teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I was referring to dividends tax rates. Go back and read the post in its entirety.
By all means...show me were I have EVER indicated that. I have ALWAYS said...gut the fed...return social spending where it belongs...local and state. Military cuts. massive federal government cuts. AND raise taxes on EVERYONE to pay down the debt. You are either selectively blind or a liar. I have never taken any other position. What I HAVE consistently opposed is the idiotic blame the rich ramblings. Taxing the rich isnt going to make people that have failed in their own little lives suddenly find success. The rich WILL need to bear a larger share of the burden, but then, EVERYONE should. When 47% of the country pay nothing in federal taxes and still drain the nations resources, it takes some real delusion and a far amount of shutzpah to blame everyone ELSE for being the root of all evil.What are you talking about? I never said they were fiscally responsible. They aren't. I want the government to be more fiscally responsible. That means higher taxes and lower spending. You're arguing that we should NOT become more fiscally responsible, we should just keep borrowing to cover our shortfall. We can't do that. We need to pay for what we spend.
Military cuts. massive federal government cuts. AND raise taxes
Yes, Turtle, that is called democracy. The majority makes the rules.using that logic you can easily justify taking everything from anyone who makes more than 100K a year and giving it to those who don't
Hell you can justify confiscating all the property of the top 10% and killing them and distributing the stolen wealth to the other 90%
Yes, Turtle, that is called democracy. The majority makes the rules.
that assumes that it would have no other effect
why not jack up taxes on the rich until they have no more disposable income than the average voter?
you just don't seem to understand that as long as most people think its the duty of others to pay down the deficit most people will demand more government
great
start by eliminating unconstitutional programs. The Department of Education is a good place to really start some serious pruning. The IRS could use some major reductions, same with the ATF, and if we got rid of the moronic war on drugs we could save billions in incarceration and court costs. The federal government does not need to own near as much land as it does now
True, it is. However, democracy can only be successful with an educated electorate but since any citizen over 18 can vote, the dumbing down of its electorate comes into play. Opportunist and populists can appeal to a wide swath of the ignorant with simple and thus appealing slogans and labels like the 99%. Ultimately, the cost of such movements will be borne by society as a whole. Anyone who thinks that the less successful will profit in the long run from this kind of populism is at the very least seriously short-sighted.Yes, Turtle, that is called democracy. The majority makes the rules.
True, it is. However, democracy can only be successful with an educated electorate but since any citizen over 18 can vote, the dumbing down of its electorate comes into play. Opportunist and populists can appeal to a wide swath of the ignorant with simple and thus appealing slogans and labels like the 99%. Ultimately, the cost of such movements will be borne by society as a whole. Anyone who thinks that the less successful will profit in the long run from this kind of populism is at the very least seriously short-sighted.
Fortunately, even those espousing income redistribution are cognizant of this fact and are most likely manipulating the ignorant to hold on to power. They are far too concerned with their legacy to actually put their rhetoric to practice. Not even Obama is actually that stupid. My only real concern is that they will lose control over a movement they cynically conceived and fostered.
While we would probably disagree on which programs to target, I and other progressives here have endorsed cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the spending on behalf of the federal government.
As to the Department of Education, I am a firm believer that the best place to spend dollars for education is in the classroom. Since the Dept of Ed actually no children, that would be a place to make reasonable cuts. So we agree on something there.
What we need is a two pronged approach where both sides of the ledger are dealt with.
I have a question about this policy of cutting the Department of Education.
Who would insure that schools and states provide education to all and not discriminate based on race and religion?
Who would insure that schools and states provide actual education and not religious based fantasy learning?
Who would make the education standards?
Who would insure some sort of minimum standard of education that all have to live up too?
By education standards I mean uniform tests, minimum reading standards, and so on.
You can not have a country where the quality of education is based on where you were born. While I know that this happens regardless, I am the firm believer that it is the role of a government entity to make sure that this factor is as minimal as possible. Right now in most countries, you have schooling systems based on set of rules that applies to all school districts. Sure some are bad, some are good. Some are rich, some are poor, but the basic principles are the same. Now by not having the central control system of an Education department, you risk having local governments dictating wildly different priorities and that would skew education in a country and society it self.
