Culture Wars Era - is it moving into its final phase?

[Galen]

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

This happens a surprising amount of the time.  The real problem with the tax cuts is there is no corresponding reduction in spending which is a problem both major parties have.

[Eric the Green]

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

The Republicans put out tax plans that benefit the rich more than anyone else. They put out tax cuts whose intention is to starve the government so it won't have the money for social programs that help poor people. Many (but by no means all) of them don't want those programs to help people of color.

[flbones too]

I'm becoming convinced that the rich bribe the Republican officials in office. That's why the Republicans come up with these gracious tax benefits for them. Ever since Reagan went into office, this has been happening. Under Eisenhower in the fifties, the top rate was over 90%. Ironically it was JFK, a Democrat who lowered taxes in 1961. His policies led to higher inflation but the rate of wage increase was the same as in the 1950s.

[Mikebert]

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

Bush passed the last big tax cuts.  When it came time for them to end, they were preserved for everyone except those who made more than 250K, who saw their tax rates return to the 1990's levels.  The next result was taxes were raised on those high income folks.  I should know, I sold a bunch of stock (which boosted our income for that year to the top bracket) and we to write a big check because I had forgotten about this and not adjusted our extra withholding higher.

The ACA also included taxes paid by the wealthy, which were used to make the plan revenue neutral. 

Your statement is flatly wrong.

[Mikebert]

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

No.  It is a values thing.  Why should the rich pay a higher fraction of their income in taxes (which is what a progressive tax system tries to achieve)?  Many conservatives believe this to be immoral and unfair to the rich.  Given their druthers they would opt for a flat tax system.

They don't make an explicit case for this because they believe it to be bad politics.  So they use language that leads supporters like Warren to make silly statements like the one I addressed above.  But a perfectly logical case can be made for a flat tax or even a fixed tax per person (poll tax), both of which historically existed.  Flat tax proposals are still floated today, although nobody touts a poll tax anymore.

[Warren Dew]

(01-22-2017, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

This happens a surprising amount of the time.  The real problem with the tax cuts is there is no corresponding reduction in spending which is a problem both major parties have.

While there hasn't been a reduction in spending in absolute terms, any increase in spending pretty much stopped in its tracks after the Republicans took control of the House in 2010.  That allowed spending to decline as a percentage of GDP from 25% to 22% in the six years since.  Granted that's still way too high.

There is a correlation between spending restraint and Republican control of the House.  There isn't any visible correlation with control of the Senate or the Presidency.

[Warren Dew]

(01-22-2017, 02:58 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

Bush passed the last big tax cuts.  When it came time for them to end, they were preserved for everyone except those who made more than 250K, who saw their tax rates return to the 1990's levels.  The next result was taxes were raised on those high income folks.  I should know, I sold a bunch of stock (which boosted our income for that year to the top bracket) and we to write a big check because I had forgotten about this and not adjusted our extra withholding higher.

Are you a billionaire?

If not, your pretensions to being "rich" are bogus.

If so, you need to get some tax advice from other billionaires, because they certainly aren't paying the top tax bracket, or in fact any bracket at all.

[Galen]

(01-22-2017, 10:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

This happens a surprising amount of the time.  The real problem with the tax cuts is there is no corresponding reduction in spending which is a problem both major parties have.

While there hasn't been a reduction in spending in absolute terms, any increase in spending pretty much stopped in its tracks after the Republicans took control of the House in 2010.  That allowed spending to decline as a percentage of GDP from 25% to 22% in the six years since.  Granted that's still way too high.

There is a correlation between spending restraint and Republican control of the House.  There isn't any visible correlation with control of the Senate or the Presidency.

I am not sure if that will be true this time.  When Republicans have control of both houses and the White House then all spending restraint tends to go out the window.  A recession is already baked into the cake, if we get a series of interest rate increases after eight years of ZIRP then I must conclude that she intends to sink the Trump administration by triggering the inevitable.

[The Wonkette]

(01-18-2017, 12:08 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 11:55 AM)flbones too Wrote: I hope so. Millennials and Xers seem pretty solid for the most part. It seems to be boomers who fight the most over social issues. With the others, they may not necessary agree with something but believe that you should have the right to do something.

This is both true and not surprising.  Boomers came of age during the social upheavals of the 60s and 70s.  Racism, sexism, and the beginnings of the social opening all started in earnest during that period.  So did drugs and just being free. 

