Spinning the income tax

[Raz]

Re: Spinning the income tax

One other point: no individual employee of any company pays more than HALF of his or her Social Security tax - the employer pays half for each employee.


The above is not correct: I am an employee and pay self emplyment tax as a self employed person. Clergy according to IRS have dual status.

The above is most certainly correct. First of all, you do NOT work for a company. Your church is a tax-exempt organization. Secondly, unlike other employees or other self-emplyed Americans you have the option of not participating in this federal social insurance scheme. I'm not a CPA, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

You're confusing Marxism with Leninism, Cindy. Marx envisioned a dictatorship of the proletariat that seized the means of production, not the personal effects, residences and everything else belonging to each individual. This transitional state would eventually give over to a classless society and eventually even government would cease as pure communism emerged. Nowhere did Marx envision a GULAG, nor did he describe the small business owners (bourgeoisie) and small landowners (kulaks) in Leninist terms such as "bloodsuckers", "insects", "leeches", etc., and incite such dehumanizing hatred in order to exterminate millions of human beings.

I am not confused at all - just do not agree with your simplistic case for Marxism.

Cindy

Words have clear meanings and I assume that others read as carefully as I do.
The statement in point was made by Mn_Mark: "Some people are expected to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every year towards the costs of the Federal government, while a huge percentage of the population actually not only pay nothing towards those costs, they actually get paid some of other people's money.

It's collectivism. People who support it should have the intellectual honesty to just admit that it's Marxist instead of trying to change the subject by saying "but they pay some other taxes". If you support some Marxism, just admit it. Or else ask yourself why it bothers you so much to admit it."

Neither he or I asserted that the United States had a Marxist government or a Marxist economic system. What he asserted, and accurately so, is that the tax system, in taking from some Americans and redistributing directly to other Americans [and NOT using the funds for the general operation of the US government] is, in principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This is clearly Marxist in nature and effect.

If you still disagree, then you are confused.:confused:

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Spinning the income tax

Neither he or I asserted that the United States had a Marxist government or a Marxist economic system. What he asserted, and accurately so, is that the tax system, in taking from some Americans and redistributing directly to other Americans [and NOT using the funds for the general operation of the US government] is, in principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This is clearly Marxist in nature and effect.

If you still disagree, then you are confused.:confused:

Sorrry Raz

Still not confused here

Marx·ism

   /ˈmɑrksɪzəm/ Show Spelled[mahrk-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

---

You are citing a statistic and making it fit your argument: What about this -TARP/Bailots/Etc- The government takes money from the middle class and gives it to the wealthy - Is that Marxism.

You are confused because you are doing what you accused me of - being one sided. This is the problem with your entire thought process. The government uses taxation to give to the poor and to the rich and that certainly is not marxism.

So when you look through rose colored glasses and see the government taking from the wealthy and giving to the middle or poor, then that is marxism. And simultaneously whern the government takes from the middle and gives to the rich then that is .................................? When both of these things are going on at the same time then it is not Marxism.

In our system one thing is always generally happening - the rich are getting richer. Not what Marx had in mind I am sure.

Cindy

[Raz]

Re: Spinning the income tax

Neither he or I asserted that the United States had a Marxist government or a Marxist economic system. What he asserted, and accurately so, is that the tax system, in taking from some Americans and redistributing directly to other Americans [and NOT using the funds for the general operation of the US government] is, in principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This is clearly Marxist in nature and effect.

If you still disagree, then you are confused.:confused:

Sorrry Raz

Still not confused here

Marx·ism

  /ˈmɑrksɪzəm/ Show Spelled[mahrk-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

There is a fine point here that you don't see. It's subtle though the difference is profound: Marx-ism v. Marx-ist.

Marxism is a system - the whole enchilada.
Marxist is a policy or application of one aspect of Marxist theory - one ingredient of the enchilada.

The United States has neither a Capitalist economy or a Marxist economy. It has a Mixed economy.

