And if you're employed and vote Democrat, you're a sucker.

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 04:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 04:31 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 04:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I wouldn't say all Southern men do this but without a doubt, the GOP has attempted to use race in order to sway more people toward their cause.

Lol, now THAT'S funny!

It's a proven fact. For example. Everyone knows that more white people are on government assistance but whenever GOP sponsored campaign commercials come out on TV, they always show black people in their commercials. Ignorant people see that and their racism kicks in and they vote for the GOP..

That's like producing a million red cars and 100 green ones, and saying that more people drive red cars... Well no shiit. I don't think you'd want to go by percentages though.

Population by race:
White: 224,000,000
Black: 39,000,000
Hispanic: 50,400,000

Number of people on Food Stamps by race.
White: 19,475,000
Black: 17,100,000
Hispanic: 8,550,000

Percent of population on Food Stamps by Race:
White: 8.6%
Black: 43.8%
Hispanic: 17%

Number of Americans on welfare: 12,800,000
White: 38.8%
Black: 39.8%
Hispanic: 15.7%

Doesn't look so good anymore does it...

Reparations.

Why do the total percentages for Food Stamps total less than 70%?

(04-15-2014 01:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How can the left continually get away with the 'tax the rich' mantra when the overwhelming evidence is that the truly wealthy pay only about 17% of their REPORTED income in taxes while sheltering the vast majority of their wealth entirely from taxes, meanwhile the middle and upper middle classes routinely pay 25% and more of their income in taxes.

Obama has made this worse, not better.

What is this argument even supposed to be here? Because the wealthy are so good at hiding their assets, we should lower their taxes? Uh, no.

Once again, all of you guys have the same problem reading English. I'll say it more bluntly.

Obama and the left (you) talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich... but you don't. You raise taxes on the ALMOST rich. Your policies favor the rich and actually make it EASIER for them to shiled their assets, which is why they often applaud you.

Buffett in particular made a lot of his fortune by 'rolling up' successful mom and pop shops taxed at high individual rates and rolling them into his corporation at a lower tax rate. By raising individual rates, you make this even more attractive/allow them to more deeply discount the purchase.

I'm sorry English escapes you. I hope math doesn't as well.

FTR. I never said Republicans as a party were any better, but the only proposals that involved things that are actual solutions to this problem have come from the right. In general they are a leveling of the rates, not a steepening... and then a consumption tax of some sort... because while the poor consume all they get, the wealthy consume far far far more. You can easily exempt things the poor spend most of their money on just like they do at the grocery store or you can prefund it. All of these things have been proposed by people from the right. I've never seen one single proposal from the left along these lines.

Quote:Obama has not raised taxes on the middle class.

Categorical lie. You are either naive or simply 'in the tank'.

Quote:The "anti tax" Ryan budget cuts millionaires' taxes $200k, but raises taxes on middle class families with children by a average of $2k. The GOP is the party of the rich and it's painfully obvious. If you vote for them and you're not a millionaire you're a sucker.

THIS is why your side fails... because you are ignorent of how the wealthy act. You apply math that doesn't in any way reflect reality, either because you are wilfully stupid, or you simply pick easy, if untruthful arguments.

Assume that if you have someone who pays 93% of his taxes at the 'gains' rate and 7% as income (which is about right). This happens because gains are 15% and income is 36%. You assume that a 4% rise in income taxes will generate 4% more revenue... which is where these STUPID numbers like you've listed here (I know they aren't yours, but are from papers you read) but it doesn't. It only generates about 0.3% more... and often less.

The way to make them pay more is to LOWER the income tax rate more in line with the gains rate, making the incentive to shelter income less, and thereby capturing ALL of the 'cost' associated with sheltering income. When taxes are 40% and gains are 15%, Investors will sacrifice as much as 24.9% of the income from a project merely to reclassify it. This is a HUGE industry, but OFTEN involves foriegn tax entities. If the rates were both at say 20%, (using a simple example) your side would argue that it was a 200,000 tax break for millionaires... when the reality is that vs the 17% they actually pay, it is a 30,000 tax hike. Actually it is even more than that because they are no longer discouraged from reporting income, so instead of reporting $1mm (and paying 250,000 to shelter another $1mm)... They report $2mm in income, and are happy to do it, becuase the tax on the previously unreported million is only 200k, and it cost them 250k to shelter it.

The government gets 230,000 more... more than a 100% tax increase from the 170,000 they previously got, and the investor is ALSO happy because despite the 'massive' tax hike (which your side called a cut) he keeps 20,000 more than he did before on his $2mm. Not many other business moves can so easily add 1% to a bottom line.

