Annual Tax Rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
That doesn't seem political to me. It seems like a statistical analysis which means it is doomed to being ignored by those who want to believe what they are intent on believing.


Do you mean like a faux intellectual whose schtick consists entirely of talking points?
 
Careful, you're attacking a job creator you know.

Did you read the study?

The top 10% (where one becomes affluent) have views that correlate strongly with the ultra rich.

And these policy preferences get enacted despite the wishes of the remaining 90%.

Something like this was what people suspected but it's fascinating to see it proven with data and with an actual income cut off point.

Earlier I mentioned the story about the passage of AMT. Look it up. It's an interesting example of what that study has proven has been happening.
 
I'm attacking someone who couchs his own views and opinions as fact.

I am very familiar Piketty and have read the Princeton study. Both require someone to "believe what they are intent on believing" because they start with the premise that certain political views are facts.
 
How convenient.

Someone seeks facts, reads them and provides a conclusion.

And you come along and accuse them of presenting opinion as facts without any counter argument, without any facts of your own.

What a convenient way of denying the validity of statistical studies.

Same technique as the guy who asked for sources on the multiplier, refused to do any independent research, was told there are multiple sources, refuted the validity of the independent source presented and then denied the multiplier even existed.
 
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
That doesn't seem political to me. It seems like a statistical analysis which means it is doomed to being ignored by those who want to believe what they are intent on believing.


Interesting quote, especially based on your previous comments. Do you listen to yourself at all? Imagining that you are the smartest person in the room does not make it true.

And BTW, the CBO is a joke. they revise their figures so often they have zero credibility, and they have been manipulated in the past.

All of your stuff here is dogma/ideology, not facts. Also, while I don't expect much, you must be a very angry person to need to insult everyone who disagrees with you...
 
I went back over and listened to myself and can't see where I'm imagining I'm the smartest person in the room.

What I am seeing is an insult against me from a poster who hadn't made any argument based on fact.

And you've also appeared and gotten personal.

I'm not an angry person. I do have sympathy for the poor though.

There are many many economists who conclude the multiplier works the way I suggested. Somehow me stating that as a fact is dogma or brings those bodies into question. When that happens, it is quite clear who is being dogmatic.

And the funny thing is I never made a statement whether I felt that was the right thing to do. All I did was state what economists generally agree on.

Let's take the argument on the poor. It is a valid argument to say policies for the poor have not eradicated poverty.

But it is also valid to say that the safety net has saved children, helps the disabled, helps people without the ability to help themselves. It may even help someone who later lifts themselves up or someone who temporarily suffers a setback.

But blanket statements are made that everyone who doesn't pay federal income tax is a taker and we should make them all pay income tax.

The reality is that you need different policies for different people, that some poor people are different to other poor people. And that the amount wasted on people who don't need help at all is a far worse problem.

As a job creating tax payer, I am far far more concerned with the wealth transfer to wealthy Medicare recipients with the ability to spend other people's money and the transfer to the military industrial complex.

I would love to see better policies to help the poor lift themselves up. When those proposing blanket cuts or tax increases spend as much time on coming up with those policies and mechanisms so our fellow human being children, elderly and disabled would not suffer any more in the richest nation on earth, maybe then people would take them seriously rather than conclude they are the angry ones who feel they are owed something.
 
Quote:
Do you not realize that there are economists in universities, government and elsewhere who model these things?

I realize that these things are "modeled" all the time. I have yet to see any conclusive proof.

Quote:
Of course there is a multiplier effect. Its a given! There's no dispute about this.

Then it should be very easy to provide the proof that I am requesting.

Quote:
Now you're debunking the CBO? Hilarious!

Is it "out of context" to ask for the reliability of sources?

AD-increase1.jpg


Please provide me with exact numerations for the x and y axis.

These must be known in order to correctly "model" the amount of wealth that must be transferred from one group to another so the "multiplier effect" can kick in so as to increase "aggregate" demand.

Without specific numbers, any amount of wealth transferred is strictly arbitrary and without rational.
 
Absolutely none of the social welfare programs have worked. Sheer numbers show more folks on them today than ever, and very few ever leave them either. Investigate the 50 poorest cities and they are all run by rabid leftists with liberal social ideology. Total failure... seen Detroit lately? California? No one wants the truly needy to do without, here we donate to charity as well as create lots of jobs and pay taxes. But we despise the inherent WASTE of money any time Uncle Sam steps in. Corruption and fraud are rampant and it would save far more money if we simply cleaned up a bit!

Hmmm, seems you also asked us to investigate the elderly on Medicare. Remember that? Please feel free to elaborate on that one as well. Since anyone who earned an income paid in it is only fair to expect to get something for it when you retire. You will quickly find out there are not enough 'Rich' to help your programs at all, even if you take their money.

BTW, no rational person believes any of that multiplier horse doodle. That is baloney, pure and simple. Whenever the tax and spend folks start that about 3/4 of the world goes to sleep immediately.

Finally, the statement I quoted is indeed revealing, if you only could look inward you'd see how outrageous it is...
 
