Rand Paul has ideas of helping Detroit

[Wesley Mouch]

The top 15% may pay 85% of the taxes, but they control 98% of the wealth. They should pay 98% of the taxes

That's the first logical argument for increasing taxes on the wealthy.

And if fairness is your goal, then you might achieve it. However if you tax wealth, you may find less of it.

We call it Income Tax. We don't call it Wealth Tax.

Maybe we should tax wealth in some way. At least unless it is being productively used. If you tax wealth, you also would want to exempt taxaction of capital that's invested. That's why we have a lower capital gains rate than income rate. We want that money used.

[rb336]

That's the first logical argument for increasing taxes on the wealthy.

And if fairness is your goal, then you might achieve it. However if you tax wealth, you may find less of it.
.

no, you will just see more of it in more hands. extreme wealth in the hands of a few is never a good thing, unless you think we should live in a society with a bunch of megamillionaires living in armed compounds surrounded by favelas. That is why Jefferson thought taxes should rise geometrically.

[ghettopalmetto]

That's the first logical argument for increasing taxes on the wealthy.

And if fairness is your goal, then you might achieve it. However if you tax wealth, you may find less of it.

We call it Income Tax. We don't call it Wealth Tax.

Maybe we should tax wealth in some way. At least unless it is being productively used. If you tax wealth, you also would want to exempt taxaction of capital that's invested. That's why we have a lower capital gains rate than income rate. We want that money used.

Capital Gains taxes don't tax the money invested. They tax the GAINS on the money invested, i.e. unearned income. That taxes on unearned income are lower than taxes on earned income might explain why our country is such an economic clusterfuck.

[Baselinepunk]

Folks like Wes and Rand Paul want everything in the world but don't want to pay for it through taxes. They want the Internet to spread their posting of smashing Government yet don't want to pay unions who installed the lines that their vitriol travels down. Nor to they want to pay for the roads they drive on, for the regulations that keeps their water and food safe and clean, don't want to pay for the Defense of this Great Nation, don't want to pay for regulations that keep nuclear power from destroying the world, don't want to pay fer nothing!


Bunch of damn freeloaders! And they have the ball to call Unions fat and lazy.

pfffffft!

BTW - Can anyone, by chance, enlighten me as to how a person who is named after a failed Broadway producer, Russian atheist formerly Jewish, and a drug addict has achieved such a high standing in a parlor room of guests such as the religious right?

I mean, that says a lot about the Republican party right there . . . .

[oladub]

Folks like Wes and Rand Paul want everything in the world but don't want to pay for it through taxes. They want the Internet to spread their posting of smashing Government yet don't want to pay unions who installed the lines that their vitriol travels down. Nor to they want to pay for the roads they drive on, for the regulations that keeps their water and food safe and clean, don't want to pay for the Defense of this Great Nation, don't want to pay for regulations that keep nuclear power from destroying the world, don't want to pay fer nothing!


Bunch of damn freeloaders! And they have the ball to call Unions fat and lazy.

pfffffft!

BTW - Can anyone, by chance, enlighten me as to how a person who is named after a failed Broadway producer, Russian atheist formerly Jewish, and a drug addict has achieved such a high standing in a parlor room of guests such as the religious right?

I mean, that says a lot about the Republican party right there . . . .

Baselinepunk, Such vitriol! I support Rand or Cruz over any Democrat I can think of. i would like to pare the federal government back to the powers delegated it in the Constitution. However, I realize that that means state and local governments would, of necessity, have to compensate by getting larger. I have voted in favor of the last two school millage taxes and have been a union member most of my working life and support the right of Americans to organize into unions. Maybe I am the exception, but I think you exaggerate. I, however, am appalled by anyone voting for Democratic or Republican candidates who bill our children to hand out borrowed money thinking such people are ethically challenged. Some of us don't want to want our kids to wind up like kids in Detroit. Maybe the ideas of the [[name that party) didn't work so well in Detroit and it is time for new voices to be heard including Rand, Arab and Mexican newcomers, Chinese investors, Dan Gilbert, etc..

[ghettopalmetto]

Oh, the bill that our poor children will get!

Sure, we'll worry about some mythical "bill" that our children will "get", but we can't be bothered to feed or educate them, get them decent medical care, provide for a healthy environment, or have an economy where they can earn a living wage at a productive job.

