Summations Only

If people like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates (both of whom, by the way, have called in public for higher taxes for the rich)

I think it's funny how Warren Buffet has called for more taxation while at the same time striving to not pay the taxes he currently owes. clicky

First off if you are going to quote me I would appreciate it if you do not change what I write in your quotes. Thank you.

I replaced "it" or "they" with the actual subject being discussed. I put it in parenthesis as is standard practice for clarity. You'll see the same thing done in every newspaper, magazine and internet news site.

If that's a huge problem for you, write with more clarity so that I can quote you in context without having to include both your post and my previous post just to allow someone else to know the subject.

So if we are currently taxing the rich a higher percentage and this money is being uneffectively managed by our government.

That's a big if. Do you have evidence that the money is being "uneffectively" managed by our government? Can you demonstrate a system in which the money has been more effectively managed by some other government?

It's fun to make up stories about how horrible the government is at things, but look at medicare vs HMOs.

You would THINK that a for profit business would have the least amount of overhead in order to maximize results and that the government with it's imaginary inefficiencies would be just awful.

Check the numbers.

How do you know?

Because she was given the money. You think she's going to refuse to take the money that was given to her because she's pay slightly more taxes on it?

And, he has said so. Multiple times.

Do you think that the rich are just gonna pay more taxes and there is no down side to it? I think that those who are rich are more likely to pass on the cost of these taxes to the consumers and ultimalty the cost of goods and services will increase while the lower and middle incomes will stay the same.

Well, you're wrong.

This is the scenario.

Richie Rich sells bread and pulls in 500 million dollars a year doing it. He pays 100 million in taxes currently and has only 400 mlllion dollars left to live on.

The government changes the tax code so that Richie Rich pays 150 million instead, leaving him with just 350 million dollars left.

Richie Rich, realizing that 350 million dollars isn't nearly enough upon which to survive, decides to "pass the cost of these taxes to the consumer" so he raises the prices on his bread.

Paulie Poor doesn't want to pay more for the same bread, so he goes and buys the bread the competitor makes.

If you HONESTLY believe that Richie Rich is going to say "I can't live on 350 Million" and so he'll completely shut down his bread company entirely and instead earn 0 dollars, then there's really nothing to discuss. You don't have a firm grasp on reality.

Do you think that the rich are just gonna pay more taxes and there is no down side to it? I think that those who are rich are more likely to pass on the cost of these taxes to the consumers and ultimalty the cost of goods and services will increase while the lower and middle incomes will stay the same.

He pays all the taxes he owes.

You are accusing him of a criminal act. Do you have evidence that he has done anything criminal? No.

He uses the current tax code to his advantage. He acknowledges that the system is broken and recommends that it be fixed. However, since the system is what it is, he does what he can.

No illegal.

So if we are currently taxing the rich a higher percentage and this money is being uneffectively managed by our government. Then what good is it going to do to tax the rich even more so that the government can mismanage those funds as well?

Well, are you an anarchist?

If not, then there should be a government and the government should get its money from somewhere. What we are discussing here is where it should get the money from.

How do you know? Do you think that the rich are just gonna pay more taxes and there is no down side to it? I think that those who are rich are more likely to pass on the cost of these taxes to the consumers and ultimalty the cost of goods and services will increase while the lower and middle incomes will stay the same.

I thought we were discussing income tax, not taxes on corporations. Exactly how will Paris Hilton pass on the cost of her taxes to consumers?

As you changed your post to say "trillion" instead of "billion", I shall withdraw mine. Which is a shame, 'cos I had some good sarcasm going there.

"Billion" of course, would actually have been the correct word, if only Americans would learn to understand how many noughts are in each "-illion".

I'll go back to quietly jeering from the sidelines now.

"Billion" of course, would actually have been the correct word, if only Americans would learn to understand how many noughts are in each "-illion".

3, plus one comma. You Brit pussies are the ones who've got it wrong (ask a Greek.) You don't even know they're called "zeros", lol!