Look at the amount of tax $$ that is directed in ONLY two places...military and healthcare...now research the political-lobbying connections $$ in those two areas...now think about that when you just threw away 5 grand on your deductible. The system is gamed by corrupt lawyers in DC. Yes! the Neveda Rancher had it right.
 
Quote:
It is a valid argument to say policies for the poor have not eradicated poverty.


I would love to see better policies to help the poor lift themselves up.

What is the incentive for politicians to create programs that make people self sufficient?

Why do these politicians know how to create such programs?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Do you not realize that there are economists in universities, government and elsewhere who model these things?

I realize that these things are "modeled" all the time. I have yet to see any conclusive proof.

Quote:
Of course there is a multiplier effect. Its a given! There's no dispute about this.

Then it should be very easy to provide the proof that I am requesting.

Quote:
Now you're debunking the CBO? Hilarious!

Is it "out of context" to ask for the reliability of sources?

AD-increase1.jpg


Please provide me with exact numerations for the x and y axis.

These must be known in order to correctly "model" the amount of wealth that must be transferred from one group to another so the "multiplier effect" can kick in so as to increase "aggregate" demand.

Without specific numbers, any amount of wealth transferred is strictly arbitrary and without rational.


So let me get this right, you don't believe there is a multiplier effect at all and you need proof this it exists?

So when you next go and spend a dollar, you don't believe that part of that dollar is then spent by that business on whatever (wages, cost of goods sold, overheads) and then the people who receive that money don't spend it and so on.

So the net effect of spending a dollar is more than a dollar of economic activity. But you don't believe that?

Then you also don't believe that different types of spending and different groups of people have a different marginal propensity to consume and make different choices?

And you don't understand that in the short term there are different effects that a $ could have depending on how it's used?

So you couldn't do some googling and find that Mark Zandi in 2008 said that any form of increased govt spending would have a greater multiplier effect than any form of tax cuts? And that an increase in food stamps had the highest multiplier effect of 1.73 while accelerated depreciation was .27? The Bush tax cuts would be .29?

You also realize that in a recession and even now, private capital is not being lent out so anyone with the ability to save reduces the multiplier effect whether it is a transfer or not. People with money spend less in a recession, people with no money spend the same because they spend on necessities.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Absolutely none of the social welfare programs have worked. Sheer numbers show more folks on them today than ever, and very few ever leave them either. Investigate the 50 poorest cities and they are all run by rabid leftists with liberal social ideology. Total failure... seen Detroit lately? California? No one wants the truly needy to do without, here we donate to charity as well as create lots of jobs and pay taxes. But we despise the inherent WASTE of money any time Uncle Sam steps in. Corruption and fraud are rampant and it would save far more money if we simply cleaned up a bit!

Hmmm, seems you also asked us to investigate the elderly on Medicare. Remember that? Please feel free to elaborate on that one as well. Since anyone who earned an income paid in it is only fair to expect to get something for it when you retire. You will quickly find out there are not enough 'Rich' to help your programs at all, even if you take their money.

BTW, no rational person believes any of that multiplier horse doodle. That is baloney, pure and simple. Whenever the tax and spend folks start that about 3/4 of the world goes to sleep immediately.

Finally, the statement I quoted is indeed revealing, if you only could look inward you'd see how outrageous it is...


Your just not listening are you? You're projecting what you believe I'm saying rather than listening to what I am actually saying.

Follow this logic: someone else claimed that you give $100 back to a business owner and they would create jobs. What does that imply? It implies a MULTIPLIER!!!!

Yet you and others are saying there is no such thing as a multiplier.

All I said was that give that same $100 back to poor people whose marginal propensity to spend is higher instead of rich people who are more likely to save especially in a recession, and you get a larger multiplier effect.

That's all I said and since then all sorts of accusations have flown about dogma, multipliers don't exist, the sources are not credible, that I need to look inside myself.
 
It's not the economics doesn't work. It's that we have to trust politicians (of all flavors) to implement sound policies.

Instead of doing what is best economically, they do what is best politically.

For example, one of the complaints that lead to the ACA that just rolled out was cost control.

Yet, I don't think there is much if anything in the ACA that will control costs. Instead, the opposite. Insurance companies are now guaranteed, by laws and penalties now, that more will buy insurance.

So now you have a bigger pool of OPM. Given the track record with OPM to this date, who really expects costs to go down?

Political solution to an economic problem.

Want to control health care costs? Stop expecting other people to pay for the delivery of health care. There is little or no incentive for the patient to be concerned with costs as "insurance will pay" is the mindset. Yet more entitlement thinking.

My thinking is that insurance should be for catastrophic illness. The day to day health care, birth control, etc is paid for, in cash, by the patient.

Watch costs drop when folks have to start writing checks instead of whipping out the benefits card for a $100 doctor visit.

Nope, we end up with political solutions to economic problems.

Now THERE is the real multiplier! And we will eventually implode as the costs continue to grow exponentially!
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Hmmm, seems you also asked us to investigate the elderly on Medicare. Remember that? Please feel free to elaborate on that one as well. Since anyone who earned an income paid in it is only fair to expect to get something for it when you retire. You will quickly find out there are not enough 'Rich' to help your programs at all, even if you take their money.


