Well who knew....U.S. budget deficit to balloon on Republican tax cuts: CBO

[ElFenix]

I've already stipulated several times that I accept the reasoning behind a progressive tax, but it looks like a slippery slope to me when bureaucrats are handed the power to disproportionately tax people based on what they have or don't have..

congress determines the tax rates, not bureaucrats.

 

[crashtech]

congress determines the tax rates, not bureaucrats.

We can play around at semantics if it pleases you. But I didn't say "unelected bureaucrat," so there's probably some wiggle room for me there if you care to look up definitions.

 

[bshole]

We can play around at semantics if it pleases you. But I didn't say "unelected bureaucrat," so there's probably some wiggle room for me there if you care to look up definitions.

500K - 25%
1M - 35%
5M - 45%
10M - 55%
50M - 65%
100M - 75%
500M - 85%
1B - 95%
5B+ - 99%

Investment returns would be treated as ordinary income. This is what would save America if enacted.

 

[dank69]

The promise of American society was to be a more egalitarian one, a place where people could transcend class barriers, and where ever more equality of opportunity would be afforded to its citizens. Largely it's been a success, perhaps less so in recent years. If some citizens have been able to take better advantage of such opportunities, it doesn't automatically put them at fault. Of course we constantly re-examine the role of government in ensuring equal opportunity, but just like the others with whom I've interacted in this thread, you want to take advantage of the metrics of a group in order to penalize individuals. That's inherently unfair. If there's a way to single out people who got their wealth in an unfair way, I would have no problem with penalizing them. I'm troubled by the increasing wealth gap, and in the final analysis it may be that taxation is the only way to deal with the problem, but I don't readily accept it as a self-evident solution.

You just completely and utterly ignored my post while replying to it. I asked you if you agree with the 2 premises.

 

[crashtech]

You just completely and utterly ignored my post while replying to it. I asked you if you agree with the 2 premises.

I didn't ignore your post at all. The thing about "premises" is they are often full of various assumptions, some with which I may agree, and some I may not. I did attempt to address the gist of your statements in my own way, sorry if you feel slighted in any way by an indirect answer.

 

[ElFenix]

We can play around at semantics if it pleases you. But I didn't say "unelected bureaucrat," so there's probably some wiggle room for me there if you care to look up definitions.

words have definitions and you don't get to just claim others are playing semantics when you get them wrong. it's not some dude in the bureaucracy determining tax rates, it's congress. they're not the bureaucracy. these are important distinctions because it drives to the democratic legitimacy of taxation.

 

[crashtech]

words have definitions and you don't get to just claim others are playing semantics when you get them wrong. it's not some dude in the bureaucracy determining tax rates, it's congress. they're not the bureaucracy. these are important distinctions because it drives to the democratic legitimacy of taxation.

Hmm, I am sensing some hostility, is that right? I did include myself when I mentioned playing semantics, so don't get too huffy and think I am accusing you while absolving myself. I don't think you've convincingly shown me to be wrong yet, though I do appreciate the distinction you are trying to make. Congress to me is almost the top level our bureaucracy. It's really not congresspeople that craft tax legislation, it's their staffers. Most have no idea about 99% of what is contained in a big piece of legislation, they have to trust their staff. That's bureaucracy. To the thrust of your argument, there's some disagreement about how accountable Congress is to the People; they seem to get away with quite a bit that most of us don't like, such as the many benefits they accord themselves.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bureaucracy

 

[blackangst1]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/2...sal-to-require-dynamic-scoring-on-major-bills

Thanks. So this scoring model has been in place for 4 years. Ive been reading about it, and it certainly has some advantages and disadvantages.

 

[dank69]

I didn't ignore your post at all. The thing about "premises" is they are often full of various assumptions, some with which I may agree, and some I may not. I did attempt to address the gist of your statements in my own way, sorry if you feel slighted in any way by an indirect answer.

There was no gist. I asked you straight up if you agree with either premise. Second time now you have refused a direct answer to a direct question. People are going to begin to think you might not be interested in an honest discussion. If you agree with them just say so. If you don't please explain why. It isn't difficult.

 

[dank69]

Thanks. So this scoring model has been in place for 4 years. Ive been reading about it, and it certainly has some advantages and disadvantages.

The only "advantage" it has is that it allows the GOP to claim tax cuts will result in extra growth that will never materialize.

 

[crashtech]

There was no gist. I asked you straight up if you agree with either premise. Second time now you have refused a direct answer to a direct question. People are going to begin to think you might not be interested in an honest discussion. If you agree with them just say so. If you don't please explain why. It isn't difficult.

I'm not making you have a dialogue with me. If you're unsatisfied, simply move on. Not everyone here is insisting that I must answer their questions in a particular way, so you look like an outlier in that regard.

 

[dank69]

I'm not making you have a dialogue with me. If you're unsatisfied, simply move on. Not everyone here is insisting that I must answer their questions in a particular way, so you look like an outlier in that regard.