That's a big if. Do you have evidence that the money is being "uneffectively" managed by our government?

Well in my opinion the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a huge mismanagment of funding by the government. While parts of the bill included provisions that helped America begin to recover from a growing recession. Other parts were laden with non vital spending. Some examples include $650 million for digital TV coupons, $25 million for new ATV trails, $83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers, $54 billion for the Economic Development Administration, $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak. This is just a small list of items considered non essential. As a personal example I have seen the DOD spend millions building guard shacks, and baseball fields when they knew ahead of time that they were planned to be demolished directly after construction in order to be rebuilt elsewhere. Some just a few feet away from where they were originally built.

It's fun to make up stories about how horrible the government is at things, but look at medicare vs HMOs. You would THINK that a for profit business would have the least amount of overhead in order to maximize results and that the government with it's imaginary inefficiencies would be just awful.

Well then I would point you to the post office versus companies such as fed-ex or ups. It would seem that the government is awful in its inefficiencies

Richie Rich, realizing that 350 million dollars isn't nearly enough upon which to survive, decides to "pass the cost of these taxes to the consumer" so he raises the prices on his bread. Paulie Poor doesn't want to pay more for the same bread, so he goes and buys the bread the competitor makes.

You forgot to include that Richie Rich's competitor is also rich himself and therefore effected by the same tax hike as Richie Rich, so therefore passes this tax hike into the cost of goods and services just as Richie Rich did. So the consumer is left with both companies charging more for the same service. If you have such a problem with Richie Rich I would advocate that you use a local market, which is what I do. I don't think that we should be taxing more just because you have a problem with others having more than you.

"Billion" of course, would actually have been the correct word, if only Americans would learn to understand how many noughts are in each "-illion". I'll go back to quietly jeering from the sidelines now.

I'm British by birth, but I have never used the supposedly British system of -illions and nor has any British person I've ever discussed it with; nor do British scientists or British newspapers use that system. Billion, trillion, quadrillion and so forth involve multiplying by a thousand, by the common consent of the English-speaking peoples, and the sooner we all get over it the better.

Well then I would point you to the post office versus companies such as fed-ex or ups.

The USPS is actually incredibly profitable, or at least it would be if it wasn't the only company in the United States that was required to prepay 6 billion dollars in future retiree health benefits every year. Even operating without that hobbling obligation, UPS and FedEx still charge more than twenty times the USPS to deliver a letter, don't deliver on Saturday, won't deliver to your home in many cases, and simply don't deliver anything at all to tens of millions of rural Americans.

I don't think that we should be taxing more just because you have a problem with others having more than you.

Well, we don't. We tax the rich at a higher rate than the poor because it's more fair to do so. That's what's fair - the rich paying a greater share of their income, because their portion of the nation's wealth is higher.

Well in my opinion the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a huge mismanagment of funding by the government. While parts of the bill included provisions that helped America begin to recover from a growing recession. Other parts were laden with non vital spending. Some examples include $650 million for digital TV coupons,

The transition from analog to digital was a necessary change to manage bandwidth.

As a result, many americans who had not upgraded their TVs would have lost one of their primary sources of information.

This allows the government to broadly stimulate the economy in multiple regions while ensuring that the Americans who were unable to keep up with the changing technology on their own wouldn't be left with radio as their only source of information.

Hardly a mismanagement.

$25 million for new ATV trails

While I am not a fan of ATVs, keeping them from "off roading" protects important natural resources. Additionally, ATVs are the frequent vehicle of choice for non-helicopter rescues within national parks.

Also, this is 25 million that goes directly into the pockets of hard working Americans who are hired to build and maintain these trails which are in rural areas where investment is specifically needed.

$83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers

You are complaining that people who don't make enough money to survive aren't paying more in taxes? REALLY? Tell me, how much should someone who makes 10k a year pay in income tax?

$54 billion for the Economic Development Administration

Hrmmm, funding an administration which is charged with developing the economy in order to help develop the economy. Yeah, I can see why you would be against that.