For example, you could have one local government that is very religious make all schools small religious schools basing all their teachings on religious text. When these children leave the area, they would be seriously handicapped in the real world. We have seen this with some graduates from religious based universities in the US.
Or a local government that has certain political views, that teaches the children these views by indoctrination. Like all lefties are bad or homos are bad and such things.
Now I am not saying the current Department of Education in the US is good or bad, or worth its costs, but I am saying that something to make sure that there is a minimum education standard in the US is needed and no I do not trust the States themselves to do a good job... after all it was the states that fought against segregation and slavery...
Yeah, it's all state and local taxes of all types according to the source. Except there is no such thing as a "death tax"... Perhaps you mean "estate tax"?
This might be the kernel of our disagreement. In my view the fact that people can move states to try to avoid higher taxes is a problem and constitutes a reason that the federal government is better situated than the state governments to tax more progressively. It's what's called a "race to the bottom". States basically can't meaningfully tax rich people because they just move. States end up trying to undercut one another's tax rates to attract rich people and the ultimately result is what we have- regressive taxation at the state level. It's basically impossible for a state to have progressive taxation.
The classic race to the bottom problem is child labor. Child labor laws used to be solely at the state level. So corporations that wanted cheap labor would set up in whichever state had the slackest child labor laws. States competing for the taxes those corporations would bring kept undercutting one another with more and more. One state would let 14 year olds work in factories, but only for 4 hours a day. Then another would allow 8 hours. Then another would allow 13 years. Then another would say they could work in mines. And so on, lower and lower, until 10 year olds could work 12 hours shifts in coal mines.... Probably virtually nobody actually wanted that to be the law, but competitive pressures forced them to do it. So, the federal government had to step in and set a floor for child labor laws.
Competition between states is good for some things. For example, maybe one state will try investing heavily in computer oriented education and another will invest heavily in biology oriented education, one will do better than the other, and then the rest of the nation will tend to follow the stronger example. But that only works where the competitive forces are pressuring a state to do better. When it's competition over who can do the worst, that's no good.
Hmm, that's true. I probably shouldn't have used a bartender, which is indeed an intra-state business... But I will agree that there is some amount of state-level interests, but there also are some intrastate interests. Maybe the bartender is more concerned about the state and the orange seller is more concerned with the nation. But I would contend that we've steadily been shifting towards national interests and away from state interests. That orange seller going out of business does put some folks out of work locally, but some of them will go to another state to find orange related work. It may also put somebody in a grocery chain 10 states away out of business.
Yeah, great discussion.
That is absurd and nobody is suggesting that. Absurdity is not debate.
The IRS calls state "estate" taxes Death taxes. and you lefties never take those into account in averaging out what people play in state taxes or federal taxes. But even using numbers that are dubious as best, the rich are paying a higher percentage of taxes than the middle class.
The IRS calls state "estate" taxes death taxes. End of storySo we have to slog through this field yet again? I would hope we can all be spared.
Bakers call a certain dessert a Boston Cream Pie. It is NOT a pie. It is a cake. The name anyone gives it is not necessarily descriptive nor accurate.
You have argued that the rich have only what the masses will decide they will have
The IRS calls state "estate" taxes death taxes. End of story
Estate Tax
The estate tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death.
Actually, I explained to you the process of passing laws in the USA and the role the people play in the selection of their duly elected representatives and in making their wishes known to them. If the wealthy are so afraid of themasses doing what you fear they could do, that is all the more reason to strive for tax justice now with modest tax raises.
Turtle, you and I both know that there is no tax on death. Millions of people die every year and there is no tax paid in association with their death. Well over 95% of people die each year in the USA and there is no tax associated with that death. If somebody very wealthy died tomorrow and all their possessions and wealthy were burned along with them in a great Viking like pyre, they and their wealth would go out in ablaze of glory and even they would have no tax associated with the death.
As you well know, the tax is on the passing of wealth from one individual to a different individual because they are now acquiring income or property that could be converted into income.
from the IRS no less
Estate and Gift Taxes
This issue has lied dead for a few months and I had hoped it could continue to do so.
Do Misters Luntz and Ferris need to come out to play again?