Progressive taxation is reasonable when levied against incomes - but only up to a certain point, and then it becomes more attuned to confiscation, not taxation. That is one place where I disagree with Limbaugh, although he's a very intelligent man, unlike Hannity who is, shall we say, "intellectually challenged".

When the revenue raised in this manner is used to provide for the national defence, regulate commerce between the several states, regulate the banking industry and the phamaceutical development process, set and monitor safety standards in the workplace, etc., it is being used to "support the general welfare". But, when it is given as credits, direct payments or "rebates" to individual citizens based upon their income it is not general but specific, and it is clearly the taking "from one according to his ability" and handed over "to another according to his need".

It's not Marxism, but it is Marxist.

---

You are citing a statistic and making it fit your argument: What about this -TARP/Bailots/Etc- The government takes money from the middle class and gives it to the wealthy - Is that Marxism.

No, Cindy, it's not Marxist. It's criminalist. These people (Greenspan, Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Rubin, Summers, Dodd, Shelby, Frank et.al.) are, in MY opinion, criminals. We have clearly taken on some of the characteristics of a Banana Republic - the criminals are running their operation from inside the government!

You are confused because you are doing what you accused me of - being one sided. This is the problem with your entire thought process. The government uses taxation to give to the poor and to the rich and that certainly is not marxism.

So when you look through rose colored glasses and see the government taking from the wealthy and giving to the middle or poor, then that is marxism. And simultaneously whern the government takes from the middle and gives to the rich then that is .................................? When both of these things are going on at the same time then it is not Marxism.

"...uses taxation to give to the poor and to the rich ..." What the government is redistributing as direct payments to the poor is Marxist in nature. What the government is redistributing to the rich (farm subsidies, special tax loopholes and favors,etc., and I don't mean capital gains rates) is criminal.

In our system one thing is always generally happening - the rich are getting richer. Not what Marx had in mind I am sure.

In a Marxist system what happens is that in the near term the poor get "richer" and the rich get poorer. Over time, however, everyone, both rich and poor, gets poorer. The only exception to this is: the Party members who decide everyone's salary, including their own. They also get to shop in special stores, move to the top of waiting lists for obtaining automobiles, apartments, etc.
That is the predictable result of human nature corrupted by the Fall. So much for the famous "classless society".:rolleyes:

I prefer a regulated Capitalist system where those elected and appointed are honorable men and women who realize that the system must be administered in a manner that works as equitably as possible for everyone.

In such a system both rich and poor can become richer over time.

Peace to you. Christ is Risen!

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Spinning the income tax

Originally Posted by Mn_Mark
But everyone has to pay those things. No one's saying that there are people paying NO tax. They're saying there are a lot of people paying no share of the costs of the FEDERAL programs, which are very substantial.

Their points are legitimate. Some people are expected to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every year towards the costs of the Federal government, while a huge percentage of the population actually not only pay nothing towards those costs, they actually get paid some of other people's money.

It's collectivism. People who support it should have the intellectual honesty to just admit that it's Marxist instead of trying to change the subject by saying "but they pay some other taxes". If you support some Marxism, just admit it. Or else ask yourself why it bothers you so much to admit it.

Raz

I am not confused at all about the fine line between Marxist or Marxism. You keep redirecting and adding your own ideas to the equation (example "criminalist.")

If you check the above posts you will see that the question relates to Marxism;

In reality you are just splitting hairs to make a point. I see your point and it has merit technically; However, in my opinion you happen to be wrong generally: the question was about marxism.

[Raz]

Re: Spinning the income tax

Originally Posted by Mn_Mark
But everyone has to pay those things. No one's saying that there are people paying NO tax. They're saying there are a lot of people paying no share of the costs of the FEDERAL programs, which are very substantial.

Their points are legitimate. Some people are expected to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars every year towards the costs of the Federal government, while a huge percentage of the population actually not only pay nothing towards those costs, they actually get paid some of other people's money.

It's collectivism. People who support it should have the intellectual honesty to just admit that it's Marxist instead of trying to change the subject by saying "but they pay some other taxes". If you support some Marxism, just admit it. Or else ask yourself why it bothers you so much to admit it.

