chomerics Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 This debate always boils down to the simple question-Why should person A pay more than person B just because they can? you answered your question It is because of fairness Kilmer. Person A paying more than person B allows people to be class mobile and it allows for moving up the rungs on the income ladder. This is quickly vanishing, and the lower class will remain there, which is what the republicans want anyway, less competition means cheap labor. I just saw on the news a study that said 6% of lower income (bottom 10%) HS graduates get a college degree, while 82% of the top 10% get a degree. Money was the deciding factor from the study (and yes there were other factors as well, but money was the main one). You need a progressive tax to allow the class mobility, without it people will not be as mobile, and everything will stagnate. And yes, DC chose to word the question correctly, where as you wanted to frame it in a skewed way. The game is over, time to pay the piper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Keynesianism? :laugh: Good one. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Well we should clearly look to Europe for their model of fiscal policy. And they have such a vibrant economy, and no class struggles at all. That's what is so great about socialism and the European model!! Yaaaaay, socialism!!!!! ....... Who is arguing for Socialism Zoony? Buffett? Stein? I see nothing about socialism in this thread. . .nice attempted dodge, but it didn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 This debate always boils down to the simple question-Why should person A pay more than person B just because they can? Because person A is receiving more benefits from our system. Person A has more assets being protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Because person A is receiving more benefits from our system. Person A has more assets being protected. explain. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Who is arguing for Socialism Zoony? Buffett? Stein? I see nothing about socialism in this thread. . .nice attempted dodge, but it didn't work It is where this discussion ultimately is headed, and you know it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaudry Posted December 1, 2006 Author Share Posted December 1, 2006 explain...... Imagine Canada invades and conquers the US. They claim all propery and land as their own. The guy in the trailer park loses out on 15K while Bill Gates loses out on all his houses, cars, planes, boats, stocks, and everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Imagine Canada invades and conquers the US. . lets stop right there anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 lets stop right there anyone else? I had written a long post responding to you but I didn't want to come off as insulting your intelligence. This is a simple concept Zoony, if you don't understand it's because you don't want to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 I had written a long post responding to you but I didn't weant to come off as insulting your intelligence. This is a simple concept Zoony, if you don't understand it's because you don't want to understand. go ahead, I can take it. We all saw the scope of your intelligence on this issue at the beginning of this thread. (there, that gets you fired up, doesn't it? ) How does someone earning $100k / year receive more government (taxpayer) benefits from someone earning $20k? And in your discussion of taxes, don't forget ALL taxes, such as property tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, etc. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Whether the government should use debt and/or taxes also depends on the cost of capital. If it's cheaper to use debt than tax (i.e., interest payments are less than the cost of lost economic prosperity because of raised taxes), why NOT use debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Whether the government should use debt and/or taxes also depends on the cost of capital. If it's cheaper to use debt than tax (i.e., interest payments are less than the cost of lost economic prosperity because of raised taxes), why NOT use debt? Not unlike my mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Whether the government should use debt and/or taxes also depends on the cost of capital. If it's cheaper to use debt than tax (i.e., interest payments are less than the cost of lost economic prosperity because of raised taxes), why NOT use debt? This is particularly true when there is a likelihood of a weaker dollar and an inflationary economy where a dollar now is worth a lot more than a dollar in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Whether the government should use debt and/or taxes also depends on the cost of capital. If it's cheaper to use debt than tax (i.e., interest payments are less than the cost of lost economic prosperity because of raised taxes), why NOT use debt? Because the debt can get out of control, and it is automatically lost economic prosperity in the form of interest payments. it is a fundamental difference in how to run monetary policy, and I am one that believes in running a balanced budget for a variety of reasons. First, it gives you the most flexibility in terms of controlling the economy. If you need to increase spending, you can. Second, by paying back the deficit, you actually garner more productivity in the future, as the money spent is going to something other than interest. I know there is an argument to be made that debt repayment is not the wisest thing to do with the money, but I am just not in that camp. I think that overall, to have the greatest flexibility, you should balance the books and pay back some of the debt so you have the greatest economic control in the future. Third, I think that balancing the budget actually reduces government waste and it helps trim the fat in the government, which there is a lot of. I am not a fan of big government, even though it is my employer. . .heck I'm being really productive at work now, see what I mean I think a minimal government is best, because you eliminate bureaucracy, and