A particular way? It's called answering the question asked instead of launching into a completely unrelated diatribe. Don't be surprised when I treat you like a dishonest piece of shit troll then.

 

[crashtech]

A particular way? It's called answering the question asked instead of launching into a completely unrelated diatribe. Don't be surprised when I treat you like a dishonest piece of shit troll then.

In the end, much of how we are regarded as people comes from the way we have treated others, so I hope you'll reconsider. I'd like to continue to demonstrate to others, if not you, that I am not engaging here merely to inflame opponents or to spout talking points, and that I want to keep my mind open to new ideas, hardly the definition of a troll.

 

[dank69]

In the end, much of how we are regarded as people comes from the way we have treated others, so I hope you'll reconsider. I'd like to continue to demonstrate to others, if not you, that I am not engaging here merely to inflame opponents or to spout talking points, and that I want to keep my mind open to new ideas, hardly the definition of a troll.

That's why I gave you the opportunity to engage honestly. Yet you seem determined not to answer. So why is that?

 

[crashtech]

That's why I gave you the opportunity to engage honestly. Yet you seem determined not to answer. So why is that?

Because I don't want to end up feeling like I want to leave TeAm Anandtech, so I'm doing my best to avoid serious conflicts with other forum members while still engaging in discussions that interest me. I'd like to continue to offer some occasional dissent while avoiding the marginalization that often happens to those with minority viewpoints. My impression is that your insistence on nailing down my agreement with your postulates, while serving your purposes, may not suit mine. I hope we leave can leave it at that for now.

 

[JSt0rm]

Because I don't want to end up feeling like I want to leave TeAm Anandtech, so I'm doing my best to avoid serious conflicts with other forum members while still engaging in discussions that interest me. I'd like to continue to offer some occasional dissent while avoiding the marginalization that often happens to those with minority viewpoints. My impression is that your insistence on nailing down my agreement with your postulates, while serving your purposes, may not suit mine. I hope we leave can leave it at that for now.

you are the victim.

 

[crashtech]

you are the victim.

I'm not really into the whole victimology thing. I know whatever happens here will be my own fault in the end. After all, I am always welcome to participate in different forum.

 

[dank69]

Because I don't want to end up feeling like I want to leave TeAm Anandtech, so I'm doing my best to avoid serious conflicts with other forum members while still engaging in discussions that interest me. I'd like to continue to offer some occasional dissent while avoiding the marginalization that often happens to those with minority viewpoints. My impression is that your insistence on nailing down my agreement with your postulates, while serving your purposes, may not suit mine. I hope we leave can leave it at that for now.

What exactly are you afraid of? You can call me a cuntface cocksucking motherfucker and nobody will care. Why would any discussion with me lead to you having to leave your team? None of this makes any sense. If the mods threw people out for simply voicing dissent a whole lot of current members would have been tossed long ago. I guarantee that anyone you think was tossed for dissent was actually tossed for something like mod callouts.

Regardless, I'm not asking you to agree with my premises if you don't agree. I am simply asking you to explain why you do not. My guess is that you cannot explain why you disagree because your reason for disagreement rests solely on the fact that if you did agree it would blow a hole in your entire economic theory, and that would be painful for your ego. As such, you would rather just avoid answering directly so you can maintain your truthiness instead of analyzing and adapting. If this is the case, you are indeed nothing more than a troll. If it is not the case, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Meghan54]

Looks like the CBO revised their numbers on the tax cuts

No, the CBO did NOT revise shit, it's just your source shitting upon you. Did you even read the article I originally linked? Guess not, because if you had, you'd realize your opinion piece you linked above in an attempt to say somehow the CBO re-evaluated and rescored, which the CBO did not.

Instead, your "source" conveniently limited itself to 2018-2020. Now, if you'd actually read the linked story I put up, you'd have read that the first three years were nowhere near as bad as the years afterward, through 2025, which was the whole point of the story.

The first three years only produces an increased deficit of a half-trillion dollars, but then the pace and amount of the deficit substantially increases yearly after 2020.

Keep being dishonest with yourself....it fits.

 

[blackangst1]

No, the CBO did NOT revise shit, it's just your source shitting upon you. Did you even read the article I originally linked? Guess not, because if you had, you'd realize your opinion piece you linked above in an attempt to say somehow the CBO re-evaluated and rescored, which the CBO did not.

Instead, your "source" conveniently limited itself to 2018-2020. Now, if you'd actually read the linked story I put up, you'd have read that the first three years were nowhere near as bad as the years afterward, through 2025, which was the whole point of the story.

The first three years only produces an increased deficit of a half-trillion dollars, but then the pace and amount of the deficit substantially increases yearly after 2020.

Keep being dishonest with yourself....it fits.

Yep it has been pointed out to me already. Hope you feel better though!

