From: Chris Bellomy on 19 Dec 2009 19:46 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 19 Dec 2009 19:45 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 19 Dec 2009 19:49 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 19 Dec 2009 19:49 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 19 Dec 2009 21:35
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 |