You raise some excellent questions. And I join you in wanting those sort of things protected. However, I do think that can be accomplished with a reduction in the overall budget of the D of Ed. I taught for 33 years and I honestly cannot tell you anything they did for the kids I taught.
There is a tremendous duplication or even triplication (is that a word?) of effort and data collecting.
In the end, I would favor a national system like the Japanese have.
That would insure all that you and I want and the duplication at the local level would be eliminated. The conservative goal of cutting costs would thus be achieved. The noble goals you listed would also be achieved.
I won't get into the death tax in detail here because we already have plenty to discussYeah, it's all state and local taxes of all types according to the source. Except there is no such thing as a "death tax"... Perhaps you mean "estate tax"?
This might be the kernel of our disagreement. In my view the fact that people can move states to try to avoid higher taxes is a problem and constitutes a reason that the federal government is better situated than the state governments to tax more progressively. It's what's called a "race to the bottom". States basically can't meaningfully tax rich people because they just move. States end up trying to undercut one another's tax rates to attract rich people and the ultimately result is what we have- regressive taxation at the state level. It's basically impossible for a state to have progressive taxation.
The classic race to the bottom problem is child labor. Child labor laws used to be solely at the state level. So corporations that wanted cheap labor would set up in whichever state had the slackest child labor laws. States competing for the taxes those corporations would bring kept undercutting one another with more and more. One state would let 14 year olds work in factories, but only for 4 hours a day. Then another would allow 8 hours. Then another would allow 13 years. Then another would say they could work in mines. And so on, lower and lower, until 10 year olds could work 12 hours shifts in coal mines.... Probably virtually nobody actually wanted that to be the law, but competitive pressures forced them to do it. So, the federal government had to step in and set a floor for child labor laws.
Competition between states is good for some things. For example, maybe one state will try investing heavily in computer oriented education and another will invest heavily in biology oriented education, one will do better than the other, and then the rest of the nation will tend to follow the stronger example. But that only works where the competitive forces are pressuring a state to do better. When it's competition over who can do the worst, that's no good.
Hmm, that's true. I probably shouldn't have used a bartender, which is indeed an intra-state business... But I will agree that there is some amount of state-level interests, but there also are some intrastate interests. Maybe the bartender is more concerned about the state and the orange seller is more concerned with the nation. But I would contend that we've steadily been shifting towards national interests and away from state interests. That orange seller going out of business does put some folks out of work locally, but some of them will go to another state to find orange related work. It may also put somebody in a grocery chain 10 states away out of business.
Under the US constitution, such things as education, health, and welfare fall under the general term "police powers" and are state powers, not federal . All the questions you asked, would be answered by the people of the state in question, not people in other states.I have a question about this policy of cutting the Department of Education.
Who would insure that schools and states provide education to all and not discriminate based on race and religion?
Who would insure that schools and states provide actual education and not religious based fantasy learning?
Who would make the education standards?
Who would insure some sort of minimum standard of education that all have to live up too?
By education standards I mean uniform tests, minimum reading standards, and so on.
You can not have a country where the quality of education is based on where you were born. While I know that this happens regardless, I am the firm believer that it is the role of a government entity to make sure that this factor is as minimal as possible. Right now in most countries, you have schooling systems based on set of rules that applies to all school districts. Sure some are bad, some are good. Some are rich, some are poor, but the basic principles are the same. Now by not having the central control system of an Education department, you risk having local governments dictating wildly different priorities and that would skew education in a country and society it self.
For example, you could have one local government that is very religious make all schools small religious schools basing all their teachings on religious text. When these children leave the area, they would be seriously handicapped in the real world. We have seen this with some graduates from religious based universities in the US.
Or a local government that has certain political views, that teaches the children these views by indoctrination. Like all lefties are bad or homos are bad and such things.
Now I am not saying the current Department of Education in the US is good or bad, or worth its costs, but I am saying that something to make sure that there is a minimum education standard in the US is needed and no I do not trust the States themselves to do a good job... after all it was the states that fought against segregation and slavery...
we understand you want to make a tax you support sound less sinister but even the IRS calls state taxes on the wealth of an owner who has died "death taxes". Your almost frantic defense of both this abomination and its more sanitized name is interesting in its fervor
Estate Tax
The estate tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?