From: Chris Bellomy on
BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:39 PM:
> In article <d6udndXwh7Pp8bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 11:23 AM:
>>> On Dec 17, 11:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>,
>>>>> Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM:
>>>>>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top
>>>>>>> 10% pays over 70%?
>>>>>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income.
>>>>>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions."
>>>>>> cb
>>>>> I think you should both supply some actual figures...
>>>> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement
>>>> with another.
>>>>
>>>> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the
>>>> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per
>>>> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly
>>>> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing
>>>> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local
>>>> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians
>>>> don't count those.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless.
>>>> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the
>>>> rich, does not target any particular group of people.
>>>> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful
>>>> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who
>>>> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to
>>>> hoard. Pretty simple.
>>>>
>>>> cb
>>>>
>>>> *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
>>> "Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive;"
>>>
>>> How do you figure? Whatever comes out of your check is mached by your
>>> employer.
>> There's a hard cap on the amount of payroll tax that one
>> can pay. If you earn more than ~$100k/year, you quit
>> paying payroll tax for everything above that. It doesn't
>> get any more regressive than that.
>
> There is no cap on payroll taxes over 100k/year. There is a cap on
> Social Security Taxes over a certain dollar amount per year. But, the
> Federal, State, Local and Medicare taxes continue to be withheld beyond
> 100k/year. I do have personal knowledge in this area.

Fair enough. Mea culpa for not getting it right, and thanks
for the correction!

cb
From: BAR on
In article <4dednVWnoI0F7LDWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>
> BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:29 PM:
> > In article <d6udndTwh7N58bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
> > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
> >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 12:12 PM:
> >>> On Dec 18, 11:46 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
> >>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in
> >>>>> circulation... is it?
> >>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of
> >>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy.
> >>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are
> >>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points
> >>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most
> >>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number
> >>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up
> >>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other
> >>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a
> >>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my
> >>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say
> >>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between
> >>>> building financial security for one's family and
> >>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
> >>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
> >>>> we're going to have these problems.
> >>> "accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
> >>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
> >>> we're going to have these problems."
> >>>
> >>> Part of what happens in this country is incentive. Motivation to build
> >>> a better mouse trap.
> >> Understood. But there are limits. In fact, there are things
> >> for which we want to *remove* incentives. Otherwise, we end
> >> up in our current situation, just like we did in 1933.
> >>
> >> The tendency of wealth to gravitate to itself has to be
> >> curbed if you want capitalism to survive. That's just how
> >> it is.
> >
> > Fight on mighty class warrior.
>
> Not a class warrior. I just want capitalism to work right.

You are a class warrior. What do you mean by "capitalism to work
right?" Capitalism does operate on your terms.



From: Chris Bellomy on
BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:44 PM:
> In article <4dednVSnoI0y7LDWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>> BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:24 PM:
>>> In article <d6udndjwh7OF9rDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
>>> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/19/09 7:46 AM:
>>>>> On Dec 19, 12:46 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in
>>>>>>> circulation... is it?
>>>>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of
>>>>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy.
>>>>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are
>>>>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points
>>>>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most
>>>>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number
>>>>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up
>>>>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other
>>>>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a
>>>>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my
>>>>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say
>>>>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between
>>>>>> building financial security for one's family and
>>>>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
>>>>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
>>>>>> we're going to have these problems.
>>>>> It seems to me that most of our problems are from people spending more
>>>>> than they have and taking big chances (houses, businesses, etc).
>>>> This wouldn't happen if you didn't have people who
>>>> actually *have* that money dangling it in front of
>>>> the have-nots with sweet nothings of "easy credit"
>>>> whispered in their ears.
>>> I didn't loosen the lending laws and I didn't encourage anyone to loosen
>>> the lending laws.
>> Did you vote Republican?
>
> Did you note Democrat?

I don't think I noted Democrat. ;)

It's irrelevant, though. Nothing got through Congress from
1995 to 2007 without GOP sanction.

cb
From: Chris Bellomy on
BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:45 PM:
> In article <4dednVWnoI0F7LDWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>> BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:29 PM:
>>> In article <d6udndTwh7N58bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>,
>>> ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
>>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 12:12 PM:
>>>>> On Dec 18, 11:46 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>>>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in
>>>>>>> circulation... is it?
>>>>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of
>>>>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy.
>>>>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are
>>>>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points
>>>>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most
>>>>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number
>>>>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up
>>>>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other
>>>>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a
>>>>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my
>>>>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say
>>>>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between
>>>>>> building financial security for one's family and
>>>>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
>>>>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
>>>>>> we're going to have these problems.
>>>>> "accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn
>>>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter,
>>>>> we're going to have these problems."
>>>>>
>>>>> Part of what happens in this country is incentive. Motivation to build
>>>>> a better mouse trap.
>>>> Understood. But there are limits. In fact, there are things
>>>> for which we want to *remove* incentives. Otherwise, we end
>>>> up in our current situation, just like we did in 1933.
>>>>
>>>> The tendency of wealth to gravitate to itself has to be
>>>> curbed if you want capitalism to survive. That's just how
>>>> it is.
>>> Fight on mighty class warrior.
>> Not a class warrior. I just want capitalism to work right.
>
> You are a class warrior. What do you mean by "capitalism to work
> right?" Capitalism does operate on your terms.

Yeah, if by "operate" you mean "collapse on itself like a
burned-out star."
From: assimilate on

On 18-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:

> > where?
>
> talkingpointsmemo.com did quite a bit of the investigative
> reporting, which probably explains why you never read it.
> Nevertheless, if you want to get down to the details, those
> are the archives to read. The reporting was quite thorough
> and specific.

I did read it and was not convinced. TPM is occasionally good, but
inconsistent.

--
bill-o