It's much easier to say:

1. Cut taxes
2. ???
3. Profit!

[oladub]

Oh, the bill that our poor children will get!

Sure, we'll worry about some mythical "bill" that our children will "get", but we can't be bothered to feed or educate them, get them decent medical care, provide for a healthy environment, or have an economy where they can earn a living wage at a productive job.

It's much easier to say:

1. Cut taxes
2. ???
3. Profit!

Our dilemma is that we really can't cut taxes because government income is far short of its spending, Raising taxes significantly to begin paying down the debt will strangle the economy, as will interests rates if they should ever climb to just their historical average. Our $17.3 national debt is not mythical and will wilt the social services you crave among other things.

[old guy]

To assume that we could be a nation without debt is naive. Reducing the debt without damaging society to any further extent would be beneficial, but at this point it's going to require people of greater statue than our elected politicians.

[rb336]

There is a reason the US "recovery" outpaced that of Europe - Europe went way further down the austerity road.

[JBMcB]

There is a reason the US "recovery" outpaced that of Europe - Europe went way further down the austerity road.

That's an incredibly simplistic analysis. Europe has LOADS of other factors going on - attempting to shoehorn dozens of different economies into the same currency being just one of them.

The countries that were *really* screwed were, mostly, the marginal economies that shouldn't have been allowed into the Euro zone to begin with. Once they joined they started spending like drunken sailors with the new lines of credit opened to them.

Too much austerity? Greece's government was spending 110% of their GDP, meaning there wasn't enough economic activity in the *whole country* to pay for the government's outlays. This, in a country where avoiding taxes is considered a sport. In what demented world could that be considered a good thing to be continued, or even expanded?

[eno]

There was an editorial in the NYTimes today regarding Rand Paul's stand on extending unemployment benefits. He isn't a very sympathetic figure to the poor and working class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/op...it_th_20131212

[rb336]

That's an incredibly simplistic analysis. Europe has LOADS of other factors going on - attempting to shoehorn dozens of different economies into the same currency being just one of them.

The countries that were *really* screwed were, mostly, the marginal economies that shouldn't have been allowed into the Euro zone to begin with. Once they joined they started spending like drunken sailors with the new lines of credit opened to them.

Too much austerity? Greece's government was spending 110% of their GDP, meaning there wasn't enough economic activity in the *whole country* to pay for the government's outlays. This, in a country where avoiding taxes is considered a sport. In what demented world could that be considered a good thing to be continued, or even expanded?

Japan's debt to GDP ratio is over 200%. it's not necessarily the debt that is the issue as it is the structure of that debt. and, btw, the Greek DEBT to GDP ratio was over 100%. the deficit was generally in the 13-17% - which is the amount spending was higher than revenues. If you are going to attempt to lecture me on a "simplistic" explanation, at least get your terminology right.

Yes, the Eurozone is a complex entity, but using the extremes to explain away the whole is the simplistic path. Austerity has failed the large Eurozone economies and slowed their recovery. Dozens of studies have shown this to be the case

[cjd]

I would say this "fact" is probably fairly close to being true, but lacking a bit of context. I couldn't find that exact percentage, but according to 2010 IRS data, the top 12.8% of Americans [[over $100,000 income) paid 70.5% of the taxes, which, if correct, would make it pretty much impossible that the top 15% could pay 85%, more likely a bit under 75%. Still, that is a lot. But since that same top 12.8% earned 59.4% of the income, it doesn't seem particularly high.

Some timely data to add to the discussion from yesterday's CBO report [[CNS News):

The top 40 percent of households by before-tax income actually paid 106.2 percent of the nation’s net income taxes in 2010, according to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time, households in the bottom 40 percent took in an average of $18,950 in what the CBO called “government transfers” in 2010.
Taxpayers in the top 40 percent of households were able to pay more than 100 percent of net federal income taxes in 2010 because Americans in the bottom 40 percent actually paid negative income taxes, according to the CBO study entitled, “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010.”

“When refundable tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, exceed the other federal tax liabilities of the households in an income group, those households are said to have a negative average tax rate,” said the CBO study.
“In its analysis, CBO measured individual income taxes net of refundable credits,” it said.