Raz

I am not confused at all about the fine line between Marxist or Marxism. You keep redirecting and adding your own ideas to the equation (example "criminalist.")

If you check the above posts you will see that the question relates to Marxism;

In reality you are just splitting hairs to make a point. I see your point and it has merit technically; However, in my opinion you happen to be wrong generally: the question was about marxism.

If it was Marxism there would be no private corporations - or churches.
You would not be in your present employment. If it were Leninist you would be in the GULAG.

Thank you for acknowledging the merit of my point if only "technically".

The question was NOT about the US tax code being Marxist. Mark specifically referred to "... a huge percentage of the population ... actually get paid some of other people's money." And also: "If you suppoert some Marxism, just admit it."

"Criminalist" is adding my own idea? :confused: I was simply trying to match tense with verbs and adverbs.

What do you think these people are?:confused:

[flintlock]

Re: Spinning the income tax

I respect your opinions, c1ue; always have and still do.

I'm not without compassion or a sense of fairness: I believe that any tax on income should be progressive. Nor do I believe that a family trying to live on $30,000/year should pay more than 1.0% of their gross income in combined income taxes. At the same time I do NOT believe that anyone should have the right to vote for congressional candidates promising to raise taxes on "the rich" (whatever that means) while promising credits, refunds, etc. to make certain that their supporters pay NO income tax.
That is mob rule - the tyranny of 51%.

For all practical purposes we are there today, and should it [predictably] get worse, the American republic is finished.
Not only will less wealth be created but social and political tensions will eventually explode.

Now to address the other side: unless we can offer people a real-world job - and a piece of the action, like an ESOP - we are absolutely headed for a massive and violent political breakdown. W's "ownership society" was a total crock that involved debt slavery to buy a house that many could not afford; a true ownership society involves granting equity in a necessary and viable business to one's employees. We must concentrate on the two things that are in critically short supply in these United States: (1) energy production - petroleum - since it's both an economic and a security issue, and (2) manufacturing, so people can earn a comfortable living.

Unless we restore a prudent and equitable workingplace for everyone who is willing to learn and work this country has no future. And it won't happen as long as class warfare is preached from the Left of the spectrum and the "right" to pillage the nation by banksters and other oligarchs is preached from the Right of the spectrum.

I don't see any real solutions being offered by the RepubliCrat frauds currently in power.

You have my vote! Raz for Prez.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Spinning the income tax

The goals you've laid out are very reasonable, but these same goals are not what the Tea Parties are about.

Besides being funded by specific lobbying groups/sections of the Republican party (thus not a spontaneous popular uprising by any reasonable definition), the Tea Parties are not specifically seeking smaller government, reduced spending, or reducing massive deficits so much as protesting specific Obama legislation. This is not the same thing.

Note that I am not a fan of Obama's health reform bill either.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/2010100402062

care to document any of these assertions? As someone who attended a "Tea Party" last spring I can assure you it was pretty darn spontaneous.

Now, I would agree that elements of the Republican party tried to hijack the Tea Party movement after it got under way, but the core of the movement remains committed to the original principles of drastically curtailing federal taxation and spending.

Incidentally if there is any objective documentation for the allegations of rascism in the Tea Party movement I'd like to see it produced.

Tea Party haters are, in the main, a sadly misinformed bunch, I've found.

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Spinning the income tax

If it was Marxism there would be no private corporations - or churches.
You would not be in your present employment. If it were Leninist you would be in the GULAG.

Thank you for acknowledging the merit of my point if only "technically".

The question was NOT about the US tax code being Marxist. Mark specifically referred to "... a huge percentage of the population ... actually get paid some of other people's money." And also: "If you suppoert some Marxism, just admit it."

"Criminalist" is adding my own idea? :confused: I was simply trying to match tense with verbs and adverbs.

What do you think these people are?:confused:

Democratistics electoratesists narcissists

Cindy

[radon]

Re: Spinning the income tax

As they should be -who wants a slacker cardiologist? Still, the medical schools will fill the seats, they always do.

