OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[FatPitcher]

People should not be penalized for productivity. That's why the income tax is a joke.

Take care,
PK

They aren't penalized for productivity. Come on.

Let's just assume the that government is 100% effective in spending taxes, doesn't the government have to provide for basic services that the people need for commerce, regulation, justice, general health and welfare.

I'm not advocating I like taxes but there are services necessary to a strong nation that non-profits, private corporations can not or should not provide.

For eight years, corporations and individuals in the higher tax brackets have paid less (percentage) than under the previous Democratic President. We do not have a stronger economy now because of those policies. Of course, the war, inflation, bad lending practices, have all contributed to the problem.

There is no independent evidence that taxes limits productivity. I'm sure the WSJ could drum up something to support it's conservative stance but that claim that productivity takes a hit is unfounded.

Does Microsoft stop producing windows if it's taxes are too high. Does Wal-Mart close down stores because of the taxes it pays?

If you were to say that higher taxes limits how much capital certain companies or individuals have to invest which in turn could spur on capital development, then you would have a much stronger argument.

If you want to understand how taxation negatively affects production, you should read Jean Baptise Say's Treatise on Political Economy.

[RobVarak]

[
They aren't penalized for productivity. Come on.

Technically, yes they are. That's the whole idea of a progressive system. There are valid arguments in support of the idea of course, but at its root it's a systematic transfer of wealth from those who create more wealth much to those who produce less.

[JRod]

People should not be penalized for productivity. That's why the income tax is a joke.

Take care,
PK

On the taxation side, the government punishes productivity, and on the spending side, it subsidizes non-productivity. Doesn't seem like a good recipe for making the country more productive or for improving upward mobility. Human beings are all about incentives and motivation, as I have learned in my time as a game designer. One of my roommates is very motivated to get a job where she does more productive work, for example, because she wants health care coverage. If she had that coverage already, she'd be content contributing less to the GDP as a temp.

Well then you friend must like not having money right? If she had health care, not free healthcare through use of a VAT like in the UK, but a private-public hybrid, she would still need money to pay for car insurance, a car, housing, food, luxury items etc. I'm sure there will be a point where should couldn't do that and would pursue a better paying job in order to purchase those items.

I doubt she wants to do more productive work, rather she wants a job with benefits.

Productivity is all relative. How about the migrant workers that move around the nation roofing homes. They would 12-14 hour days. I know for a fact that's a lot longer than some professionals that just have a 4 year degree. They don't have health care. They don't make a lot of money. But they are productive for 14 hours a day. That's a example of a job where productivity is measure in time.

How about a teacher versus a real estate agent. One just sells homes which increases peoples purchasing power to buy other big ticket items. The other teaches children which impacts their productivity for the future. Most teachers have benefits as do real estate agents. Good real estate agents make more money than teachers does that mean they are worth more to the society than the teacher. Even if the teacher has a masters degree meaning he/she went to school for a minimum of 5-6 years not to mention the other accreditation needed to be a certified teacher.


Your are right in one point. Sometimes the government subsidizes non-productivity. Airlines have been subsidized to keep them flying. Oil companies have been given tax breaks even though they are making record profits. I guess that's rewarding how productive they are.

There is a line where individuals and companies have to pay money to the government. In return, we get basic services that we could not otherwise get. Things are things like national defense, financial regulation, social security, food and drug regulation, water management, infrastructure investments. Without those are country would be worse off than we are now.

We live in a very comfortable nation even with this perceived burden on productivity. And all this debate is simply about, I made my money, and I don't care about anyone else. That would be ok, if you made your money without using any federal or state tax dollars in any form.

[JRod]

[
They aren't penalized for productivity. Come on.

Technically, yes they are. That's the whole idea of a progressive system. There are valid arguments in support of the idea of course, but at its root it's a systematic transfer of wealth from those who create more wealth much to those who produce less.

Technically it's not that. It's not a transfer of wealth. What you described would be communal government. We don't transfer money directly to those who produce less. If we do, I need to sign up for that program because I'm missing out on a lot of money I didn't earn.

It's an indirect transfer dispersed in federal and state programs. Your taxes do not go directly to someone else. Indirectly, they are distributed through programs. The only direct wealth transfer system we have in this country is social security. Meaning the money you make today, that is taxed by this program, is immediately distributed to the SS beneficiaries.