The proof is that under Clinton, the rates were 20 and 28%, and the 'mix' between gains and income was about 50/50.

(04-16-2014 08:03 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Why do the total percentages for Food Stamps total less than 70%?

Because Obama's plan hasn't been completed yet.

(04-15-2014 01:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Worth noting the "War on Poverty" began around 1968.

Poverty won.

(04-16-2014 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Once again, all of you guys have the same problem reading English. I'll say it more bluntly.

Obama and the left (you) talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich... but you don't. You raise taxes on the ALMOST rich. Your policies favor the rich and actually make it EASIER for them to shiled their assets, which is why they often applaud you.

Buffett in particular made a lot of his fortune by 'rolling up' successful mom and pop shops taxed at high individual rates and rolling them into his corporation at a lower tax rate. By raising individual rates, you make this even more attractive/allow them to more deeply discount the purchase.

I'm sorry English escapes you. I hope math doesn't as well.

FTR. I never said Republicans as a party were any better, but the only proposals that involved things that are actual solutions to this problem have come from the right. In general they are a leveling of the rates, not a steepening... and then a consumption tax of some sort... because while the poor consume all they get, the wealthy consume far far far more. You can easily exempt things the poor spend most of their money on just like they do at the grocery store or you can prefund it. All of these things have been proposed by people from the right. I've never seen one single proposal from the left along these lines.

Quote:Obama has not raised taxes on the middle class.

Categorical lie. You are either naive or simply 'in the tank'.

Quote:The "anti tax" Ryan budget cuts millionaires' taxes $200k, but raises taxes on middle class families with children by a average of $2k. The GOP is the party of the rich and it's painfully obvious. If you vote for them and you're not a millionaire you're a sucker.

THIS is why your side fails... because you are ignorent of how the wealthy act. You apply math that doesn't in any way reflect reality, either because you are wilfully stupid, or you simply pick easy, if untruthful arguments.

Assume that if you have someone who pays 93% of his taxes at the 'gains' rate and 7% as income (which is about right). This happens because gains are 15% and income is 36%. You assume that a 4% rise in income taxes will generate 4% more revenue... which is where these STUPID numbers like you've listed here (I know they aren't yours, but are from papers you read) but it doesn't. It only generates about 0.3% more... and often less.

The way to make them pay more is to LOWER the income tax rate more in line with the gains rate, making the incentive to shelter income less, and thereby capturing ALL of the 'cost' associated with sheltering income. When taxes are 40% and gains are 15%, Investors will sacrifice as much as 24.9% of the income from a project merely to reclassify it. This is a HUGE industry, but OFTEN involves foriegn tax entities. If the rates were both at say 20%, (using a simple example) your side would argue that it was a 200,000 tax break for millionaires... when the reality is that vs the 17% they actually pay, it is a 30,000 tax hike. Actually it is even more than that because they are no longer discouraged from reporting income, so instead of reporting $1mm (and paying 250,000 to shelter another $1mm)... They report $2mm in income, and are happy to do it, becuase the tax on the previously unreported million is only 200k, and it cost them 250k to shelter it.

The government gets 230,000 more... more than a 100% tax increase from the 170,000 they previously got, and the investor is ALSO happy because despite the 'massive' tax hike (which your side called a cut) he keeps 20,000 more than he did before on his $2mm. Not many other business moves can so easily add 1% to a bottom line.

The proof is that under Clinton, the rates were 20 and 28%, and the 'mix' between gains and income was about 50/50.

You're the one here defending the Ryan budget and acting surprised when tax cuts get brought into the discussion, apparently oblivious that it's part of the same Ryan budget, yet I'm the one lacking English skills.

Why do you make the bizarre assumption that "the left (me)" only wants to raise individual rate but not corporate rates?

A study found the FairTax lowers your taxes if you're making under $15k or over $200k, but raises it on everyone in between. No thanks. The wealthy consume more but they also spend far less of what they earn. In the end they make off with lower effective rates.

Okay English professor, show me where Obama raised taxes on the middle class. He cut their payroll taxes and offered other tax breaks via the stimulus. Do you mean the penalty for not carrying health insurance? I thought the right (you) said you can just opt out of that? Even if you count that, the money saved via the other breaks probably outweighs it.

Will raising rates lead to tax avoidance or even evasion? Sure, but you're overstating the impact. Put those English skills of yours to use and see the studies cited here:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3756

Quote:As three leading tax economists recently concluded in a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence, “there is no compelling evidence to date of real responses of upper income taxpayers to changes in tax rates.”[1] The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run.