balancing the budget helps to minimize needless government waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Not unlike my mortgage. So true, but I am always one for paying more now, so in the future I will save money. For example, I get paid bi-weekly, when I owned a house, I would make bi-weekly payments, and every year, it would add up to one extra payment (26 payments instead of 24). That one month mortgage payment would have paid off the house in 21 years instead of 30, a huge savings of almost $250K. You can pay back debt, it is smart. It is not smart to pay it all back at once though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Ultimately this also comes down to Present Value, and how productive the government can make a dollar now versus one in the future. As long as the returns are greater than the interest rate, then the government is making the proper financing decision. A balanced budget is fine, but there is substantial room for the use of debt in the financing of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 go ahead, I can take it. We all saw the scope of your intelligence on this issue at the beginning of this thread. (there, that gets you fired up, doesn't it? )How does someone earning $100k / year receive more government (taxpayer) benefits from someone earning $20k? And in your discussion of taxes, don't forget ALL taxes, such as property tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, etc. ... Because the person making 100K has more assets being protected and thus his service from the federal Government is more substantial. As for the guy at the beginning of this thread, I never thought balancing the budget would be met with such hostility. Especially seeing as how the previous President was able to achieve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Because the person making 100K has more assets being protected and thus his service from the federal Government is more substantial.As for the guy at the beginning of this thread, I never thought balancing the budget would be met with such hostility. Especially seeing as how the previous President was able to achieve that. Protected how, exactly? And running a balance budget and using treasuries are not mutually exclusive concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whlinder Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 The United States government is unlike any other institution in the world. If they need money, they can just print more. Sure there are other considerations and effects if they do that, but one way to make a 500 trillion or whatever debt worth very little is to devalue the currency by printing tons of money. Goodbye debt. (and economy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Protected how, exactly?And running a balance budget and using treasuries are not mutually exclusive concepts. Y'know, protected. Like the mafia "protecting" your storefront window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Imagine Canada invades and conquers the US. They claim all propery and land as their own. The guy in the trailer park loses out on 15K while Bill Gates loses out on all his houses, cars, planes, boats, stocks, and everything else. 1. Canada would go bankrupt trying to get past 3 brigades... 2. Who would volunteer? If Drafted they would come here :laugh: We are in some of the richest times in the world right now... I gots me GED and have done all kinds of schooling and debt to get to a point where i'm on the cusp of not living paycheck to paycheck.. By march of next year i'll have this thing called disposable income for season tickets.. = I win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Since nobody jumped at it the first time I mentioned it, I'll converse with myself. I have some issues with the entire premise of the article. Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all. Income tax is just one small part of the overall tax picture. What about property taxes? What do you suppose that someone who owns a $500,000 home pumps into the economy yearly in property taxes, versus someone who is renting an apartment, or owns a $100,000 home? Also, with regard to sales tax, would it be a safe assumption to theorize that a wealthy person would pay much more money in sales tax every year -vs- someone with 1/10 the spending power? Capital Gains tax. That one is self explanatory. If you need me to explain why a millionaire might pay more in capital gains, well, stop reading now. Inheritance/Luxury tax, etc. See above. So let's talk about TAX policy, not federal income tax, shall we? :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Protected how, exactly? Legally, physically, militarily, etc. It takes real resources, resources a rich person with a ton of assets is utilizing more than a guy with nothing. I suppose a rich person could spend every penny, have zero assets, and then the principle I am speaking of doesn't exist but I think that would be the exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Because the person making 100K has more assets being protected and thus his service from the federal Government is more substantial.As for the guy at the beginning of this thread, I never thought balancing the budget would be met with such hostility. Especially seeing as how the previous President was able to achieve that. How does it cost the government more money to guard someone's $500,000 portfolio than it would to protect someone who had $500 in savings? Be specific with dollar amounts spent. Because that's what we're talking about. And you also used the word 'benefits'. I'm curious how the rich enjoy more governmental/taxpayer benefits than the poor. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Legally, physically, militarily, etc. It takes real resources, resources a rich person with a ton of assets is utilizing more than a guy with nothing. I suppose a rich person could spend every penny, have zero assets, and then the principle I am speaking of doesn't exist but I think that would be the exception, not the rule. Again, you're not being specific. i want to know how that costs the GOVERNMENT more money. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.