So because you paid in you are deserving of any amount? 39% of Medicare is funded through general tax revenue.

The system is set up so hospitals and doctors receive money for care regardless of quality of life.

You and I are paying our taxes directly as a transfer to hospitals and doctors.

Because if we all pooled all the spending, public and private, and then took all the procedures and then ranked them according to quality of life, we would spend that money very differently to how it is being spent now.

We have the worst combination of publicly funded but privately decided healthcare in the world which is why our spending is twice the world average for worse outcomes.

Military spending is the same in terms of inefficient and too much but once it is in place, the industry and politicians have a vested interest for it to not change.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's not the economics doesn't work. It's that we have to trust politicians (of all flavors) to implement sound policies.

Instead of doing what is best economically, they do what is best politically.

For example, one of the complaints that lead to the ACA that just rolled out was cost control.

Yet, I don't think there is much if anything in the ACA that will control costs. Instead, the opposite. Insurance companies are now guaranteed, by laws and penalties now, that more will buy insurance.

So now you have a bigger pool of OPM. Given the track record with OPM to this date, who really expects costs to go down?

Political solution to an economic problem.

Want to control health care costs? Stop expecting other people to pay for the delivery of health care. There is little or no incentive for the patient to be concerned with costs as "insurance will pay" is the mindset. Yet more entitlement thinking.

My thinking is that insurance should be for catastrophic illness. The day to day health care, birth control, etc is paid for, in cash, by the patient.

Watch costs drop when folks have to start writing checks instead of whipping out the benefits card for a $100 doctor visit.

Nope, we end up with political solutions to economic problems.

Now THERE is the real multiplier! And we will eventually implode as the costs continue to grow exponentially!


Exactly! This is the point. But somehow it is argued that the poor are our problem. All the distractions that politicians put out there are to hide the fact that politicians want to just stay in power. Whether they introduce, seek to amend, vote for, vote against, abstain is a CALCULATION that they make as part of staying elected.

Remember, the main skill that a politician has is that he can persuade and manipulate people. That is the only thing 90% of them know. That is their living. So stay in power, raise funds, secure extra money through outside interests. That is their life. No piece of legislation or no level playing field in an industry or between consumers and corporations matters to them in this calculation so long as they get elected again.

And the people don't see through this or the 2 party system or the polarization that guarantees staying in power. It all suits these few people.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
here we donate to charity as well as create lots of jobs and pay taxes. But we despise the inherent WASTE of money any time Uncle Sam steps in. Corruption and fraud are rampant and it would save far more money if we simply cleaned up a bit!


Wow! Firstly Florida is cited in multiple studies as the most if not one of the most corrupt states in the US.

And you're again painting things in a broad brush in saying Florida gives to charity while implying the other states do not?

These generalizations are a bad habit. 47% are takers, there is no multiplier, the CBO has zero credibility, "everything" I said is dogma not facts.
 
Quote:
And that an increase in food stamps had the highest multiplier effect of 1.73


Then why not simply put everyone on food stamps? To accomplish what? Increase "aggregate demand"...that you cannot define?

Don't feel too badly though, as it is impossible to know what the numeration on that chart is. And if that is the case, how exactly does one "model" or "estimate" what the "multiplier" is and how it will effect an economy?

There are what can be called multipliers in economics. The way GDP (an arbitrary definition in a class room) is calculated casts a favorable bias on government spending. This skews the importance of government spending in classroom type "models".

Quote:
And you don't understand that in the short term there are different effects that a $ could have depending on how it's used?

Without doubt. Do you think that the "rich", that actually pay taxes, will spend and invest less when they see the mounting tax burden that is headed their way in the future due to debt/transfer payments? This affects economic outcomes both near and far.

Transfer payments are at historic highs, why isn't the economy roaring?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Transfer payments are at historic highs, why isn't the economy roaring?


In the last 5 years

Dow Jones +103%
Nasdaq +142%
S&P500 +115%

All comfortably ahead of pre recession levels.

The wealth and income of the richest has never been higher despite these record high transfers (where's your source on this btw?)

The economy is roaring.

For some of us.

(The job creators).

We are not worried about the future debt situation. If they address it through spending cuts, that won't affect us. If they raise taxes, they'll raise them on everyone (just like I showed earlier, we have a flat tax system already amongst those who can contribute to a deficit reduction).

Plus we have many ways to keep our taxes down anyway and I get the added bonus of complaining about how many taxes I pay while full well knowing its making no difference to my wealth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

1
  • Locked
I feel silly... Tax goof.
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
14Accent
F
Choose your shipping company wisely
Replies
12
Views
3K
Silver
Number_35
  • Locked
rant about aftermarket body parts
Replies
16
Views
3K
bdcardinal
B
  • Locked
Tax rate for biweekly pay <> rate for monthly?
Replies
17
Views
5K
Benzadmiral
T
  • Locked
Bush increases taxes?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Scotto
Back
Top