Of course the fight continues. 

I don't suppose you meant to say that racism and sexism started during the 60s and 70s, do you? I would guess that Frederick Douglass and Susan B Anthony would beg to disagree. 

[The Wonkette]

(01-22-2017, 10:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:58 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

Bush passed the last big tax cuts.  When it came time for them to end, they were preserved for everyone except those who made more than 250K, who saw their tax rates return to the 1990's levels.  The next result was taxes were raised on those high income folks.  I should know, I sold a bunch of stock (which boosted our income for that year to the top bracket) and we to write a big check because I had forgotten about this and not adjusted our extra withholding higher.

Are you a billionaire?

If not, your pretensions to being "rich" are bogus.

If so, you need to get some tax advice from other billionaires, because they certainly aren't paying the top tax bracket, or in fact any bracket at all.

Do you mean that the "rich" only consists of billionaires and not mere multimillionaires like Romney, Madonna, and the Clintons?  That is a novel definition.  Or do you have another definition of "rich"?

I would guess that Mikebert is a mere millionaire, as is about 7 percent of the country now.  A million dollars is still a good chunk of change. Of course, I could be wrong; maybe he has more cash cached away.

[Marypoza]

(01-23-2017, 12:12 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 10:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:58 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

Bush passed the last big tax cuts.  When it came time for them to end, they were preserved for everyone except those who made more than 250K, who saw their tax rates return to the 1990's levels.  The next result was taxes were raised on those high income folks.  I should know, I sold a bunch of stock (which boosted our income for that year to the top bracket) and we to write a big check because I had forgotten about this and not adjusted our extra withholding higher.

Are you a billionaire?

If not, your pretensions to being "rich" are bogus.

If so, you need to get some tax advice from other billionaires, because they certainly aren't paying the top tax bracket, or in fact any bracket at all.

Do you mean that the "rich" only consists of billionaires and not mere multimillionaires like Romney, Madonna, and the Clintons?  That is a novel definition.  Or do you have another definition of "rich"?

I would guess that Mikebert is a mere millionaire, as is about 7 percent of the country now.  A million dollars is still a good chunk of change.  Of course, I could be wrong; maybe he has more cash cached away.

-- I would be happy with just a 6 figure income

[David Horn]

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

Where did you get this information?  This is a short synopsis of the changes under Reagan, Clinton and the two Bushes.  I runs counter to your statement.

[David Horn]

(01-22-2017, 03:01 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

No.  It is a values thing.  Why should the rich pay a higher fraction of their income in taxes (which is what a progressive tax system tries to achieve)?  Many conservatives believe this to be immoral and unfair to the rich.  Given their druthers they would opt for a flat tax system.

They don't make an explicit case for this because they believe it to be bad politics.  So they use language that leads supporters like Warren to make silly statements like the one I addressed above.  But a perfectly logical case can be made for a flat tax or even a fixed tax per person (poll tax), both of which historically existed.  Flat tax proposals are still floated today, although nobody touts a poll tax anymore.

I would argue that the rich get their tax benefits in other ways: 

• Corporate taxes have more holes than Swiss cheese. 
  
• The unearned income rates are only used by the rich.
  
• The rich have assets that require extensive protection.
  

Even were this not true, there is a basic fairness issue here.

[David Horn]

(01-22-2017, 10:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote: ...  The real problem with the tax cuts is there is no corresponding reduction in spending which is a problem both major parties have.

While there hasn't been a reduction in spending in absolute terms, any increase in spending pretty much stopped in its tracks after the Republicans took control of the House in 2010.  That allowed spending to decline as a percentage of GDP from 25% to 22% in the six years since.  Granted that's still way too high.

There is a correlation between spending restraint and Republican control of the House.  There isn't any visible correlation with control of the Senate or the Presidency.

Nice selective reading there.  The outlays rose to their high against GDP when the GDP dropped in the Great Recession.  Here's a chart:

[David Horn]

(01-22-2017, 10:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Are you a billionaire?

If not, your pretensions to being "rich" are bogus.

If so, you need to get some tax advice from other billionaires, because they certainly aren't paying the top tax bracket, or in fact any bracket at all.

The very rich hide all or most of their income outside the US or in corporate structures that are designed to reduce taxes.  This is nothing new, and had been the case for decades.

