Joe Joe Joe......

WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_o...en_taxes_3

Let's see how many of those tax deductions the patriotic senator chose to forego during the last several years, all in the name of duty...

Not that I like parroting a talking point from the right, but it's an amusing note - there is nothing to prevent anyone from paying more in taxes than they owe. You don't have to claim your refund, or you can just write a check for the extra contribution. After all, if it is our duty to pay higher taxes, then I'm sure that our rich legislators are already doing this as an example to all.

Wait, they're not?

How can 4 out of 5 households receive a tax cut when only 53% of them pay taxes?

As for the legislators, it is definitely "say one thing, do the opposite".

OptimisticOwl Wrote:How can 4 out of 5 households receive a tax cut when only 53% of them pay taxes?

Bigger "refunds"/"tax incentive payments" to the 47% included in that 4 out of 5 that are getting a "tax cut" that don't pay taxes? You might note that if your 4 out of 5 figure is correct, then I'd suggest that it is really 47% of the public get more welfare and 33% of the public (62% of real taxpayers) are getting "tax cuts". That leaves 38% of tax payers with no tax relief. So where does middle class stop and "rich" begin?

RiceDoc Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:How can 4 out of 5 households receive a tax cut when only 53% of them pay taxes?

Bigger "refunds"/"tax incentive payments" to the 47% included in that 4 out of 5 that are getting a "tax cut" that don't pay taxes? You might note that if your 4 out of 5 figure is correct, then I'd suggest that it is really 47% of the public get more welfare and 33% of the public (62% of real taxpayers) are getting "tax cuts". That leaves 38% of tax payers with no tax relief. So where does middle class stop and "rich" begin?

The four out of five was from the article quoted by WMD. It isn't "my" 4 out of 5.

I understand that Obama says that only the top 5% of taxpayers will be affected, which means people with incomes over about $140,000, not $250,000. In any case, they conveniently forget that lots of people who make less than either figure have a large portion of their incomes from capital gains. I guess the assumption is that only rich people have mutual funds. Only people with incomes over $250K invest in real estate. What are the differences between spin, lies, and intentionally misleading statements? I am glad we only do this presidential election every four years, it takes me about 3 years to calm down.

The Democratic position on raising corporate taxes, windfall taxes, and raising capital gains taxes as a way of improving the economy reminds me of a medical theory that was very popular in the 18th century - that the best way to cure an illness is to bleed the patient.

Only one party sees being financially successful as being ill

My problem is that not only will I have a higher Federal tax rate, I also have to pay:

Georgia State Income Tax, which is tied to Federal, and,

Georgia State Property Tax (which is about 85% as much as as School/County/City Property Taxes back in Texas)

As soon as the election is over, you can bet the Georgia Legislature will be increasing State taxes.

In fact, moving here I pay more in total State/Local Taxes than I paid in Texas.

Add in retirement contributions, etc., then the amount for discretionary spending gets lower and lower.

WMD - are you including or excluding sales tax from your total state/local taxes paid? Just curious (not that it's mundane to the original topic).

Biden's comments make somewhere outside the US look better and better.

You guys are missing the point. We are going to have CHANGE, and that is wonderful. Of course, given the blessings of our country, there are more potential ways for bad change than for good change. But what the hell, we will have CHANGE. And we will have HOPE. And after the change, HOPE might be all we have.

The Hope I knew in high school was a nice girl. She was a good friend, smart and good looking. But if she is all we have, then things are going to be mighty skimpy.

Seriously, her name was Hope. (She had a twin named Heather. And another sister named Faith.)

Then again, if you're talking about Hope, AR, then you have a choice between Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee.

Oh, never mind. Both of these potential administrations are going to have to raise taxes or severely curtail spending. The borrowing machine is showing some significant cracks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01960.html

Obama's remarks on the economy today.

gsloth Wrote:WMD - are you including or excluding sales tax from your total state/local taxes paid? Just curious (not that it's mundane to the original topic).

The sales taxes vary from county to county, Food isn't taxed on thet state level, but is on the county level--and different counties tax it at different rates. and the counties can impose additional sales taxes on transit, schools, etc. Outside of Atlanta it is 3%/7%.. a little less than Houston.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01960.html

Obama's remarks on the economy today.

It's good to know Obama plans to have a plan.

gsloth Wrote:Not that I like parroting a talking point from the right, but it's an amusing note - there is nothing to prevent anyone from paying more in taxes than they owe. You don't have to claim your refund, or you can just write a check for the extra contribution. After all, if it is our duty to pay higher taxes, then I'm sure that our rich legislators are already doing this as an example to all.

Wait, they're not?

This a very valid question, and a puzzling one. In almost every other field of civic endeavor, those who think people in general should do XYZ (eat healthy, recycle, give to charity, whatever) are often the first to do XYZ themselves. In fact, taking action in their own lives and communities generally PRECEDES their wider policy advocacy. But that never seems to be the case with taxes.

