2016 Presidential Campaign

[Tecumsehsbones]

The point I am making relates to 'who' is taking-on the brunt of the costs... I'm of the opinion it's the middle income demographic

When bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he famously replied "That's where the money is."

The rich have excellent defenses for their money.

The poor have an even better defense -- no money.

Now, whom does that leave to satisfy our endless appetite for war porn and goodies?

 

[captain morgan]

Fair enough... So the next question really is; who are the primary consumers of the state sponsored goodies?

 

[Walter]

Fair enough... So the next question really is; who are the primary consumers of the state sponsored goodies?

The poor and the cronies.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Fair enough... So the next question really is; who are the primary consumers of the state sponsored goodies?

The rich, followed by the middle class, with the poor bringing up the rear (as always).

 

[captain morgan]

A brief expansion on that would be helpful... Personally, I don't see how one can differentiate the consumption of common services based on income levels alone

 

[JLM]

So which Republican Candidate comes across as the sane one.........?














Scott Walker Says His Presidential Bid Is 'God's Plan' | Right Wing Watch

Who knows? or for the Democrats for that matter. They are all politicians!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

A brief expansion on that would be helpful... Personally, I don't see how one can differentiate the consumption of common services based on income levels alone

I've done this before. I suppose I can reiterate briefly.

Let us take a rich woman, assets $10 million, income $500,000.

And a middle-class man, assets $150,000, income $50,000.

And a poor woman, assets zero, income $14,500 (Federal minimum wage for a work year, assuming 40-hour weeks, five unpaid holidays, and ten days unpaid due to inability to work (I'm rounding up)).

Now, let's look at the value received from "the government," Federal, state, and local.

The poor woman probably receives a housing subsidy, food stamps, and Medicaid, worth perhaps $15,000 per year. She pays no Federal or state income tax, but her burden in other taxes and fees comes to 8-10% of her income.

The middle-class man receives no direct subsidies in cash or kind, but has a number of tax breaks that take his total taxes from a nominal rate of about 33% to an actual rate around 22%.

The rich woman, with a little creative financial advice, probably pays around 17% in total taxes. Mitt Romney's Federal income tax was 14% for 2011.

Now, in terms of value received, it looks like the poor woman is getting over 100% of her income, more like 1000% of her taxes paid, and the others are receiving little or nothing. But you're leaving out the value of services rendered.

The value of defense and policing, economically speaking, is roughly equivalent to the value of the property being defended.

The cost of infrastructure disproportionately benefits the rich. They use infrastructure more, and their wealth is made possible by infrastructure.

Things like the civil courts, air traffic control, national parks, &c. benefit the rich massively, the middle class less so, and the poor not at all.

Further, much of the rich woman's portfolio will be invested in companies whose sole customer, or whose biggest customer, is the government. So she's actually receiving tax money.

To say that a person who does not receive direct cash or kind payments from the government is not benefiting from the government is the height of narrow-mindedness. Quite the contrary, as I have demonstrated here in rough outline, value received from the government is pretty much proportional to wealth.

 

[captain morgan]

You have excluded the reality that the assets have been purchased with after tax monies. Things like property are taxed annually based on value. Further, considering that the various VATs and sales taxes increase those contributed funds exponentially (relative to a low tax payer).

In terms of infrastructure, individuals use that infrastructure on a relative equal basis. The rich woman may have 10 sports cars, she can only drive one at a time, similarily, she has also paid the VATs, registrations, licensing, etc on all 10.

In terms of the tax deductions, comparing percentages is an unequal measure of actual fiscal contributions, the fact remains that on a dollar for dollar basis, the rich woman contributes more actual dollars to compensate for the common bennies.

If we wish to begin the analysis of the revenues generated by the rich woman (a business for example) from which she generates an income, let's not exclude that the corp entity is active in paying tax on it's profits and any residual income that is passed along to the rich woman is taxed yet again as personal income.

It is the preferred position of gvt and pundits to forward these analyses based on strict percentages as opposed to actual dollars contributed as the entire argument falls apart when the dollar figures act as the data for consideration

 

[Blackleaf]

I feel sorry for Yanks, who have to put up with an election campaign which lasts for 18 months or so, or more. To us in Britain, used to having General Election campaigns mercifully start just a couple of months before each General Election, it seems rather odd that the Yanks have to put up with an election campaign which seems to last for an eternity. The poor buggers in Yankeeland have until November NEXT year - not this - to put up with contant footage and news reports of their preening politicians with their ludicrous, unnatural white teeth and superfluous perfect hair going on the campaign trail to win votes. I couldn't cope with that happening in Britain. I'd jump off Beachy Head.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You have excluded the reality that the assets have been purchased with after tax monies. Things like property are taxed annually based on value. Further, considering that the various VATs and sales taxes increase those contributed funds exponentially (relative to a low tax payer).

It's far from that simple. It largely depends on your tax structure. In the U.S., for example, most states have sales taxes, but those taxes apply only to sales of goods. Because the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income on goods than the rich, their sales tax burden is higher.

In terms of infrastructure, individuals use that infrastructure on a relative equal basis. The rich woman may have 10 sports cars, she can only drive one at a time, similarily, she has also paid the VATs, registrations, licensing, etc on all 10.

That's true. Poor people fly to London all the time.

In terms of the tax deductions, comparing percentages is an unequal measure of actual fiscal contributions, the fact remains that on a dollar for dollar basis, the rich woman contributes more actual dollars to compensate for the common bennies.

And she receives much more from the government than the poor woman. So that's fair.

If we wish to begin the analysis of the revenues generated by the rich woman (a business for example) from which she generates an income, let's not exclude that the corp entity is active in paying tax on it's profits and any residual income that is passed along to the rich woman is taxed yet again as personal income.