Yeah, naive kids mostly

Unless they have rich parents they get to live like a monk until their mid 30's. And while their school loans are amortizing they get to know the joy of essentially being slave labor. The poor bastards get to take crap from hospital staff and patients alike, and when the finally get out of residency and get a job they get to pay off several hundred thousand dollars of student loans. The topping on the cake is getting to worry about being sued every couple of years the rest of their carrier.

The only bright side to this is that although there are still long hours and call rotations, they are finally making enough to finally start making loan payments. So by the time they are 45 or 50 and have paid back all the money they owe they are thinking about getting out, but realize they have invested too much to just walk away from what everyone told them was a dream job. So they keep working for the next 15 years and try to pay off their home save enough for retirement. All while their margins are squeezed as supplies and insurance become more expensive and reimbursements dwindle.

And so in the end they grow old and bitter about wasting the best years of their life in a profession that people have no respect for but demand everything from.

I'd think the smart ones would stay away from medicine.

[c1ue]

Re: Spinning the income tax

The anger displayed is real, but equally real are the media equivalent of buses transporting protesters to demonstration sites:

http://exiledonline.com/exposing-the...-sucking-koch/

Let’s go back to February 19th: Rick Santelli, live on CNBC, standing in the middle of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, launches into an attack on the just-announced $300 billion slated to stem rate of home foreclosures: “The government is promoting bad behavior! Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages?! This is America! We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July, all you capitalists who want to come down to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.”

Almost immediately, the clip and the unlikely “Chicago tea party” quote buried in the middle of the segment, zoomed across a well-worn path to headline fame in the Republican echo chamber, including red-alert headlines on Drudge.

Within hours of Santelli’s rant, a website called ChicagoTeaParty.com sprang to life. Essentially inactive until that day, it now featured a YouTube video of Santelli’s “tea party” rant and billed itself as the official home of the Chicago Tea Party. The domain was registered in August, 2008 by Zack Christenson, a dweeby Twitter Republican and producer for a popular Chicago rightwing radio host Milt Rosenberg—a familiar name to Obama campaign people. Last August, Rosenberg, who looks like Martin Short’s Irving Cohen character, caused an outcry when he interviewed Stanley Kurtz, the conservative writer who first “exposed” a personal link between Obama and former Weather Undergound leader Bill Ayers. As a result of Rosenberg’s radio interview, the Ayers story was given a major push through the Republican media echo chamber, culminating in Sarah Palin’s accusation that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” That Rosenberg’s producer owns the “chicagoteaparty.com” site is already weird—but what’s even stranger is that he first bought the domain last August, right around the time of Rosenburg’s launch of the “Obama is a terrorist” campaign. It’s as if they held this “Chicago tea party” campaign in reserve, like a sleeper-site. Which is exactly what it was.

ChicagoTeaParty.com was just one part of a larger network of Republican sleeper-cell-blogs set up over the course of the past few months, all of them tied to a shady rightwing advocacy group coincidentally named the “Sam Adams Alliance,” whose backers have until now been kept hidden from public. Cached google records that we discovered show that the Sam Adams Alliance took pains to scrub its deep links to the Koch family money as well as the fake-grassroots “tea party” protests going on today. All of these roads ultimately lead back to a more notorious rightwing advocacy group, FreedomWorks, a powerful PR organization headed by former Republican House Majority leader Dick Armey and funded by Koch money

...

On the same day as Santelli’s rant, February 19, another site called Officialchicagoteaparty.com went live. This site was registered to Eric Odom, who turned out to be a veteran Republican new media operative specializing in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns. Last summer, Odom organized a twitter-led campaign centered around DontGo.com to pressure Congress and Nancy Pelosi to pass the offshore oil drilling bill, something that would greatly benefit Koch Industries, a major player in oil and gas. Now, six months later, Odom’s DontGo movement was resurrected to play a central role in promoting the “tea party” movement.
Up until last month, Odom was officially listed as the “new media coordinator” for the Sam Adams Alliance, a well-funded libertarian activist organization based in Chicago that was set up only recently.

...