In 2010, the CBO determined, American households in the bottom 40 percent paid negative amounts in income-tax dollars and a negative average income-tax rate.
“Much of the progressivity of the federal tax system derives from the individual income tax,” said the report. “In 2010, the lowest quintile’s average rate for the individual income tax was -9.2 percent and the second income quintile’s rate was -2.3 percent.”
“A group can have a negative income tax rate if its refundable tax credits exceed the income tax otherwise owed,” said the CBO report.
The households in the top 20 percent by income paid 92.9 percent of net income tax revenues taken in by the federal government in 2010, said CBO. The households in the fourth quintile paid another 13.3 percent of net income tax revenues. Together, the top 40 percent of households paid 106.2 percent of the federal government’s net income tax revenue.
The third quintile paid another 2.9 percent—bringing the total share of net federal income tax revenues paid by the top 60 percent to 109.1 percent.
That was evened out by the net negative income tax paid by the bottom 40 percent.

[Novine]

Meanwhile, the poor continue to pay out much more of their income in taxes as opposed to the wealthiest Americans due to the fact that most taxes in this country are regressive.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...or-state-state

[Wesley Mouch]

There was an editorial in the NYTimes today regarding Rand Paul's stand on extending unemployment benefits. He isn't a very sympathetic figure to the poor and working class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/op...it_th_20131212

I don't measure sympathy for the poor solely on the basis of whether the government pays unemployment benefits. I do not mean to belittle those in need. But it is possible to imagine a world where there is not unemployment benefits, and yet those who are unemployed are supported by the community. Must everyone believe in infinite unemployment benefits to be compassionate in Mr. Blow's opinion. If its cruel to stop payments at 26 weeks, it is less cruel at 52 weeks? Criticism and difference of opinion does not indicate lack of compassion and sympathy.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't measure sympathy for the poor solely on the basis of whether the government pays unemployment benefits. I do not mean to belittle those in need. But it is possible to imagine a world where there is not unemployment benefits, and yet those who are unemployed are supported by the community.

"The community", meaning "Other people who aren't me."

[bailey]

I don't measure sympathy for the poor solely on the basis of whether the government pays unemployment benefits. I do not mean to belittle those in need. But it is possible to imagine a world where there is not unemployment benefits, and yet those who are unemployed are supported by the community. Must everyone believe in infinite unemployment benefits to be compassionate in Mr. Blow's opinion. If its cruel to stop payments at 26 weeks, it is less cruel at 52 weeks? Criticism and difference of opinion does not indicate lack of compassion and sympathy.

"The community", meaning "Other people who aren't me."

Maybe. But at what point do unemployment benefits ever end?

After 52 or 96 weeks, are you "unemployed" or you just unemployable?

[oladub]

I don't measure sympathy for the poor solely on the basis of whether the government pays unemployment benefits. I do not mean to belittle those in need. But it is possible to imagine a world where there is not unemployment benefits, and yet those who are unemployed are supported by the community. Must everyone believe in infinite unemployment benefits to be compassionate in Mr. Blow's opinion. If its cruel to stop payments at 26 weeks, it is less cruel at 52 weeks? Criticism and difference of opinion does not indicate lack of compassion and sympathy.

Compassion might also have different objects. For instance, compassion for illegal aliens who do jobs Americans won't do for illegal alien wages, is offset by a lack of compassion for US workers who have lost those jobs or for for working class people who make all sorts of sacrifices to be able to pay their taxes to pay for others' social benefits.

[Wesley Mouch]

"The community", meaning "Other people who aren't me."

No, I do see myself as a member of the community. I have a responsibility to others. I don't wish that responsibility to be fulfilled solely by the government. Perhaps you do. Its a difference of opinion. A difference in philosophy. Doesn't make me or Mr. Paul bad. Doesn't make you or those who like government as the safety net good nor bad. I think it makes you wrong. You probably think I'm wrong.

But calling someone bad or evil because the have a different opinion doesn't advance the debate. I'd rather you tell me why its better for the government to provide social service than the church?

[noise]

I'd rather you tell me why its better for the government to provide social service than the church?

From my own perspective, the government is of the people. It's our responsibility to take care of our own. The church is a separate entity that can easily alienate large groups of people. They have an agenda that's deep and, in my opinion, completely dangerous.