Why is that? If someone really believes that the government should have more money, then why don't they start by giving more of their OWN money to government. I can see two possible explanations. One is simple insincerity or hypocrisy. That's easy to say, but but I think that explanation just might be too simple.

The second explanation is that for some tax advocates, the benefit they see in taxation is not just better funding of government, but the taking of money from people who don't "need" or "deserve" it. To them, the confiscation itself -- far from being a necessary evil -- is actually an inherent good. Since confiscation is thus the actual goal, it makes perfect sense why tax advocates (unlike other civic advocates) do NOT actually lead by example: because the goal they seek is not actually to enhance government revenue, but to decrease the wealth of other people. In sum, they are advocating taking not for any good it does for the public, but because of the specific detriment it does to the takee.

It is frightening that any policymaker would advocate a policy for this purpose. Such a policy of taking is so low, so fundamentally repugnant that the advocates are (rightly) afraid to admit their real motive. But in many cases I think it is the only motive that is reconcilable with their policy statements.

A third option is that they understand that their individual contributions will not be enough to provide the level of funding that their vision of government requires. Unless all, or at least all who are able, are forced to contribute, the marginal benefit of their additional contribution does not outweigh their personal cost. If everyone contributes, then the benefit to the governement becomes worth the indidviual price.

Besides, the IRS would probably waste the additional contributions just trying to figure out why people were paying more than they were supposed to.

georgewebb Wrote:

gsloth Wrote:Not that I like parroting a talking point from the right, but it's an amusing note - there is nothing to prevent anyone from paying more in taxes than they owe. You don't have to claim your refund, or you can just write a check for the extra contribution. After all, if it is our duty to pay higher taxes, then I'm sure that our rich legislators are already doing this as an example to all.

Wait, they're not?

This a very valid question, and a puzzling one. In almost every other field of civic endeavor, those who think people in general should do XYZ (eat healthy, recycle, give to charity, whatever) are often the first to do XYZ themselves. In fact, taking action in their own lives and communities generally PRECEDES their wider policy advocacy. But that never seems to be the case with taxes.

Why is that? If someone really believes that the government should have more money, then why don't they start by giving more of their OWN money to government. I can see two possible explanations. One is simple insincerity or hypocrisy. That's easy to say, but but I think that explanation just might be too simple.

The second explanation is that for some tax advocates, the benefit they see in taxation is not just better funding of government, but the taking of money from people who don't "need" or "deserve" it. To them, the confiscation itself -- far from being a necessary evil -- is actually an inherent good. Since confiscation is thus the actual goal, it makes perfect sense why tax advocates (unlike other civic advocates) do NOT actually lead by example: because the goal they seek is not actually to enhance government revenue, but to decrease the wealth of other people. In sum, they are advocating taking not for any good it does for the public, but because of the specific detriment it does to the takee.

It is frightening that any policymaker would advocate a policy for this purpose. Such a policy of taking is so low, so fundamentally repugnant that the advocates are (rightly) afraid to admit their real motive. But in many cases I think it is the only motive that is reconcilable with their policy statements.

interesting perspective...

Of course, we all know that the REAL issue is that cutting spending (even reducing the size of a proposed increase) costs you votes, while increasing taxes on 'the rich" probably picks up more than it loses. There is absolutely positively zero incentive for anyone in government to be efficient.

jh Wrote:A third option is that they understand that their individual contributions will not be enough to provide the level of funding that their vision of government requires. Unless all, or at least all who are able, are forced to contribute, the marginal benefit of their additional contribution does not outweigh their personal cost. If everyone contributes, then the benefit to the governement becomes worth the indidviual price.

Besides, the IRS would probably waste the additional contributions just trying to figure out why people were paying more than they were supposed to.

I guess another way of saying this is that they are willing to pay more only if they can force other people to pay more also. Until then they will continue to use the "tax breaks for the rich" they publicly oppose.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

jh Wrote:A third option is that they understand that their individual contributions will not be enough to provide the level of funding that their vision of government requires. Unless all, or at least all who are able, are forced to contribute, the marginal benefit of their additional contribution does not outweigh their personal cost. If everyone contributes, then the benefit to the governement becomes worth the indidviual price.

I guess another way of saying this is that they are willing to pay more only if they can force other people to pay more also. Until then they will continue to use the "tax breaks for the rich" they publicly oppose.

That's certainly part of it, but I don't think it's fair to completely ignore the benefit side of the equation (at least not for the people who actually think they way I described). Sometimes you have to have a critical mass in order for something to have a chance at being effective. If that mass is not acheived, then it is pointless to make individual sacrifices in its name. They aren't willing to pay more unless it is likely to make a difference.

For a hackneyed, hollywood example, take a charge across No Man's Land during WWI. If an individual soldier, tried it, it's almost certain that he would be cut down long before reaching the other side. If everyone goes at the same time, then there's a chance (albiet not a very good one) that enough people will make it to the other side to make it worthwhile, at least in the strategic sense. If there are not enough soldiers left to make an effective charge, it makes no sense to attempt it.