WTF...OMFG...Suddenly it all Changes when Your Own Ox is the one being Gored!

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Derideo_Te, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with this analogy is that those who are at the lower end of the scale pay a higher percentage of their income for that beer than those at the upper end. It's grossly unfair to compare the simple cost of the beer without the context of what it cost each to get by on the basics like food, housing, transportation, and so forth.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,568
    Likes Received:
    16,654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are paying nothing how can you pay less? 100 times zero is still zero. Which is why I tend to thing leftist can't do math or at least don't let it get in the way of their complaining.
     
  3. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,568
    Likes Received:
    16,654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think corporations have unlimited funds? By the way you'd have a hell of time getting that by the WTO. They'd call it an unfair trade practice.
     
  4. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I got a smile out of your first sentence. I'm glad you liked my post. Thanks!

    My position on corporate taxes is both philosophical and practical.

    Philosophical - I see companies and corporations as nothing more than legal constructs that organize human beings into cooperative groups, working together to make a living. Why we should penalize that organized construct that enables people to work together by taxing its income escapes me. The argument is always, "Yeah, but the company makes money. It should be taxed too." But the problem for me is that I see a company as only a legal construct that organizes the work of people towards a common goal. I don't think we achieve tax fairness, or tax justice, by taxing that organized endeavor. I believe that we should encourage that endeavor, not penalize it. I believe that where we may achieve tax fairness, "tax justice" if you will, is whenever the company's money is transferred from the company to individual people. How much a person should pay according to their income from their company is open to debate of course. But why tax the structure - that organized work - that created that income in the first place?

    You read my original post. My view of tax justice is contained in it. I think people should support the government they want based upon their ability to pay for it. And I honestly think income taxes should start at a much higher level than they do. I think people should have a chance to achieve a comfortable degree of financial sustainability, with savings for retirement, before we start taxing their incomes. And I also believe our tax laws should support strong, cohesive family units. Hopefully you spotted that goal in my post as well.

    And a minor point. Companies should pay their local property taxes which support schools, fire and police, roads, and local general government, since, of course, they use those services. It's income taxes that I have a philosophical problem with.

    Practical - We are in competition with the world. Give our companies and corporations who produce in the U.S. every possible advantage. So ... If a U.S. company is making money off of products made in China or Mexico or wherever overseas, tax the profits. I'm fine with that. But if they're producing in the U.S., creating jobs for U.S. citizens, no taxes on those profits. Some big companies like Ford, for example, are doing both - manufacturing in the U.S. and Mexico. In that case, make the bean counters bifurcate their profits into those earned on autos made in America and those made in Mexico. Tax only the profit on the cars made in Mexico. Our manufacturers in the U.S. are at a disadvantage to overseas manufacturers who employ what amounts to slave labor, so I see no reason to add a tax burden on top of that.


    Pants, I honestly believe that well-meaning, independent-thinking liberals, moderates, and conservatives could come together on a lot of things. "Political Washington", also known as "Permanent Washington", also known as "The Beltway", also known as "The Political/Media Establishment", keeps us all divided - intentionally. I was interacting with a liberal the other day on PF about immigration, and it was amazing how much we agreed upon. I commented to him that, if we had the power, we could sit down and hammer out a general framework for a comprehensive deal in about an hour or less. And I'm conservative on that issue! But both of us were able to compromise on some things. Amazing!
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  5. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it's wrong to look at this issue as one of race/ethnicity in this way. The issue is really that poverty often begets poverty. And it's not as simple as making the right choices.

    We're all a product of our environment, and for some that environment has always been poverty. They don't see any other way. For them, life has few real choices and there is some justification. Take that poor kid raised in a poor family and living in a poor neighborhood, give him/her an education, then send the kid out into a world that can almost smell the poverty he/she was raised in--the way they speak, the way they dress, the way they act--all that causes us to prejudge. They can't get the jobs they were told they could. Employers don't trust them. When one makes the right choices and does the right things but still has to work two jobs just to pay the bills, it's hard to convince the poor that that's living a better life.