But it’s the Alliance’s scrubbing of their link to Koch that is most telling. A cached page, erased on February 16, just three days before Santelli’s rant, shows that the Alliance also wanted to cover up its ties to the Koch family. The missing link was an announcement that students interested in applying for internships to the Sam Adams Alliance could also apply through the “Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program” through the Institute for Humane Studies, a Koch-funded rightwing institute designed to scout and nurture future leaders of corporate libertarian ideology. (See hi-resolution screenshots here.) The top two board directors at the Sam Adams Alliance include two figures with deep ties to Koch-funded programs: Eric O’Keefe, who previously served in Koch’s Institute for Humane Studies and the Club For Growth; and Joseph Lehman, a former communications VP at Koch’s Cato Institute.

All of these are ultimately linked up to Koch’s Freedom Works mega-beast. Freedomworks.org has drawn fire in the past for using fake grassroots internet campaigns, called “astroturfing,” to push for pet Koch projects such as privatizing social security. A New York Times investigation in 2005 revealed that a “regular single mom” paraded by Bush’s White House to advocate for privatizing social security was in fact FreedomWorks’ Iowa state director. The woman, Sandra Jacques, also fronted another Iowa fake-grassroots group called “For Our Grandchildren,” even though privatizing social security was really “For Koch And Wall Street Fat Cats.”

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Spinning the income tax

If it was Marxism there would be no private corporations - or churches.
You would not be in your present employment. If it were Leninist you would be in the GULAG.

Thank you for acknowledging the merit of my point if only "technically".

The question was NOT about the US tax code being Marxist. Mark specifically referred to "... a huge percentage of the population ... actually get paid some of other people's money." And also: "If you suppoert some Marxism, just admit it."

"Criminalist" is adding my own idea? :confused: I was simply trying to match tense with verbs and adverbs.

What do you think these people are?:confused:

So Raz

What was it below when the rich got their taxes reduced years ago - Marxist or Marxism or whatever?

I guess Marx got confused again. The poor got a tax credit, the rich got lower taxes and the middle class gets to pay more and more and more........somehow I am confused by this as it does not seem at all like Marxism or marxist. Oh oh oh sorry perhaps the part about the poor and rich paying less is Marxist, but nawww that cannot be what Marx said - only the poor get more according to him by taking away from the Rich. But the Rich are paying less too. How can that be?????????????????????

Cindy



Re hedgefund post from RJAV

"What work do we value most?"
In 2009, the worst economic year for working people since the Great Depression, the top 25 hedge fund managers walked off with an average of $1 billion each. With the money those 25 people “earned,” we could have hired 658,000 entry level teachers. (They make about $38,000 a year, including benefits.) Those educators could have brought along over 13 million young people, assuming a class size of 20. That’s some value.

Apparently the 25 hedge managers did something that is even more valued in our society. But how valuable was it, really? To assess that, we need to answer a few basic questions:

1. What do hedge managers do?

They run funds into which very rich people put money to make even more money. Hedge fund managers move the money around in very risky ways to get the most enormous yields possible. (Wealthy investors believe they are entitled to double digit and even triple digit returns.)

Because hedge funds are considered playthings for the rich, who presumably are fully aware of all the risks, they are exempt from most financial regulations. (We’ll soon see if the financial reform bill now moving through the Senate changes this in any substantial way.)

The wealthy will have placed an estimated $2 trillion into hedge funds by the end of this year. (That’s about $6,500 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.)

2. Where does all that hedge fund money come from?

It’s mostly excess cash the super-rich have in hand now that their tax rates have dramatically declined. In the 1970s the marginal rate on those with incomes above $3 million (in today’s dollars) was 70 percent. Today, the effective rate on the 400 richest Americans is 16 percent, according to the most recent IRS data.

The wonderful thing about putting your money in a hedge fund (or managing one) is that the income you get from it is not taxed as income (say, officially at the rate of 35 percent). Instead, it is treated as a business investment, something that’s good for the economy and that we need to encourage through a low tax — a “capital gain.” The tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent. This is one reason that Warren Buffett can say that he pays a smaller percentage in taxes than his secretary.