[Wesley Mouch]

From my own perspective, the government is of the people. It's our responsibility to take care of our own. The church is a separate entity that can easily alienate large groups of people. They have an agenda that's deep and, in my opinion, completely dangerous.

I don't agree, but I can respect your opinion. There's a lot of good that come from Churches. And here and there its not so good. But people get to choose. If the Catholic Church doesn't work for you -- give your money, time, and charity to a Unitarian church. And each and every one is different, with different goals, mission, management, and style.

With government in charge of being our social safety net, it one size, one philosophy fits all.

We're fortunate to have the 50 States at least for much of our safety net. Every once in a while, some real innovation occurs. And it either fails or succeeds. But at least it can be tried.

Nobody is forced to accept the Church's solution. Everybody is forced to accept the government's solution.

Often, those of us on the right are painted by the left as uncaring when we don't support a particular government-driven benefit. Its a 'war on the poor' or some such political slogan. Sometimes its just a disagreement about how to best serve the poor.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't agree, but I can respect your opinion. There's a lot of good that come from Churches. And here and there its not so good. But people get to choose. If the Catholic Church doesn't work for you -- give your money, time, and charity to a Unitarian church. And each and every one is different, with different goals, mission, management, and style.

With government in charge of being our social safety net, it one size, one philosophy fits all.

We're fortunate to have the 50 States at least for much of our safety net. Every once in a while, some real innovation occurs. And it either fails or succeeds. But at least it can be tried.

Nobody is forced to accept the Church's solution. Everybody is forced to accept the government's solution.

Often, those of us on the right are painted by the left as uncaring when we don't support a particular government-driven benefit. Its a 'war on the poor' or some such political slogan. Sometimes its just a disagreement about how to best serve the poor.

Churches just don't have the resources, fiscal or otherwise, that the federal and state governments do. Churches are reliant entirely on donations, which tend to dry up when the economy heads south, which is when services are needed the most. In addition, Churches rely on volunteers and don't have full-time employees with sophisticated databases to deploy social services, nor does religious charity carry the weight of law.

Add to that, we are legally not a religious nation. Forcing religious entities to handle social services is an abdication of responsibility. Even that Jesus guy said that governments have a responsibility to their people.

Unfortunately for Rand Paul, I've never seen tax cuts help people who don't have taxes to cut.

[oladub]

Unfortunately for Rand Paul, I've never seen tax cuts help people who don't have taxes to cut.

Kennedy successfully cut taxes. According to this article, he did so across the board instead of giving them mostly to the rich as Bush did; half of which were made permanent by Obama. http://www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244772...ower-tax-rates

Better yet, transfer as much of the income tax as possible from middle class taxpayers to import corporations.

[Wesley Mouch]

Churches just don't have the resources, fiscal or otherwise, that the federal and state governments do. Churches are reliant entirely on donations, which tend to dry up when the economy heads south, which is when services are needed the most. In addition, Churches rely on volunteers and don't have full-time employees with sophisticated databases to deploy social services, nor does religious charity carry the weight of law.

Add to that, we are legally not a religious nation. Forcing religious entities to handle social services is an abdication of responsibility. Even that Jesus guy said that governments have a responsibility to their people.

Unfortunately for Rand Paul, I've never seen tax cuts help people who don't have taxes to cut.

Certainly government has deeper pockets. After all they can print currency if they wish. And they can tax.

I didn't mean to limit the discussion to Churches. There are plenty of good non-religious charities in the world. I believe they do better work than the government. And many of them have massive resources.

You shouldn't underestimate churches, though.

No resources? How did they create so many of the major hospitals in our country?

Reliant on donations? True, to a degree. But the Catholic Church has never run short of cash -- even when times were tough.

Volunteer only? Hardly.

Can't handle sophisticated databases? Well -- neither it seems can the government. The Mormon Church runs an international database on genaeology that is the worlds best repository on the subject [[or so I've heard).

Only examples -- but you get the idea.

I actually am OK with the government running basic safety net. At the end of the day, they do need to be part of the solution. But I'd rather see most services handled by others where more vitality, innovation, risk taking, and successes are usually found.

Look at schools. You wouldn't have half the improvement in schools if you didn't have charters out there. Monopolies breed hubris and waste.