Much like our indirect system of government, we have an indirect distribution of wealth, through government programs.

[FatPitcher]

[
They aren't penalized for productivity. Come on.

Technically, yes they are. That's the whole idea of a progressive system. There are valid arguments in support of the idea of course, but at its root it's a systematic transfer of wealth from those who create more wealth much to those who produce less.

Technically it's not that. It's not a transfer of wealth. What you described would be communal government. We don't transfer money directly to those who produce less. If we do, I need to sign up for that program because I'm missing out on a lot of money I didn't earn.

It's an indirect transfer dispersed in federal and state programs. Your taxes do not go directly to someone else. Indirectly, they are distributed through programs. The only direct wealth transfer system we have in this country is social security. Meaning the money you make today, that is taxed by this program, is immediately distributed to the SS beneficiaries.

Much like our indirect system of government, we have an indirect distribution of wealth, through government programs.

Errr...maybe we should talk about something besides economics now.

[JRod]

Errr...maybe we should talk about something besides economics now.

Is this debate too advanced for your one line posts?

[pk500]

They aren't penalized for productivity. Come on.

You misinterpreted my point.

People's income should not be taxed. They worked to earn that money. They were productive, so they they should keep it.

If someone wants to work harder and earn more money, they should keep that money. If someone wants to pursue the education required to pursue a high-paying profession, they should keep that income. If someone starts a lucrative construction or pipe-fitting business, they should keep that income.

The government -- even an efficient, minimalist government, which is a total pipe dream in America -- should have no right to take the income of its citizens. It can charge other types of taxes and fees (sales tax, highway tolls, property tax), but I believe it has ZERO right to take the income of its citizens.

For eight years, corporations and individuals in the higher tax brackets have paid less (percentage) than under the previous Democratic President. We do not have a stronger economy now because of those policies. Of course, the war, inflation, bad lending practices, have all contributed to the problem.

They shouldn't pay ANY income tax. Neither should the guy earning 20 grand per year.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

That would be ok, if you made your money without using any federal or state tax dollars in any form.

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway never has asked for or accepted a penny of public funding in its 99-year history. So I guess it's OK for me.

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

Errr...maybe we should talk about something besides economics now.

Is this debate too advanced for your one line posts?

Yes, exactly, it's too advanced. Your stunning grasp of economic principles and your novel theories about how production is immune to price increases have left me at a loss for words. At first I thought your out-of-hand dismissal of Say's work was presumptuous, but now I see that it was only my limited mind's incapacity to follow your audacious yet brilliant reasoning to its incontrovertible conclusions.

[XXXIV]

The history of Federal income tax.

http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact- ... stax.shtml

Interesting how times have changed. No income tax at all til 1913.


One founding fathers take on the subject...

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

[johnvon314]

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway never has asked for or accepted a penny of public funding in its 99-year history. So I guess it's OK for me.

Take care,
PK

Which is rare for most major sports facilities. Just ask the people in my county how they feel about LMS.

John

[pk500]

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway never has asked for or accepted a penny of public funding in its 99-year history. So I guess it's OK for me.

Take care,
PK

Which is rare for most major sports facilities. Just ask the people in my county how they feel about LMS.

John

John:

It's pretty much unheard of.

I gave a tour of the IMS Media Center in May 2007 to a group of foreign non-sports journalists. At the end of the tour, I opened the floor to questions. One of the first questions was to ask how much money IMS took from the Federal, state and local governments to build the F1 track, garages and new Pagoda.

When I told them "zero," a few jaws actually opened. A reporter immediately fired back, "This track has accepted no public funding for improvements?" To which I replied: "No, none. Never."

They were flabbergasted, since many sports facilities in Europe receive national government funding.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

We just won't mention the public roads, police and other infrastructure funded by tax dollars that allow Indy to have 300,000 fans attend and make their money.

We also won't mention the external costs such as higher pollution caused by Indy that the general public bears the cost of in way or another.

Of course, there are also large benefits to Indianapolis for having the IMS, but we don't need to pretend that the IMS should feel aggrieved for ever cent it pays in income taxes when it simply could not function without the public services paid for by those taxes.

[wco81]

That would be ok, if you made your money without using any federal or state tax dollars in any form.