3. How do hedge funds make money?

Some hedge fund managers use computerized modeling to decide where to invest or to make investments automatically. Other managers claim they just make good judgment calls. They also make enormous bets using lots of leverage and deploy an arsenal of derivatives.

It’s a dicey business, but it’s not supposed to put the larger system at risk… until it does. In the late 1990s, the hedge fund known as Long Term Capital Management, run by the brightest bulbs in the financial universe (including a couple of Nobel laureates), found itself with over $100 billion in assets but only $4 billion in capital. When that upside down pyramid began to crumble, the effect was systemic. So systemic that the Federal Reserve, fearing a major meltdown of the financial markets, forced Wall Street banks and investment houses to bail out the fund’s investors. Some economists argue that risky gambling by hedge funds did not cause the current crisis. But no one has conducted an impartial investigation into that question.

The $1 billion each those 25 hedge fund managers netted (for themselves) was impressive — but doing it in the year 2009 was also slap in the face of struggling Americans. That’s because hedge funds would have earned little or no money at all in 2009 had the government not bailed out the financial sector with trillions in loans, asset guarantees and other forms of financial assistance. It was, in effect, a generous gift from we the taxpayers. Much of that money was “earned” by betting that the government would not let the financial sector collapse. Smart bet.

In principle hedge funds would do little harm if they were not implicitly backstopped by the taxpayer in this way. Here’s how one sage financial expert put it to me recently:

Personally, I do not care whether hedge funds and other pools of unregulated funds gamble in opaque derivatives rated by incompetent ratings agencies. But I do want them to fail when their bets go bad. Nor do I want them to be rescued in the event of a run to liquidity. If they are leveraged and cannot come up with cash, they should fail. It will be painful for their creditors. So be it, the more pain, the better. That is the downside to private property. Greed is good, but must be balanced by the fear of failure. Without failure there is no fear.

On the other hand, I want to have a protected and closely regulated portion of the financial sector for those who do not want to take excessive risks. And any institution that bets with “house money”–that is, that has access to the Fed in the case of a liquidity problem and to the Treasury in the case of insolvency–must be constrained. That is the direction that true reform ought to take.

4. Do hedge funds create real value that is essential for our economy and our society?

Here’s a test: Imagine what would happen if they disappeared entirely. People working at the 8,000 or so hedge funds — a relatively small number of people — would lose their jobs. But it’s unlikely that the national or world economy would suffer at all. The wealthy would simply move their money to other investments. They might even decide to make longer term investments that would be used to produce real goods and services.

But wait, aren’t these piles of money a valuable source of funds for investment in the real economy? Don’t hedge funds make our markets work more efficiently? By betting against overvalued currencies and bogus balance sheets of toxic-chocked banks, don’t hedge funds police the bad guys? Aren’t they the essential glue for rebuilding America?

If any of those good things happen, they’re an accidental byproduct. The real job of hedge funds is to allow very rich people to make more money as quickly as possible, preferably without tying up the cash for too long. Use hedge fund money for a leveraged buyout that can be flipped quickly for big profits? Sure. Use it to speculate on the value of currency or to make a quick dash in and out of a credit default swap? You betcha.

If we step back and look at the big game, we can see that hedge funds are hard at work skimming profits from the financial sector, which in turn is living off the largess of the American taxpayer. It’s all part of the great financialization of the U.S. economy that began in earnest when the financial sector was deregulated in the late 1970s. Over the years, financial sector profits have risen to nearly 40 percent of all corporate profits. And sadly, it’s not because financial firms helped our economy grow. It’s because they figured out how to run a very profitable casino for the wealthy. And then hedge funds came along and figured out how to skim the skim from those casinos.

5. So how can 25 hedge fund managers be “worth” $658,000 new teachers?

They aren’t. And I bet the leading hedge managers themselves would admit it.

But our economic system isn’t rewarding real value. While the hedge fund 25 are living large, teachers everywhere are getting the axe. Why the layoffs? Because state and local governments aren’t collecting enough taxes — not since Wall Street investors crashed the economy.