    We can preach all we want about going to school and making the right choices, but in their world we're talking fantasy. Their experience in the real world is one of being pre-judged and treated in biased ways. The rest of society makes judgments about what kind of people they are, and far too often those judgments are negative and only reinforce the notion that the notion of choices and education is simplistic and ineffective.

    Changes have to begin at the earliest age possible. The parents are often poor readers, so they don't read to children. They have never experienced how good reading skills can open doors for them, so it just isn't important. The adults in the community have serious problems with drugs. Far more adults in these environments end up in prison, and the kids grow up assuming that's where they'll go in time. Those who have a bit of money, tend to do bed things to get the money, and so the kids grow up under the notion that it's the only way to get ahead. After all, business is business to them.

    There is no simple solution. Saying they deserve it only makes things worse for us. Yet, giving them things can make it worse also.

    Again, we can't talk rationally about the problems if we over simplify them. There are some jobs that Americans just won't do today. Picking fruits and vegetables is seasonal work, which means low wages and seasonal work. Other jobs the Americans would probably do are being given to immigrants because employers want to save money. Construction work used to pay well and required certain skill sets. Now, much of that labor is contract labor that enables builders to hire sub-contractors and not have to do any of that E-Verify stuff. Those who are contracted tend to be immigrants who will work for less. In other words, in some cases they are driving down wages, in other cases, they're doing jobs no one else will do.

    A tax cut isn't going to end poverty, but it will help pay some bills.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  6. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think you understood the comment. I was referring to the beer analogy, not arguing for paying less.
    Put it in terms of taxes--assume a person makes $50,000 and pays $5000 in taxes while a person who makes $500,000 a year pays that same $5000 in taxes, both people are paying the same amount. As a percentage of cost of rent/mortgage, utilities, food, insurance, and other necessities, the taxes hit the first person much harder than the second.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most right wingers haven't heard of basic economics. Good point well made!

    That's because you can't use a dictionary! Its referring to how profit does not correspond to economic efficiency criteria. Rent, for example, is created through market concentration.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,132
    Likes Received:
    16,079
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The constitution speaks to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- NOT the guarantee of it.
    A lot of people are very poor because they hate to work. Many have jobs- but do as little as possible, and that does not get you raises or promotions.
    They simply don't have the drive to do better, and that is what it takes to pursue successfully, to achieve. However that is their choice, and it is also their responsibility and the consequences of their decisions. It's not the hand you are dealt that determines your destiny- it's how wisely you play it.

    Being on the bottom rung of the ladder is not a good position- but trying to pull down those above you, who are subsidizing your life anyway- does absolutely nothing to improve your position and is highly likely to diminish the subsidy. Climbing on the other hand improves both. Yes, it takes effort, but in America- less effort than most other places, and there is far more opportunity too. With rare exception, the person complaining about how hard life is has collected buckets of things proving he can't do, but nothing to say how he could- yet he has walked by opportunity everyday, and never recognized it or been willing to go for it. Self-defeating attitude, which only the person themselves can change. Giving them money does not make them equal- it makes them more dependent and far less likely to ever be able to establish self-respect and confidence- key elements of the ability to control your own destiny.

    I know a guy who has been a janitor all his life, never made very much money- and retired with a net worth well over a million; had a nice home and life-style by the time he was 40. How? He had a long-term plan, he wisely managed his finances, saved and invested. I've seen people wearing enough ink to have become wealthy had they invested the same money with reasonable care. It is life choices that make the difference- the ones we make everyday.

    When you compare what people have got- stop looking at the money and property each has, and start comparing the drive, the ambition, the attitudes and abilities they bring to the table. That will explain why some are poor and some are wealthy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
    Thought Criminal likes this.
  9. Pants

    Pants Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    12,815
    Likes Received:
    11,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    At the risk of being cheeky, where do you stand on Citizens United?
     
  10. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What I believe is that all political donations made by individuals or corporations should be limited to $500.00. And no, I do not believe that a corporation should have the free speech rights of a "person". I think that's absurd. People have free speech rights, not a company.
     