[David Horn]

(01-23-2017, 12:09 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-18-2017, 12:08 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 11:55 AM)flbones too Wrote: I hope so. Millennials and Xers seem pretty solid for the most part. It seems to be boomers who fight the most over social issues. With the others, they may not necessary agree with something but believe that you should have the right to do something.

This is both true and not surprising.  Boomers came of age during the social upheavals of the 60s and 70s.  Racism, sexism, and the beginnings of the social opening all started in earnest during that period.  So did drugs and just being free. 

Of course the fight continues. 

I don't suppose you meant to say that racism and sexism started during the 60s and 70s, do you? I would guess that Frederick Douglass and Susan B Anthony would beg to disagree. 

I meant the modern movements against those problems, but certainly not the initial ones.  I had young teachers in my high school who were Freedom Riders, which is pretty early in that cycle.  It was easy to be idealistic.  We had idealists all around us.

[David Horn]

(01-23-2017, 12:50 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- I would be happy with just a 6 figure income

[Warren Dew]

(01-23-2017, 03:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 10:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Are you a billionaire?

If not, your pretensions to being "rich" are bogus.

If so, you need to get some tax advice from other billionaires, because they certainly aren't paying the top tax bracket, or in fact any bracket at all.

The very rich hide all or most of their income outside the US or in corporate structures that are designed to reduce taxes.  This is nothing new, and had been the case for decades.

And people need to be reminded of it every time the issue of "tax the rich" comes up, because if we actually wanted to tax the rich, we'd prevent this.

[Warren Dew]

(01-23-2017, 03:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 10:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote: ...  The real problem with the tax cuts is there is no corresponding reduction in spending which is a problem both major parties have.

While there hasn't been a reduction in spending in absolute terms, any increase in spending pretty much stopped in its tracks after the Republicans took control of the House in 2010.  That allowed spending to decline as a percentage of GDP from 25% to 22% in the six years since.  Granted that's still way too high.

There is a correlation between spending restraint and Republican control of the House.  There isn't any visible correlation with control of the Senate or the Presidency.

Nice selective reading there.  The outlays rose to their high against GDP when the GDP dropped in the Great Recession.  Here's a chart:

Your chart proves my second statement, about the decline as a percent of GDP.  But there's still the first half of my statement, about how it stopped growing in absolute terms independent of GDP:



It's not me that is reading selectively here.  I'm just addressing both ways in which people might want to look at it.

[Warren Dew]

(01-23-2017, 12:12 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 10:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:58 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 02:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 06:54 PM)flbones too Wrote: I don't understand why the GOP consntly puts out tax plans that favor the rich. What's up with that? Are they really that retarded?

They don't.  They put out tax plans that help everyone, and the Democrats reinstate the taxes on everyone but the billionaires.

Bush passed the last big tax cuts.  When it came time for them to end, they were preserved for everyone except those who made more than 250K, who saw their tax rates return to the 1990's levels.  The next result was taxes were raised on those high income folks.  I should know, I sold a bunch of stock (which boosted our income for that year to the top bracket) and we to write a big check because I had forgotten about this and not adjusted our extra withholding higher.

Are you a billionaire?

If not, your pretensions to being "rich" are bogus.

If so, you need to get some tax advice from other billionaires, because they certainly aren't paying the top tax bracket, or in fact any bracket at all.

Do you mean that the "rich" only consists of billionaires and not mere multimillionaires like Romney, Madonna, and the Clintons?  That is a novel definition.  Or do you have another definition of "rich"?

The billionaires are the only rich that really matter in terms of effect on the economy.  Last I checked, Buffett was 180 times richer than Romney, but paid an effective tax rate 90 times lower.  Anyone who actually wants to tax the rich has to address that mismatch, and has to address the billionaires.

Come on, it only takes the richest 8 people in the world to match the net worth of the bottom 3,500,000,000 people.  How come the Democrats aren't going after those 8, or at least the 4 or so that live in the US?

Because the Democrats protect the actual rich people, of course.

Quote:I would guess that Mikebert is a mere millionaire, as is about 7 percent of the country now.  A million dollars is still a good chunk of change.  Of course, I could be wrong; maybe he has more cash cached away.

Being a millionaire these days takes nothing more than having owned a house in a high cost area of the country for a few years.  If it's 7% of the country; it's not "the rich"; it's not even the 1%.