In our New Jersey town, we are laying off 85 teachers. Instead we ought to be hiring 85 more to reduce class size and improve support programs for those students who desperately need them. It’s obscene that we’re shoveling money to the super-rich even as we force teachers to join the ranks of the unemployed. Already 29 million Americans are without work or forced to work only part-time.

How to tame these runaway paydays? Just institute a financial transaction tax or a windfall profits tax. The fix is technically simple but politically complex. It’s going to take a lot of political will — over a long period of time — to reorder our most basic economic values.

In the meantime, try explaining to your kids why school programs are being cut while 25 shrewd gamblers are living like Pharaohs.

[Munger]

Re: Spinning the income tax

Not sure why you would post this, except to start a shouting match.

It's not news, it the same BS that is published every quarter.

It's clearly a slanted article, and those who think the poor are sucking off the system have been at the sucking end of the pipe for a little too long.

R&R

Too poor to pay income taxes? You lucky ducky!

[radon]

Re: Spinning the income tax

In the meantime, try explaining to your kids why school programs are being cut while 25 shrewd gamblers are living like Pharaohs.

I'm still trying to explain to them why this article compared a top marginal rate that nobody ever payed to the effective rate of the 400 richest people in america. If they really wanted to do someone a favor the would show us the effective tax rate by quintile over those years. You would see that the effective rate hasn't changed much in the past 30 years except the bottom. The bottom quintile's effective tax burden has nearly fallen in half. That right the poor pay half the effective tax rate they used to 30 years ago no thanks to those evil bankers. But they don't tell you that because it gets in the way of their sophistic rant.

[flintlock]

Re: Spinning the income tax

That's a great cartoon.

[Raz]

Re: Spinning the income tax

So Raz

What was it below when the rich got their taxes reduced years ago - Marxist or Marxism or whatever?

I guess Marx got confused again. The poor got a tax credit, the rich got lower taxes and the middle class gets to pay more and more and more........somehow I am confused by this as it does not seem at all like Marxism or marxist. Oh oh oh sorry perhaps the part about the poor and rich paying less is Marxist, but nawww that cannot be what Marx said - only the poor get more according to him by taking away from the Rich. But the Rich are paying less too. How can that be?????????????????????

Cindy



Re hedgefund post from RJAV

"What work do we value most?"
In 2009, the worst economic year for working people since the Great Depression, the top 25 hedge fund managers walked off with an average of $1 billion each. With the money those 25 people “earned,” we could have hired 658,000 entry level teachers. (They make about $38,000 a year, including benefits.) Those educators could have brought along over 13 million young people, assuming a class size of 20. That’s some value.
...

We've gone from apples to oranges, back to apples, and now you want to compare apples to onions.

If 25 hedge fund managers make $25 Billion per hour it has NOTHING to do with what Mark and I were pointing out.

When eveyones income taxes are lowered it's not Marxist in nature. When everyones income taxes are raised it's not Marxist in nature.
Even when the tax rate of the upper income bracket is raised while the middle and lower brackets are left unchanged, it's not Marxist in nature - as long as that revenue is used for the general operation of the federal government, and NOT handed out to those in other tax brackets as transfer payments.
(And giving it as credits that eliminate their income tax liability, even to the point of their receiving a "refund" IS a transfer payment.)

As soon as that happens then to some degree it is taking from "one according to his ability" and transferring to "another according to his need". That is not a Marxist system, but it is Marxist in effect, to some degree.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere because it has apparently triggered an emotional reaction in you that is stearing off the topic of the redistributionist nature of a federal income tax code where almost half of the people in the United States pay no federal income tax.

I hope you had a cathartic experience after pasting all the non-pertinent and totally unrelated statements from Rajiv's post. A hyperlink would have been sufficient. I had already read that particular post about the incredible money "earned" by certain people in the hedge fund industry and agreed with much of it, though not all.

As Radon mentioned, the tax burden on the lowest two quintiles has DROPPED between 46% and 30% over the past thirty years.
I'm attaching the statistical proof from the Congressional Budget Office that I downloaded from their website.