    Pants, Derideo_Te and Adfundum like this.
  11. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,568
    Likes Received:
    16,654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not the way a flat or any sort of other tax works. Flat taxes are based on a percentage of earnings so at 10% the guy making 50 grand pays 1/10 as much as the guy pay 500,000 grand. If you cut both by 1% the ratio between what both pay remains exactly the same. The top guy still pays 10 times as much as the poorer guy. Buy way of example under the Bush tax cuts. the Rich guys taxes were cut by 3%, and the poorest tax payers had there taxes cut by 5 percentage point. 38 to 35 for the highest 15 to 10 for the lowest end. If we use your 500k - 50k analogy the 500k guy went from paying190k to paying to 175k saving 15 k the fifty k guy went from paying 7.5k to paying 5k or saving 2.5k And of course you will yell that it isn't fair that the rich guy got six time as much but if you look at the numbers the rich guy went from paying 25 and 1/3 times as much to paying 30 times as much as the poorer guy.
     
  12. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not arguing any tax plan. The only thing I'm arguing at this point is that the beer analogy is not a logical argument because it doesn't look at basic costs of living. Apples to apples, if the two people mentioned lived on the same street in identical houses and drove the same vehicles and all the basic utilities and other costs were the same, the one making $50,000 pays a much higher percentage of his income to get by. If we're going to argue that people on the lower end aren't paying their fair share, I think we need to first consider what percentage of their income goes to paying the basic monthly bills.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Totally agree. It's not so much that we disagree, but that we're steered into disagreement by "influence peddlers". Certain words may have the same denotative meaning to us all, but the "political/media" adds connotative meanings that divide us.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. Labouroflove

    Labouroflove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    12,838
    Likes Received:
    6,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've got a great argument going for a repeal of the 17th amendment. The State Legislatures, at one time, provided the logical and legal pressure we're missing today.
     
  15. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not arguing that; however, I did mention earlier that it's not a simple matter of choice. If it was, I'm sure we'd have a lot more wealthy people.

    I'm not at all arguing for giving anything. Also in an earlier post--I said that giving people things is not a solution. The problem is that we don't all grow up in the same environment. I spent many years working with kids who lived in poverty, and trust me, they see things very differently, and justifiably so.

    I believe I read about this guy. Good for him, but if it's the one that was in the news not long ago, he lived alone and gave his money to charities at death. He lived a spartan life, which really makes saving up all that money pointless.

    Agreed, but again, I would add that it's not that simple in reality. I know people who've worked hard all their lives, tried investing, and in the end had almost nothing.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  16. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Citizens United case came about due to LW filmmakers' (Michael Moore specifically) "documentaries" (Fahrenheit 911 specifically) and other "entertainment" being used politically near elections to skirt donation and other campaign laws. This went on for decades, and not just at election time. Hollywood and TV, with few exceptions, have been essentially Democrat political organs since the 70s. One... single... RW company in a sea of LW political ads masquerading as "entertainment" was formed to do the exact same thing from the other side of the political spectrum, Citizens United, and all hell instantly broke loose with claims from LW Democrats that Citizens United was violating campaign laws.

    Despite that you won't find this truthful account of the case in any LW narratives of it, that's -exactly- what happened. SCOTUS, realizing this reality, threw up its hands (i.e. threw it back to the legislature) and the Citizens United ruling is the result. Any narrative on it that does not include the preceding necessary context is a LIE with the intention to deceive. Corporate influence in campaign language was already unlimited prior... so long as it supported Democrats and was concealed as "entertainment."

    IMO anyone whose votes are truly influenced by advertisements or smear piece movies shouldn't be allowed to vote at all, no matter who they vote for, but there's of course no way to implement that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  17. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Corporations
    I think that size matters in these cases. Larger corporations seem separated from the everyday reality of the average people. When corporate attention focuses on making investors happy the idea of working together for some kind of common good gets shoved aside as profits becomes the primary motive. I also see that at a certain point it becomes all but impossible for certain kinds of upstarts to make any headway in certain markets because they don't have the capacity to compete.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,568
    Likes Received:
    16,654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But that is a meaningless assessment. It's like claiming that it's unfair that two plus two equals four.
     
  19. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,568
    Likes Received:
    16,654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Large corporations give overwhelmingly to democrats small buisness and corporations give over whelmingly to Republicans.
     