How reckless of our government to spend the money doing exactly what the money was meant to be spent doing.

$1 billion to subsidize Amtrak.

Rail is the most fuel efficient and best way to move things across country. Period. We spend WAY more money subsidizing the highways, the oil imports, the car and truck manufacturing - all of which pale in comparison to what rail is able to do.

If anything, a $1 billion investment in rail is 1/10th of what we should be spending.

This is just a small list of items considered non essential

Yes, considered non-essential by you because you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

That's why you don't get to make the decisions.

As a personal example I have seen the DOD spend millions building guard shacks, and baseball fields

Then CUT DEFENSE!

Well then I would point you to the post office versus companies such as fed-ex or ups. It would seem that the government is awful in its inefficiencies

And I would point out that the post office is a Constitutionally mandated service which is NOT publicly funded. It provides door to door delivery to virtually everyone in the US at costs that everyone can afford.

FedEx and UPS do not.

You forgot to include that Richie Rich's competitor is also rich himself and therefore effected by the same tax hike as Richie Rich, so therefore passes this tax hike into the cost of goods and services just as Richie Rich did.

Ah, I see. So, we shouldn't tax the rich because they will engage in criminal price fixing.

Kleptocracy much?

I don't think that we should be taxing more just because you have a problem with others having more than you.

First of all, I'm doing extremely well.
Second, if I wanted more money than I have, I could get more money. I don't need it. I don't want it. I can afford to buy whatever I want whenever I want. I just don't happen to want 50ft yachts and private jets.

My issue is not that person A has more money than me. It's that person A is hording the money so persons B through Z are out of work. If person A were spending the money, then B through Z would have access to it.

Instead the money sits in a Swiss Bank Account gathering interest.

, $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak.

Well in my opinion the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a huge mismanagment of funding by the government. While parts of the bill included provisions that helped America begin to recover from a growing recession. Other parts were laden with non vital spending. Some examples include $650 million for digital TV coupons, $25 million for new ATV trails, $83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers, $54 billion for the Economic Development Administration, $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak. This is just a small list of items considered non essential.

Without looking into the details of your examples, I agree that public money is sometimes spent inefficiently --- the same as private money, which is what actually got us into this mess.

Perhaps government should be smaller and do less. But that is a question totally orthogonal to the question of where the government should get the money from to do the things that it does.

Let us suppose that everything you've listed was a bad idea. Does it follow from that that it should be paid for by a flat-rate tax rather than by progressive taxation? If (for example) it is bad for the government to subsidise Amtrak, does it follow from that conclusion that the poorest American should pay the same proportion of his income as the richest American to do so?

If we grant that this spending really is useless, then should we pay for it by taking away the money that the poor man was planning to spend on food or by taking away the money that the rich man was planning to spend on an oil-painting of his favorite French Poodle? Because in the latter case we're taking away money that would have been spent on something useless and spending it on something useless, whereas in the former case we're taking away money that would have been spent on something useful and spending it on something useless. You wish to suggest that some government spending is useless --- but the more that this is the case, the greater the moral case for taking it from the rich rather than the poor.

Maybe if it's that useless it shouldn't be taken from anyone, but that's not what we're debating.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I started typing a response and am unable to finish. I will get back to you as soon as time permits. Thank you for the interesting conversation.

I started typing a response and am unable to finish. I will get back to you as soon as time permits. Thank you for the interesting conversation.

No, thank you. You have been courteous, intelligent, and completely wrong. This is exactly what I require in an adversary.

rueh writes:

Well in my opinion the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a huge mismanagement of funding by the government. While parts of the bill included provisions that helped America begin to recover from a growing recession. Other parts were laden with non vital spending. Some examples include $650 million for digital TV coupons, $25 million for new ATV trails, $83 billion for the earned income credit for non-taxpayers, $54 billion for the Economic Development Administration, $1 billion to subsidize Amtrak.

...to get it to pass in congress.....

This is just a small list of items considered non essential.