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway never has asked for or accepted a penny of public funding in its 99-year history. So I guess it's OK for me.

Take care,
PK

Did you or the other employees go to public schools?

Or private schools and universities which received govt. funding or subsidies (such as nonprofit status)?

Do you or the other employees make use of roads, telecom or other publicly-funded or subsidized infrastructure in order to do your work?

Do the sponsors which provide money to your employer benefit in any way from any of the above?

Does IMS tap into a customer base which has benefited from these govt.-funded programs?

There are countries which have no income taxes or doesn't levy as high an income tax but they probably don't produce a large enough population of educated labor force or a customer base with enough income to buy tickets and merchandise.

[wco81]

The government -- even an efficient, minimalist government, which is a total pipe dream in America -- should have no right to take the income of its citizens. It can charge other types of taxes and fees (sales tax, highway tolls, property tax), but I believe it has ZERO right to take the income of its citizens.
Take care,
PK

This isn't a minimalist country. There are minimalist countries, even states without income taxes.

Do you object to the type of taxes levied or how much money is levied by those taxes, especially the income tax?

Now, which country doesn't levy an income tax but is yet a developed, wealthy, and fairly large (doesn't have to be 300 million like the US but probably should be tens of millions)?

[Jackdog]

It got caught right? Seems to me the power of the press actually did their job. What does that have to do with your argument.

You just picked out a boneheaded decision made by Denver officials and you equate that to all government are basically criminals.

You guys just pick and choose problems in America and then make blanket statements about it.

And don't take personal shots at names. Jack. Thsoe are the rules here at DSP. Argue all you want but when you take personal shots you've crossed a line. You can call all my arguments stupid if you want, certainly others have, but the name calling is best left for OS or IGN.

Then don't call me stupid. What's more personal than that? I gotta get to study hall. Talk at ya later!!!

[XXXIV]

It got caught right? Seems to me the power of the press actually did their job. What does that have to do with your argument.

You just picked out a boneheaded decision made by Denver officials and you equate that to all government are basically criminals.

You guys just pick and choose problems in America and then make blanket statements about it.

And don't take personal shots at names. Jack. Thsoe are the rules here at DSP. Argue all you want but when you take personal shots you've crossed a line. You can call all my arguments stupid if you want, certainly others have, but the name calling is best left for OS or IGN.

Then don't call me stupid. What's more personal than that? I gotta get to study hall. Talk at ya later!!!

For those of us scoring at home...jrod, you mention you guys...who are you guys?

[Jared]

Quick response with mod hat on.

Everyone, try and keep things civil here and NOT personal.

[JRod]

Errr...maybe we should talk about something besides economics now.

Is this debate too advanced for your one line posts?

Yes, exactly, it's too advanced. Your stunning grasp of economic principles and your novel theories about how production is immune to price increases have left me at a loss for words. At first I thought your out-of-hand dismissal of Say's work was presumptuous, but now I see that it was only my limited mind's incapacity to follow your audacious yet brilliant reasoning to its incontrovertible conclusions.

You aren't debating. Hell you aren't even contradicting anything I say. You are just dismissing it because you disagree with it and then using big words.

I never did say that production is immune to price increases. I said that there is no independent evidence that shows taxes limits productivity. And by productivity I mean how productive you are in a society. In other words your contribution to that society. I also conceded that taxes does hamper capital investments by companies or individuals. I disagree with staunch advocates that say the wealth are taxed too much and this hampers capital investments.

PK and you are throwing around productivity in exchange for money. One's worth to a society isn't directly related to how much money you make. Or at least it shouldn't.

If my father made all his money in oil and left me with the inheritance. I would have a boatload of money. If your terms, I would be productive because I have money.

You want to debate than start doing do.

[XXXIV]

You aren't debating. Hell you aren't even contradicting anything I say. You are just dismissing it because you disagree with it and then using big words.

.

Talk about irony...this is amazing...

This is exactly how I would describe you.

[JRod]

They aren't penalized for productivity. Come on.

You misinterpreted my point.

People's income should not be taxed. They worked to earn that money. They were productive, so they they should keep it.

If someone wants to work harder and earn more money, they should keep that money. If someone wants to pursue the education required to pursue a high-paying profession, they should keep that income. If someone starts a lucrative construction or pipe-fitting business, they should keep that income.