    Sanskrit likes this.
  20. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TLDR but let me guess: Whitey is evil.
     
  21. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Currently Medicare Part A and B is already fully funded via Payroll taxes and Premiums. Part D could be fixed easily fixed by allowing Medicare to NEGOTIATE drug prices with Big Pharma and/or have access to generic equivalents. The Supplemental benefits come from the greed obsessed private sector and that is the problem, not the solution.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  22. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Derideo, as you can see from this chart, as of 2016, 75% of Part B is paid for by General Revenue, not dedicated Medicare taxes. 23% is funded by premiums. Part D is funded by 78% General Revenue and 13% by premiums. Only Part A is mostly funded by payroll taxes (87%). 49% of the overall Medicare program is funded by Medicare taxes and premiums, and 45% by General Revenue.

    What I am suggesting is that we take the step of replacing the general revenue and premium funding with dedicated funding that is derived from increased Medicare taxes, making the program a completely self-sustaining program. This would go a long ways towards reducing our annual federal budget deficits. We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars of General Revenue that would now be covered by increased Medicare payroll taxes. I would never agree to a national health care system that was not completely self-funded and self-sustaining.

    And we would be taking away the burden of medical expenses from our parents, our grandparents, and ourselves one day.

    Now, I hate to sound negative, but if we as a society are unwilling to take this step, then there is no chance that we would be willing to take a larger step.

    In my humble opinion, those who want to replace our present medical system with a national health care system like those in UK, Canada, or Australia, should not advocate for a total replacement of our system. That is asking for too much, too fast. Better to advocate for a small step like the one I'm suggesting. For if we are unwilling to do even that, there is no chance of doing it for everyone.

    Being the budget hawk that I am, what I believe is that we can do things that we want to do as a nation - if we're willing to pay for them. If we're unwilling to pay for them, we can't have them.

    Simple as that, really.

    medicare funding.png
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
    Adfundum likes this.
  23. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the latest updates on those numbers. (Mine were older than those.)

    We agree that there does need to be a gradual transition and that Medicare MUST be fully funded.

    The Part D costs need to be reduced and this can be accomplished through negotiating drug prices and uses generics. That will probably decrease the cost by at least 50% if not more.

    That makes the increase in Payroll taxes less onerous and brings us into line with other Single Payer systems where they do use bulk purchasing power to obtain lower drug prices.

    Yes, we must be willing to pay for them and that does mean increasing taxes. Right now they are artificially low IMO.
     
  24. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Respectfully, Adfundum, large corporations contain millions of average people.

    Granted, CEO's, CFO's, and major stock holders make a lot of money. So, to bring about tax justice, tax those very high earners at a high rate that, in fact, brings about tax justice. They are not going to be hurt in a significant, life-altering way by doing that, but they will be more supporting the nation that gave them the opportunity to achieve a very high level of success. For example, let's say a CEO makes $2 million a year. After taxing the first million, they're left with roughly $700,000 under today's rates. Let's say the 2nd million was taxed at 50%. They would be left with $500,000 out of that 2nd million, meaning that they would have had a total of $1.2 million after federal taxes. This is not a heavy burden to bear compared to the worker who is supporting a family of four on $70-100,000 per year. That CEO will enjoy his success, have a nice living, and live in comfort at $1.2 million.

    Let's say that CEO made $3 million, and we taxed that 3rd million at 60%, leaving him with $400,000 out of that third million. Then his total after tax income would be $1.6 million. Was this cruel? Was this unfair to him, leaving him with only $1.6 million? The answer is obvious.

    We can support the federal government and be fair to lower-wage people. This is what I mean by "tax justice" or "tax fairness". And if we do this, I see no reason to tax the company itself. The company is the engine. If you have an 8 cylinder engine, you don't remove a spark plug and run it on 7 cylinders. This is what I'm trying to say.
     
  25. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We agree.

    Taxes are artificially low because of deficit spending.

    And I also believe that we should be willing to take care of our parents and grandparents, while at the same time, securing our future health care needs when we are their age.

    As a conservative, I am not opposed to taking this step. We should do it, and then, and only then, with this experience to help guide us, can we competently consider taking another step.

    Seth
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.

Share This Page