Other than you, who is considering them non-essential? The congressperson installing that item on the ARRA certainly thinks it's essential. Let's look at the 2 big enchiladas in your laundry list: Earned Income Credit and - what's this? - the Economic Development Administration!

The EIC puts more money in hands of the poor to spend on goods & services & this helps to get the economy moving. And when you are trying to fix the economy what department in our government should be given the job of finding answers - the Economic Development Administration seems like a very logical place. What other part of government should be bolstered in this recession?

As a personal example I have seen the DOD spend millions building guard shacks, and baseball fields when they knew ahead of time that they were planned to be demolished directly after construction in order to be rebuilt elsewhere. Some just a few feet away from where they were originally built.

Now here I have no disagreement - but you know why they do this, right? If they don't spend the money awarded in this fiscal year, then the amount they get in the next fiscal year is reduced by what they didn't spend. It's stupid that it works this way - I agree.

Well then I would point you to the post office versus companies such as fed-ex or ups. It would seem that the government is awful in its inefficiencies

Well, let's get junkmail out of the US Post Office. Your 44 cent stamp (soon 45 cent) is subsidizing junk mailers - think of it! You are paying junk mailers to send junk mail to your house! Junk mail is done by private companies who wangled a sweet deal out congress years ago ("Hey, I know - we'll get the average citizen to pay for it. Let me make a bribe to my congressman running for re-election...")

Also, the US Post Office has to deliver to every mailbox, whether it's at the bottom of the Grand Canyon or half way up Mount McKinley. Fed-Ex & UPS would go out of business trying to do what the Post Office does.

Richie Rich, realizing that 350 million dollars isn't nearly enough upon which to survive, decides to "pass the cost of these taxes to the consumer" so he raises the prices on his bread. Paulie Poor doesn't want to pay more for the same bread, so he goes and buys the bread the competitor makes. You forgot to include that Richie Rich's competitor is also rich himself and therefore effected by the same tax hike as Richie Rich, so therefore passes this tax hike into the cost of goods and services just as Richie Rich did. So the consumer is left with both companies charging more for the same service. If you have such a problem with Richie Rich I would advocate that you use a local market, which is what I do.

Yes! USE THE LOCAL MARKET ANYWAY! (remember the OP)...

What we have here is a beautiful way to correct for the inequity of the economy if scale. Richie Rich can produce a loaf of bread on the shelf at a lower cost than your Mom & Pop bakery because of the economy of scale. Economy of scale makes the rich get richer by passing civilization costs out of their responsibility and onto the citizenry at large. Richie Rich's company drives 1000's of semi trucks carrying all these loaves of bread over the highways we pay for at the pump. Richie Rich doesn't pay as much for the wear and tear to the roads & bridges because of deals he & his buddies before him got out of congress to write off on his business expense sheet at tax time. Those trucks cause more wear & tear than your sedan. Furthermore, diesel fuel stinks around the whole country but he doesn't have to smell it. We do. Our quality of life is degraded because of him.

Now this could be bad for Paulie Poor, because the price went up, perhaps up enough to make him shop from his local Mom & Pop bakery. But he's already on food stamps & they will give him the difference & life goes on. He's ok - he would never get a chance to meet Richie Rich face to face, but now he's making friends with neighbors like Mom & Pop. This is an accountability step up of a better kind!

What about Mikey Middle? Maybe for him the reduced potholes & diesel stink is worth the Mom & Pop price. Maybe the IRS will increase the Standard Deduction again to compensate. And again he gets the advantages of meeting Mom & Pop personally with the perks of new friendships.

I don't think that we should be taxing [the rich] more just because you have a problem with others having more than you.

That is a problem when 90% of the rest of us are suffering. I also have a problem with them using & abusing more of the same world I have to live in. You might want say "well, nobody said life was fair" - and it certainly isn't. But I'd like to think that, as an intelligent species who finds strength in having a good moral character, we should try to make it as fair as feasible.

Buy local!

I sense that we are dog piling on poor rueh.