payments aren't services. And I don't really care that you personally think the "rich get rewarded in excess to their contributions," that's self-serving "it takes a village" motivated thinking. It truly takes some mental gymnastics to belief that a rich person "benefits more" from the same stretch of roadway, or post office, or other common services. If you want to conflate specific tax benefits with "government services" then you might have a point but you're one of the ones complaining loudest about the removal of some of those benefits like the SALT benefit. But like most rich people you probably conveniently exclude yourself from their definition especially when it's time to pay higher taxes. Time for you to start paying those higher taxes you always claim you'll welcome paying.
Yup sure does.


 
Nov 29, 2006
14,454
2,145
126
Entitlements and transfer payments aren't services. And I don't really care that you personally think the "rich get rewarded in excess to their contributions," that's self-serving "it takes a village" motivated thinking. It truly takes some mental gymnastics to belief that a rich person "benefits more" from the same stretch of roadway, or post office, or other common services. If you want to conflate specific tax benefits with "government services" then you might have a point but you're one of the ones complaining loudest about the removal of some of those benefits like the SALT benefit. But like most rich people you probably conveniently exclude yourself from their definition especially when it's time to pay higher taxes. Time for you to start paying those higher taxes you always claim you'll welcome paying.
I would gladly pay higher taxes if i was a filthy rich person. I mean i became filthy rich due to this country. Might as well pay some back to the less fortunate than myself (which is 99.9% of the country). If i have more money than i could ever dream of spending then i have too much and id rather it go to help others. Not by charity because that wont help, but by hopefully a great government (asking a lot here lol) that cares about its citizens. But I'm not a greedy person though that feels i win something if i horde the most money while other people suffer and go without. I don't even complain about my current tax situation, and i'm far from a 1%'er.

Some people care about money, others care about people. Easy to tell the 2 apart usually :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
Can you explain how you or I paying higher taxes benefits the likes of Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc?
Sure, in order to lower/eliminate the estate tax and stay within the budget window to use reconciliation for these tax cuts they had to raise taxes on the middle class. Now if Gates or Zuckerberg or whoever wants to leave money to their heirs they can do so tax free (or at a sharply reduced rate) because of my additional taxes. Additionally, my additional taxes help enable a lower corporate income tax rate, which increases the value of owning shares of stock, their companies included. As the value of their stock holdings increases, they get richer.

Lots more where that came from.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
If you want to make that pedantic a point I'll let you know that the government itself operates housing in plenty of cases, meaning it directly provides a means tested service. This is a nonsensical. I am also willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people consider the government providing health insurance and money for housing to be providing services. Absolutely overwhelming majority.



Why would the means not matter? That makes no sense. Attempting to say that a system of taxation is the equivalent of looting a store (ie: theft) is a ridiculous statement and I'm very certain you know it. In case you want to argue that all taxation is theft and therefore illegitimate that's fine but I'm not interested in doing that.

As for how we should pursue economic equality I see no reason to only pursue it your way, especially considering that lots and lots of government policies explicitly don't use the 'veil of ignorance' principle when looking at personal income. The answer is simple, if we see that people are being compensated to an extent dramatically greater than their contributions then let's fix it up with some taxes. Easy peasy.
Why not just put income caps and nationalization in place then if that's truly your beef? "Fixing" it via taxation seems both a backwards and counterproductive means of achieving your stated goal. Take things away from the rich in the light of day like Mugabe or Chavez. Own your prejudices and gloat as you jack their shit.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
Why not just put income caps and nationalization in place then if that's truly your beef? "Fixing" it via taxation seems both a backwards and counterproductive means of achieving your stated goal. Take things away from the rich in the light of day like Mugabe or Chavez. Own your prejudices and gloat as you jack their shit.
Because in this case, like almost everything in life, there is a middle ground between anarcho-capitalism that's free of taxation and a fully nationalized communist society where private property is outlawed. I fall somewhere in between those two, so progressive taxation seems like a good compromise to me!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flapdrol1337

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,181
632
126
Sure, in order to lower/eliminate the estate tax and stay within the budget window to use reconciliation for these tax cuts they had to raise taxes on the middle class. Now if Gates or Zuckerberg or whoever wants to leave money to their heirs they can do so tax free (or at a sharply reduced rate) because of my additional taxes. Additionally, my additional taxes help enable a lower corporate income tax rate, which increases the value of owning shares of stock, their companies included. As the value of their stock holdings increases, they get richer.