The debate over the economic effects of higher taxes on people with high incomes has focused on a number of issues — how increasing taxes at the top would affect taxable income and revenue as well as the effects on work and labor supply, saving and investment, small businesses, entrepreneurship, and, ultimately, economic growth and jobs. Here is a summary of what the evidence shows.

Taxable income and revenue. Opponents of raising the taxes that high-income households face often point to findings that high-income taxpayers respond to tax-rate increases by reporting less income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as evidence that high marginal tax rates impose significant costs on the economy. However, an important study by tax economists Joel Slemrod and Alan Auerbach found that such reductions in reported income largely reflect timing and other tax avoidance strategies that taxpayers adopt to minimize their taxable income, not changes in real work, savings, and investment behavior. While such strategies entail some economic costs, these costs are relatively modest. Moreover, policymakers can limit high-income taxpayers’ ability to respond to increases in tax rates by engaging in tax avoidance activity — and also enhance the efficiency of the tax code — by broadening the tax base, as discussed below.

In any event, the best evidence suggests policymakers should not worry that raising taxes on high-income taxpayers will reduce revenues. High-income taxpayers’ response to tax increases is sufficiently modest — and current tax rates are sufficiently low — that there is considerable room for policymakers to collect more revenue by raising federal income tax rates.

In a recent study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist and Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond and economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley calculated that income tax revenues would not be maximized until the top rate reached 48 percent under the current tax base, or 76 percent if policymakers expanded the tax base to reduce opportunities for tax avoidance.[19] These calculations are based on an upper-bound estimate of how responsive high-income taxpayers are to the top tax rate.[20] Some opponents of tax increases at the top of the income distribution have argued, based on older estimates, that high-income taxpayers are much more responsive. But as the box on page 6 explains, these older estimates are not reliable.[21]

When estimating the revenue gained by raising taxes on high-income groups, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Treasury Department take into account the best evidence about how high-income taxpayers reduce their taxable income in response to tax increases.[22] JCT and Treasury find that after taking these responses into account, modest increases in the top marginal tax rates would raise significant revenue.[23] For example:

Treasury estimates that allowing the cuts in income taxesfor high-income households (those with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000 for married filers and $200,000 for single filers) and estate taxes that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of 2012 would save a $968 billion over the next ten years.[24]
Similarly, JCT estimates that imposing surcharges of 2 percent on joint returns with adjusted gross incomes between $350,000 and $500,000, 3 percent on joint returns between $500,000 and $1 million, and 5.4 percent on joint returns above $1 million, starting in 2011, would have raised more than $60 billion a year when fully in effect.[25]
These figures are exclusive of the additional savings that would result from lower interest payments on the debt or any other macroeconomic responses if policymakers used the revenues for deficit reduction.

(04-16-2014 11:05 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 01:11 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

Worth noting the "War on Poverty" began around 1968.

Wrong. LBJ launched his War on Poverty in 1964, but it was mostly a continuation of policies outlined by JFK in 1960 in his New Frontier program (the NF contained a food stamp pilot program that covered hundreds of thousands). JFK increased unemployment aid, Social Security aid and eligibility and raise the minimum wage.

This is just under JFK:

Quote:Altogether, the economic stimulus program provided an estimated 420,000 construction jobs under a new Housing Act, $175 million in higher wages for those below the new minimum, over $400 million in aid to over 1,000 distressed counties, over $200 million in extra welfare payments to 750,000 children and their parents, and nearly $800 million in extended unemployment benefits for nearly three million unemployed Americans.[6]

LBJ's War on Poverty programs were enacted in 1964 and 1965, when the rate was 19%. It makes no sense to say the War on Poverty has been lost when the rate hasn't risen above 15% since, and I say again, that doesn't even take into consideration Medicaid coverage for the poor. But Republicans have never been enthusiastic about making sense, just defending their myths and superstitions.

(04-16-2014 12:34 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It makes no sense to say the War on Poverty has been lost when the rate hasn't risen above 15% since, and I say again, that doesn't even take into consideration Medicaid coverage for the poor.

So let's talk solutions.

Max, how long should the War on Poverty continue in it's current iteration if success is defined as maintaining a double digit trend line of poverty through increased spending?

There have been changes. Obamacare increased Medicaid eligibility. Unfortunately the changes proposed from the right tend to make the situation worse.

Max - 1968 came from memory as a reference for your graph. I was a couple of years off, calm down and take some meds dude.