The government -- even an efficient, minimalist government, which is a total pipe dream in America -- should have no right to take the income of its citizens. It can charge other types of taxes and fees (sales tax, highway tolls, property tax), but I believe it has ZERO right to take the income of its citizens.

They shouldn't pay ANY income tax. Neither should the guy earning 20 grand per year.

Take care,
PK

I see your point...

I think that system would be untenable because other areas would be taxed much more heavily. Property taxes would substantially increase as long as other pay-for-use services the government does provide.

We could also supplant the income tax with European like taxes such at the general VAT or astronomical property taxes. If we did away with income taxes, I think people would then b*tch about those and say why should be pay for those.

Yes everybody would have more money but probably not enough to offset the price increases to use those services. What if the interstate system was toll based? With no government funding, what would the costs to take trips. Not too mention you would also have to fund departments for automobile safety and regulation.

We live comfortably in this nation. And since the income tax was introduced in the 1860s under Lincoln (the current system wasn't until the 16th amendment was passed allowing individuals to be taxed), we have been the most productive and one of the most powerful forces in the world. Our companies aside from that last 10 years, have been some of the most dominant and productive in the world.

PK I understand your philosophical view on taxes and I strongly disagree with it mostly because I don't think it has hurt our country as much as critics of an income tax say.

[JRod]

It got caught right? Seems to me the power of the press actually did their job. What does that have to do with your argument.

You just picked out a boneheaded decision made by Denver officials and you equate that to all government are basically criminals.

You guys just pick and choose problems in America and then make blanket statements about it.

And don't take personal shots at names. Jack. Thsoe are the rules here at DSP. Argue all you want but when you take personal shots you've crossed a line. You can call all my arguments stupid if you want, certainly others have, but the name calling is best left for OS or IGN.

Then don't call me stupid. What's more personal than that? I gotta get to study hall. Talk at ya later!!!

To pull a Clinton I didn't call you stupid. I said your arguments sounded stupid. Not really a difference with a distinction. It was a poor choice of words.

[JRod]

You aren't debating. Hell you aren't even contradicting anything I say. You are just dismissing it because you disagree with it and then using big words.

.

Talk about irony...this is amazing...

This is exactly how I would describe you.

Really so posting a different point of view is being dismissive. When all of his posts are more chest puffing than actual rebuttals.

Re-read the exchange between myself and PK. That's a debate. Not what Fatpitcher does.

[pk500]

We just won't mention the public roads, police and other infrastructure funded by tax dollars that allow Indy to have 300,000 fans attend and make their money.

We also won't mention the external costs such as higher pollution caused by Indy that the general public bears the cost of in way or another.

Of course, there are also large benefits to Indianapolis for having the IMS, but we don't need to pretend that the IMS should feel aggrieved for ever cent it pays in income taxes when it simply could not function without the public services paid for by those taxes.

Where the f*ck did this come from?

I NEVER made the connection between IMS paying taxes and personal income taxes. IMS pays plenty of taxes, yet unlike other professional sports entities that also pay taxes and rely on public services such as NFL teams, MLB teams, NBA teams and NHL teams, IMS never has requested or accepted a penny of public funding.

I simply made the point that I work for a company that never has accepted public funding for any part of its business after JRod indicated that no one should complain if they work for a company that benefits from public funding.

Yes, there are state and local police directing traffic outside the facility and for law enforcement outside and within the track. But if it makes you feel better, the entire safety patrol and security detail at the facility is hired and funded by IMS.

And a basic government can collect more than enough taxes from sources other than income to provide for basic services such as law enforcement, highways and schools.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Ad nauseum snip ... There are countries which have no income taxes or doesn't levy as high an income tax but they probably don't produce a large enough population of educated labor force or a customer base with enough income to buy tickets and merchandise.

And what does all of the above have to do with the fact that IMS accepts no public funding, which is almost unheard of in the sports entertainment industry?

And it did it ever occur to you that people might have even MORE discretionary income to attend events like races if there was no income tax? A lean, efficient government like the one outlined in the Constitution can collect enough revenue from non-income taxes to provide for basic services such as schools, roads, police/fire and military.

It's a pipe dream in America, where everyone wants a handout. But it's the America that SHOULD be reality.

Take care,
PK