Lots more where that came from.
OK I have few problems with your explanation. First, its quite a jump to claim higher taxes for the middle class means lower corporate taxes. Do you have a citation for this?

Second, Im sure you are aware, the rich pay a higher percentage of total taxes collected by the IRS today than they did in the 60's. And Im also sure youre aware, taxes overall for the middle class have been going down, not up.

Right?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
OK I have few problems with your explanation. First, its quite a jump to claim higher taxes for the middle class means lower corporate taxes. Do you have a citation for this?
Yes, my citation is the tax bill before Congress today. It has to be kept within the $1.5 trillion budget window but the various tax cuts exceed $1.5 trillion, necessitating tax increases elsewhere (MID, SALT, etc.) If my taxes weren't going up then the corporate tax rate would have to be cut less, or the estate tax cut less, etc.

Second, Im sure you are aware, the rich pay a higher percentage of total taxes collected by the IRS today than they did in the 60's. And Im also sure youre aware, taxes overall for the middle class have been going down, not up.

Right?
The rich also have a much higher share of national income than they did in the 1960's, which is why that's the case. The important part to look at is share of taxes as compared to share of national income.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,619
593
126
Republican: Putin is a great man, I can see his heart. Russia is our friend.

Democrat: Putin is a murderous dictator. Russia is our adversary.

That is the substantive difference between members of the two parties today.
Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential candidate: Russia is the enemy.
Dimocrats: The Russians are our friends and stop with your 1980's foreign policy.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,181
632
126
Yes, my citation is the tax bill before Congress today. It has to be kept within the $1.5 trillion budget window but the various tax cuts exceed $1.5 trillion, necessitating tax increases elsewhere (MID, SALT, etc.) If my taxes weren't going up then the corporate tax rate would have to be cut less, or the estate tax cut less, etc.
OK, so its all theoretical at this point.



The rich also have a much higher share of national income than they did in the 1960's, which is why that's the case. The important part to look at is share of taxes as compared to share of national income.
Yes, they do. Main because of technology, and the opportunity that presents for more income generating sources. I guess where you and I disagree is whether or not the rich having a higher share of total wealth is a bad thing or not. If wealth were static, I would agree, it would be a bad thing. But its not. Its dynamic.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
OK, so its all theoretical at this point.
I mean it's legislation that could very well be law by the end of next week or so, so I would say it's more than theoretical. I sincerely doubt the central tenet of raising taxes on the middle and upper middle class to finance tax cuts for the rich is going to change.

Yes, they do. Main because of technology, and the opportunity that presents for more income generating sources. I guess where you and I disagree is whether or not the rich having a higher share of total wealth is a bad thing or not. If wealth were static, I would agree, it would be a bad thing. But its not. Its dynamic.
Economic research generally shows that increased income and wealth inequality leads to greater societal instability and worse economic growth. I think those are bad.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Yup sure does.

Each of those trucks pays a significant amount fuel taxes that go into the highway fund and WalMart corporation itself pays income taxes at around a 30% plus rate. Not really a good example to support your thesis given the average taxpayer pays less than a third that rate and the bottom 2 quintiles pay an effectively negative rate on federal income taxes. If you'd rather not build roads so the rich can't "benefit" from WalMart trucks then feel free to do so in your state.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,368
7,149
146
Each of those trucks pays a significant amount fuel taxes that go into the highway fund and WalMart corporation itself pays income taxes at around a 30% plus rate. Not really a good example to support your thesis given the average taxpayer pays less than a third that rate and the bottom 2 quintiles pay an effectively negative rate on federal income taxes. If you'd rather not build roads so the rich can't "benefit" from WalMart trucks then feel free to do so in your state.
Where did I suggest I don’t want the rich to benefit from infrastructure?