OK, but only if we also consider the revenues generated by the poor woman. "Job creators" is a myth. Ask any economist. The multiplier factor of money spent is far higher than that of money invested.

It is the preferred position of gvt and pundits to forward these analyses based on strict percentages as opposed to actual dollars contributed as the entire argument falls apart when the dollar figures act as the data for consideration

If you say so. I'm perfectly OK with taxing the poor woman 150% of her income and throwing her in prison for non-payment.

I was just demonstrating that economic analyses depend on the data you choose to include and exclude.

I don't pay much in tax, and nothing in income tax. That's good enough for me.

 

[captain morgan]

It's far from that simple. It largely depends on your tax structure. In the U.S., for example, most states have sales taxes, but those taxes apply only to sales of goods. Because the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income on goods than the rich, their sales tax burden is higher.

... And?

What does this have to do with the proportional, real contributions of the respective income demographics?

On that note, how does one really calculate the tax burden for those that receive all or a portion of their income from gvt handouts?

That's true. Poor people fly to London all the time.

It broke my heart to see Paris Hilton waiting for the bus to head down to the welfare office to get her cheque and food stamps.... The poor wee lamb

And she receives much more from the government than the poor woman. So that's fair.

Still don't see it

OK, but only if we also consider the revenues generated by the poor woman. "Job creators" is a myth. Ask any economist. The multiplier factor of money spent is far higher than that of money invested.

Good point, those construction companies are 'just there' and the products on the shelves at the grocery store were donated by Del Monte

If you say so. I'm perfectly OK with taxing the poor woman 150% of her income and throwing her in prison for non-payment.

Giving up so easily then?

I was just demonstrating that economic analyses depend on the data you choose to include and exclude.

Agreed and I defer to the adage: "Stats don't lie, but liars use stats"

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Good point, those construction companies are 'just there' and the products on the shelves at the grocery store were donated by Del Monte

OK, snark attack, so I'll snark back. It's entirely possible to start and grow a company without investors. Try it without customers.

I'm not going to change your mind. You've made an emotional decision, and you're cherry-picking stats and theories to support your notions of the utterly undefined concept of "fair." And everybody else is the same way.

I just pay my taxes and get on with my life. I don't care if somebody else is paying more or less than me. I do what I (and my money guy) can to minimize those taxes. I always will. Currently, that's a lot. Maybe in the future it'll be less. Whatever.

 

[captain morgan]

C'mon, what did you really expect with the London flight comment?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

C'mon, what did you really expect with the London flight comment?

I'll readily agree it's my fault. I was certainly the first to cross the line.

Listen, you're fairly rational about this most of the time, but there's no point to it. I was just trying to broaden your thoughts on the subject. For me it was about thought-broadening, not about taxes. I can honestly say I've never felt myself overtaxed or undertaxed. But possibly because of my neutral stance, it's easy for me to see that all sides of the Great Tax Debate are on crusades, emotionally driven and picking cherries like illegal aliens in July. None of you will ever budge 2.54cm, because it's all about what's "fair." It's a term without meaning, ergo it's an argument without meaning.

 

[captain morgan]

I'll readily agree it's my fault. I was certainly the first to cross the line.

Listen, you're fairly rational about this most of the time, but there's no point to it. I was just trying to broaden your thoughts on the subject. For me it was about thought-broadening, not about taxes. I can honestly say I've never felt myself overtaxed or undertaxed. But possibly because of my neutral stance, it's easy for me to see that all sides of the Great Tax Debate are on crusades, emotionally driven and picking cherries like illegal aliens in July. None of you will ever budge 2.54cm, because it's all about what's "fair." It's a term without meaning, ergo it's an argument without meaning.

Despite the optics of my position, I really don't have an axe to grind on this topic. The system that is in place is reasonable and generally speaking, works just fine.

That said, we here in AB just got through a Provincial election and are looking towards a Federal election in the next months. The underlying reality is that whoever takes gvt will do so based on spending a lot of money to placate the various demographics, interest groups, etc. (essentially that is what happened in Alberta among other factors).


In analyzing the sources of revenues (taxes, fees, licenses, etc), one must also consider the planned expenditures relative to the general budgetary process... In itself, this is a reasonably straight forward process, however, once politics is entered into the equation, the process transforms into a different kind of animal.

This brings me to the basis of the discussion we were having... Do we, as a nation, province, community, etc have a revenue problem or is it in fact a spending problem?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Despite the optics of my position, I really don't have an axe to grind on this topic. The system that is in place is reasonable and generally speaking, works just fine.

That said, we here in AB just got through a Provincial election and are looking towards a Federal election in the next months. The underlying reality is that whoever takes gvt will do so based on spending a lot of money to placate the various demographics, interest groups, etc. (essentially that is what happened in Alberta among other factors).


In analyzing the sources of revenues (taxes, fees, licenses, etc), one must also consider the planned expenditures relative to the general budgetary process... In itself, this is a reasonably straight forward process, however, once politics is entered into the equation, the process transforms into a different kind of animal.

This brings me to the basis of the discussion we were having... Do we, as a nation, province, community, etc have a revenue problem or is it in fact a spending problem?

Both. Next question.

 

[captain morgan]

I hear that Greece is wonderful this time of year

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I hear that Greece is wonderful this time of year

Objection! Not a question! Counsel is leading the witless!

 

[captain morgan]

Objection! Not a question! Counsel is leading the witless!

Allow me to rephrase
I hear that Greece is wonderful this time of year... Do you summer in the Greek Isles?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Allow me to rephrase
I hear that Greece is wonderful this time of year... Do you summer in the Greek Isles?

I summer in Washington DC. Haven't been to Greece since '87. It was 50 degrees Celsius the day I left. I haven't been back.

Counsel is still leading the witless.