(04-16-2014 12:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  There have been changes. Obamacare increased Medicaid eligibility. Unfortunately the changes proposed from the right tend to make the situation worse.

The "right" were not included in negotiations about ZeroCare. ZeroCare is all the left's solutions, you live with it, it is your sh!t sandwich to consume. Enjoy.

(04-16-2014 08:03 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:06 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 04:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 04:31 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Lol, now THAT'S funny!

It's a proven fact. For example. Everyone knows that more white people are on government assistance but whenever GOP sponsored campaign commercials come out on TV, they always show black people in their commercials. Ignorant people see that and their racism kicks in and they vote for the GOP..

That's like producing a million red cars and 100 green ones, and saying that more people drive red cars... Well no shiit. I don't think you'd want to go by percentages though.

Population by race:
White: 224,000,000
Black: 39,000,000
Hispanic: 50,400,000

Number of people on Food Stamps by race.
White: 19,475,000
Black: 17,100,000
Hispanic: 8,550,000

Percent of population on Food Stamps by Race:
White: 8.6%
Black: 43.8%
Hispanic: 17%

Number of Americans on welfare: 12,800,000
White: 38.8%
Black: 39.8%
Hispanic: 15.7%

Doesn't look so good anymore does it...

Reparations.

Why do the total percentages for Food Stamps total less than 70%?

The percentages don't matter because when politicians cut funds, it hurts more whites than blacks. Even if the percentage of blacks on welfare is larger than that of whites.

That is the whole point of swaying voters. They use commercials that show only blacks which sways voters to vote for people who will cut benefits because they believe that blacks benefit more than whites when actually, the opposite is the case.

White people are voting to cut benefits that help whites more than blacks.

(04-16-2014 03:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  White people are voting to cut benefits that help whites more than blacks.

I hope you realize that this one comment prevents you from ever pulling the race card.

[q

(04-16-2014 12:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  You're the one here defending the Ryan budget and acting surprised when tax cuts get brought into the discussion, apparently oblivious that it's part of the same Ryan budget, yet I'm the one lacking English skills.

I'm not defending the Ryan plan. I don't need to. It isn't law and isn't in place and hasn't remotely been vetted or negotiated.

I am instead attacking your limited understanding of economics and taxes. You hav applied the most rudimentary of analysis to a very complex issue in order to reach a patently false conclusion that SOUNDS convincing and gets votes... but the truth, while much harder to explain and understand is still the truth. That doesn't make Ryan's plan 'good'... It merely makes you analysis of his plan BAD.

the "english' lesson comes from your flawed interpretation of what i said... which obviously continues.

Virtually EVERY Republican running for President last time had some version of a 7/7/7, flat tax, fair tax as their cornerstone... and every single Democratic response (including yours here) showed a complete lack of understanding of how the rich react to tax policy.

The wealth gap under Obama has widened significantly... because MOST of you guys don't understand it.

Quote:Why do you make the bizarre assumption that "the left (me)" only wants to raise individual rate but not corporate rates?

We aren't even yet talking about corporations. We're talking about gains vs income... which is precisely what your article below talks about.

Quote:A study found the FairTax lowers your taxes if you're making under $15k or over $200k, but raises it on everyone in between. No thanks. The wealthy consume more but they also spend far less of what they earn. In the end they make off with lower effective rates.

A study funded by left-leaning people who don't understand it. Every single fair tax proposal has included some version of an exemption or what became the Boortz-Linder prefund which pays ALL of the taxes for people who make below some threshold... with the net rate changing based on where you set it.... which means that your comment is patently false/uninformed. You can't possibly be raising the taxes on someone who is exempt from paying them. If you give someone $200 to pay $200 in 'sales' taxes, you have arguably increased their taxes, but you didn't decrease their disposable income. If you consider the government giving someone money to pay their tax bill any different than not giving them a tax bill at all and a 'tax increase', then you are mincing words and not dealing in economic realities. On the other end, I've already demonstrated the fallacy of your over 200k issue... though I suspect it IS true that those making over 200k would pay less in taxes, but those making over $1mm (as I have demonstrated) would pay far far more. You can certainly change these numbers as you see fit, merely by picking a lower limit, below which you are completely exempt and an upper one above which you pay a premium/lose ALL exemptions. Simple.

Quote:Okay English professor, show me where Obama raised taxes on the middle class. He cut their payroll taxes and offered other tax breaks via the stimulus. Do you mean the penalty for not carrying health insurance? I thought the right (you) said you can just opt out of that? Even if you count that, the money saved via the other breaks probably outweighs it.