 

[crashtech]

@dank69 , I'm flattered that you would think I even have an economic theory! I don't, other than that we should be more fiscally responsible. Generally that would mean tax increases AND spending cuts, like that will ever happen! It will happen forcibly at some point, though, as long as current trends continue.

Since you've been so insistent, I'll take a more direct stab at your premises:

Rich people are rich because they benefited more from the system that the government establishes and maintains

There is probably no way to know that for certain. We don't have a parallel control universe where all the same people operate, for instance, in a more anarchic or more totalitarian environment. So it looks like there's an unsupported assumption inherent in your premise that only government is responsible for an individual's success. My own, different assumption might be that many of the people who are successful (rich) in this society would likely be similarly successful in another, whether the measure of success was money, political power, number of mates, ears of corn, whatever. There's simply no way to control for the presumed benefits our government confers. Therefore I have to either disagree, or assert that there's not enough evidence to completely support your premise.

It is in society's best interest to prevent dangerously large wealth gaps. The point where the gap becomes dangerous may be up for debate but you must either agree or disagree that there is some theoretical point that it becomes detrimental to society.

While I agree with the addendum of your second premise, the devil is in the details. Proposed methods of prevention vary wildly, do they not? My focus would continue to be on enforcing equality of opportunity, which is traditionally where the left and right find common ground. But since this won't ever be 100% successful, the left wants to move ever more to enforcing equality of outcome. This might seem like a more direct and effective method, but it's one that has some moral hazards, to put it diplomatically. I don't think there is a consensus on what is driving the increasing wealth gap, but finding ways to attack it that could draw support from across the political spectrum is important, hopefully possible.

As to the rest of the stuff in your above post, it's OT and mostly personal. Best not to waste space on it.

 

[dank69]

@dank69 , I'm flattered that you would think I even have an economic theory! I don't, other than that we should be more fiscally responsible. Generally that would mean tax increases AND spending cuts, like that will ever happen! It will happen forcibly at some point, though, as long as current trends continue.

Ah, but you do have something of an economic theory that you have expressed at least once in this very thread, which is one of the primary reasons I engaged you in the first place. Your theory is that progressive taxation is equivalent to punishing the rich. This is the conclusion I wanted to discuss with you in the hopes that you might reexamine why you believe this to the point that you believe that "punishing the rich" is actually one of our goals. I understand why it may seem to you that progressive taxation punishes the rich but claiming that liberals want progressive taxation in order to punish the rich is a straw man.

Since you've been so insistent, I'll take a more direct stab at your premises:

Thank you.

There is probably no way to know that for certain. We don't have a parallel control universe where all the same people operate, for instance, in a more anarchic or more totalitarian environment. So it looks like there's an unsupported assumption inherent in your premise that only government is responsible for an individual's success. My own, different assumption might be that many of the people who are successful (rich) in this society would likely be similarly successful in another, whether the measure of success was money, political power, number of mates, ears of corn, whatever. There's simply no way to control for the presumed benefits our government confers. Therefore I have to either disagree, or assert that there's not enough evidence to completely support your premise.

There is a way to be certain. First we must be completely clear about my statement because it seems to me from the bold part of your post above that you are reading into my statement too much. I would never claim that only the government is responsible for an individual's success. That would be stupid. There are many factors that are responsible.

What I am claiming however, is that government is definitely one of those factors. What I am also claiming is that many people who are currently rich would likely have everything stolen from them a soon as they started accumulating wealth if it were not for our government protecting their assets and their lives. This premise is what allows me to conclude that rich people would not be rich if it were not for government. Sure, some of the most ruthless ones would be able to assemble their own personal armies to protect their stuff and steal others' but eventually those would grow so large as to become a form of government themselves or get raided/destroyed by a larger group.

If you agree to this point, please say so or please explain why you do not agree. Otherwise we continue on to another conclusion we can reach if we do agree: People benefit from the government in somewhat direct proportion to how rich they are. Just think about it. We all benefit equally from many laws that protect our person, but the more stuff you have, the more you have to lose. A homeless person doesn't need police protection unless they are being assaulted but even a relatively poor person needs their residence and any belongings protected, and it just keeps escalating from there.

While I agree with the addendum of your second premise, the devil is in the details. Proposed methods of prevention vary wildly, do they not? My focus would continue to be on enforcing equality of opportunity, which is traditionally where the left and right find common ground. But since this won't ever be 100% successful, the left wants to move ever more to enforcing equality of outcome. This might seem like a more direct and effective method, but it's one that has some moral hazards, to put it diplomatically. I don't think there is a consensus on what is driving the increasing wealth gap, but finding ways to attack it that could draw support from across the political spectrum is important, hopefully possible.

Once we are able to progress past the point where you believe that progressive taxation is unfair, if that is even possible, we can tackle this second premise of mine without the moral problems you are concerned with.

As to the rest of the stuff in your above post, it's OT and mostly personal. Best not to waste space on it.

When you respond honestly like this I won't get personal. When you dodge, I will. Sorry, but it's how I operate.