I do remember you suggesting the rich only benefit as equally or less than equally to the rest of us.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
I mean it's legislation that could very well be law by the end of next week or so, so I would say it's more than theoretical. I sincerely doubt the central tenet of raising taxes on the middle and upper middle class to finance tax cuts for the rich is going to change.



Economic research generally shows that increased income and wealth inequality leads to greater societal instability and worse economic growth. I think those are bad.
Generally eh?



 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,181
632
126
I mean it's legislation that could very well be law by the end of next week or so, so I would say it's more than theoretical. I sincerely doubt the central tenet of raising taxes on the middle and upper middle class to finance tax cuts for the rich is going to change..
The only way taxes would increase for the middle class would be if the Democrats and Republicans refuse to play ball, and let the cuts expire in 2025. They need to learn from Obama, who made Bush's tax cuts permanent. Dont let the tax cuts to expire, and taxes wont go up. The media and Democrats have been quite disingenuous portraying the new tax plan as "raising taxes on the middle class". Thats only partially true.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Where did I suggest I don’t want the rich to benefit from infrastructure?

I do remember you suggesting the rich only benefit as equally or less than equally to the rest of us.
Can the rich drive two cars at once on the freeway? Will the post office deliver twice as many letters to rich folks? Saying the rich benefit in an outsized manner from infrastructure is a bad misunderstanding of things. Sure if you're a WalMart stock owner you benefit from WalMart trucks being able to use the interstate highway system, but so does everyone else. If you decided to somehow tax WalMart stock owners more because they benefited "more" from infrastructure then they'd just sell their WMT shares and buy something that didn't rely on infrastructure at all, say a software firm or even government bonds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blackangst1

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
Can you explain how you or I paying higher taxes benefits the likes of Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc?
It partially funds the repeal of the estate tax for them..... wealth transfer 101. I wish the dirty fuckers had run their campaigns on repealing the estate tax.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
The only way taxes would increase for the middle class would be if the Democrats and Republicans refuse to play ball, and let the cuts expire in 2025. They need to learn from Obama, who made Bush's tax cuts permanent. Dont let the tax cuts to expire, and taxes wont go up. The media and Democrats have been quite disingenuous portraying the new tax plan as "raising taxes on the middle class". Thats only partially true.
So it’s dishonest to describe the bill on the merits of what it actually does as opposed to some hypothetical in the future? It seems like that’s not just honest, it would be dishonest to describe it the way you say. Furthermore if you want them to describe it that way they should also be saying the cost of the tax cut is $2.5 to $3 trillion or more as the cost is based on those tax cuts expiring.

Republicans have been extremely dishonest in their description of this bill by trying to play the same ‘have it both ways’ game. They estimate the cost based off the cuts expiring while claiming the cuts won’t expire.

As for me, my taxes don’t go up ten years from now, they go up by about $2000 next year.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,368
7,149
146
Can the rich drive two cars at once on the freeway? Will the post office deliver twice as many letters to rich folks? Saying the rich benefit in an outsized manner from infrastructure is a bad misunderstanding of things. Sure if you're a WalMart stock owner you benefit from WalMart trucks being able to use the interstate highway system, but so does everyone else. If you decided to somehow tax WalMart stock owners more because they benefited "more" from infrastructure then they'd just sell their WMT shares and buy something that didn't rely on infrastructure at all, say a software firm or even government bonds.
Simple:
  • When I drive to Walmart to buy something I need I benefit from the roads. Walmart benefits too.
  • When a truck drives comes to Walmart with stuff I need I benefit. Walmart benefits too.
So Wal Mart benefits twice as do I.
  • When You drive to Walmart to buy something you need you benefit from the roads. Walmart benefits too.
  • When a truck drives comes to Walmart with stuff you need you benefit. Walmart benefits too.
So you benefit twice and Walmart has now benefited 4 times.

In fact for N customers each customer benefits twice while Walmart benefits 2 x N.

So if we posit a world where there was no infrastructure to allow me to get to Walmart or trucks to supply Walmart, my loss of benefit is small (assuming other stores and infrastructure exist). Walmart and their owners on the other hand lose big time.