When did I (or anyone on the right) ever argue that you could opt out of Obamacare? If you could simply opt out, why would we be upset about it?

The Supreme Court said that it is a tax. As they are for all intents and purposes the highest authority in the land, I think I'll go with that. The upper middle class and wealthy already had insurance and the poor get it for free. Those who make enough to afford insurance (in other words, not poor) but chose not to (in other words, not rich) now are REQUIRED to pay this tax. What do we call not poor and not rich people? The middle class.

On top of that, while I can certainly find thousands of right leaning articles that claim far far far greater taxes thrust upon the middle class, you would simply shoot the messenger.

Here is an analysis of Obama's Budget by what most consider to be a center-left organization. While they certainly say that the wealthy bear most of the burden, they admit that Obama raises taxes on the middle class in his budget... which is ON TOP of Obamacare. He said NOT ONE DIME. Even many liberal leaners have identified NUMEROUS dimes of increased taxes on people making less than 250k.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22...33755.html

Quote:Will raising rates lead to tax avoidance or even evasion? Sure, but you're overstating the impact. Put those English skills of yours to use and see the studies cited here:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3756
[quote]study performed by left-leaning groups

A perfect example of what I'm talking about.... and it is YOU who is arguing English. I'm arguing math/investments.

I'll make it simple for you.

The current top marginal tax bracket is 39.6%. As that bracket kicks in at about 250k, simple math argues that people making millions SHOULD have an average tax burden close to this rate... but they don't. Their average rate is below 20%... below many of those who make far less... and it seems the higher you go in income, the lower the rate. Add on top of this the hundreds of billions of dollars they hold in 'perpetual' assets on which they pay NO income taxes. In fact, numerous millionaires pay ZERO in taxes. For ANYONE to argue that the wealthy don't take every advantage to limit their tax liability shows them to be completely ignorant.

As I suggested a means of raising their average tax burden to 20% (from the current 17%) AND to widening the base, I am arguing for exactly the same thing as your article.

(04-16-2014 03:33 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  [quote='Max Power' pid='10675042' dateline='1397670712']
There have been changes. Obamacare increased Medicaid eligibility. Unfortunately the changes proposed from the right tend to make the situation worse.

The "right" were not included in negotiations about ZeroCare. ZeroCare is all the left's solutions, you live with it, it is your sh!t sandwich to consume. Enjoy.
[/quote]

First we hear that the right has no ideas... then we hear that portions of Obamacare were modeled after ideas from the right... then we hear that all the right wants to do is repeal, and now we're told that they're trying to make changes.... Now we're hearing that these changes make things worse... but none of those changes, or how they make things worse have been articulated by anyone.

Just keep moving the goal posts and avoiding facts.

How about this.

Keep uncapped policies. This really costs next to nothing.

Expand Medicaid to cover more people by increasing the taxes on people with higher incomes... either through higher payroll taxes or higher income taxes... or God forbid, through reductions in spending without returning that money to the wealthy

Encourage/provide 'donut' coverage, ensuring catastrophic and preventative care... but discouraging (by making people pay more out of pocket for) poor choices that result in a need for medical care like poor diet, smoking, drugs and risky behavior... but still cover rehab.

PECs are covered with a higher/declining deductible for a year and then as normal after then... making up a PEC example... 10,000 for 90 days (its still better than they had before) 7,500 for the next 90... 5000 for the next then 2500... and then 1-2000 or whatever from then on. This encourages people with PECs to buy insurance today and discourages people from waiting until they are sick to buy insurance, but you can't be excluded and you can't go 'broke'.

The reason this is fair is because someone who is poor and has a PEC, though now they get a 'free' O-Care.. that only applies to the premiums... they will STILL have a 3,000 deductible and a 30% copay... meaning 100,000 in care still costs them $33,000... which by definition they don't have... so I'm not really changing anything, other than reshuffling the numbers to avoid the last minute sign-ups without taxing the middle class. I mean seriously, what difference does it make if a poor person accumulates (and it later gets written off) 10 or 12 times their annual income over a few years? The people you want to make PAY for their care are the wealthy (not the 'not quite poor') and those who run up bills because they make poor life choices.

I would also end the freeze on medicare funded fp residency programs which would increase the amount of primary care available and increase rather than decrease (as the ACA does) reimbursement for pcp's for the same purpose.

All of this assumes you actually want to do what Obamacare promised to do but fails miserably at doing... which is an entirely different question.