They need to pay taxes or a combination of taxes and benefits to the community they support commensurate with the benefit they receive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Simple:
  • When I drive to Walmart to buy something I need I benefit from the roads. Walmart benefits too.
  • When a truck drives comes to Walmart with stuff I need I benefit. Walmart benefits too.
So Wal Mart benefits twice as do I.
  • When You drive to Walmart to buy something you need you benefit from the roads. Walmart benefits too.
  • When a truck drives comes to Walmart with stuff you need you benefit. Walmart benefits too.
So you benefit twice and Walmart has now benefited 4 times.

In fact for N customers each customer benefits twice while Walmart benefits 2 x N.

So if we posit a world where there was no infrastructure to allow me to get to Walmart or trucks to supply Walmart, my loss of benefit is small (assuming other stores and infrastructure exist). Walmart and their owners on the other hand lose big time.

They need to pay taxes or a combination of taxes and benefits to the community they support commensurate with the benefit they receive.
Yeah if you ignore the fact that you'll benefit again and again from roads in other instance, like when after WalMart you go to Target, Home Depot, and Macys. And then drive to work. And to see grandmom. And to go on your vacation to see the World's largest ball of twine. And to go to DC to protest for equal rights for microbes. Etc. For each 2 x N that WalMart receives you've probably already benefited many times N. Not to mention that WalMart is already paying an effective 32% federal income tax rate for the last few years where you're likely to be spending a small fraction of that. Plus all the fuel taxes WalMart pays on those trucks and other associated fees, taxes, and duties of all kinds.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,243
3,474
136
Yeah if you ignore the fact that you'll benefit again and again from roads in other instance, like when after WalMart you go to Target, Home Depot, and Macys. And then drive to work. And to see grandmom. And to go on your vacation to see the World's largest ball of twine. And to go to DC to protest for equal rights for microbes. Etc. For each 2 x N that WalMart receives you've probably already benefited many times N. Not to mention that WalMart is already paying an effective 32% federal income tax rate for the last few years where you're likely to be spending a small fraction of that. Plus all the fuel taxes WalMart pays on those trucks and other associated fees, taxes, and duties of all kinds.
I must say I respect your empathy for the down trodden wealthy.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,053
6,029
136
Yeah if you ignore the fact that you'll benefit again and again from roads in other instance, like when after WalMart you go to Target, Home Depot, and Macys. And then drive to work. And to see grandmom. And to go on your vacation to see the World's largest ball of twine. And to go to DC to protest for equal rights for microbes. Etc. For each 2 x N that WalMart receives you've probably already benefited many times N. Not to mention that WalMart is already paying an effective 32% federal income tax rate for the last few years where you're likely to be spending a small fraction of that. Plus all the fuel taxes WalMart pays on those trucks and other associated fees, taxes, and duties of all kinds.
Are the people who benefit from lower corporate tax rates on Walmart shut-ins or what?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,200
8,044
136
Yeah if you ignore the fact that you'll benefit again and again from roads in other instance, like when after WalMart you go to Target, Home Depot, and Macys. And then drive to work. And to see grandmom. And to go on your vacation to see the World's largest ball of twine. And to go to DC to protest for equal rights for microbes. Etc. For each 2 x N that WalMart receives you've probably already benefited many times N. Not to mention that WalMart is already paying an effective 32% federal income tax rate for the last few years where you're likely to be spending a small fraction of that. Plus all the fuel taxes WalMart pays on those trucks and other associated fees, taxes, and duties of all kinds.
Lol! WalMart has an effective tax rate of 32%? Just how gullible are you?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/06/17/walmart-tax-havens/28857753/
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
53,460
5,760
126
tax reform.

High school civics has taught me a Democrat's philosophy is higher taxes and more spending. Where a Republican's philosophy is lower taxes and less spending.

With tax reform you can clearly see this from both sides. Chuck Shithead and Nancy Pathetic both crying foul about tax cuts, while many Republicans want to lower taxes for the American people. It did pass the House for God's sake.

So now the great question: Do you believe in more taxes and higher spending or common sense tax cuts and less government spending?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY