taxation

[DanaC]

Jon Stewart was brilliant about this during the debt ceiling discussions. On the one hand the additional taxation of the top 1 % is counted as so negligible as to not be worth the collecting, yet cuts to services and benefits that come to a fraction of that are heralded as a good start and the saviour of the economy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Jon Stewart was brilliant about this during the debt ceiling discussions. On the one hand the additional taxation of the top 1 % is counted as so negligible as to not be worth the collecting, yet cuts to services and benefits that come to a fraction of that are heralded as a good start and the saviour of the economy.

And that right there is Wealth Envy...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

I'll go slow, try to keep up.

Fuck off condescending prick.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And that right there is Wealth Envy...

How is that wealth envy? You don't see the hypocrisy in the characterisation of the amount of money that could be got from taxing the rich as neglible and therefore not worth pursuing as it wouldn;t make a difference, whilst the same or smaller amount of money that could be saved by cutting off the services and benefits of the lower incomes is characterised as a worthwhile figure which must be pursued, because it would make a real difference?

Setting aside the rights and wrongs of taxation -v- spending cuts, it's the characterisation of the amount as too low to bother with, or too great to not bother with that I'm talking about.

There are much better arguments against taxing the rich than that it wouldn't be enough to make a difference.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

How is that wealth envy?

Because you are more focused on the fact that these people make a lot more money than you or I and taking all or even 50% of their money would have no impact on the issues at hand. It is all about what they make and what the rest of the 99% don't make.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because you are more focused on the fact that these people make a lot more money than you or I and taking all or even 50% of their money would have no impact on the issues at hand. It is all about what they make and what the rest of the 99% don't make.

I really don't have wealth envy merc. I am probably one of the least money minded people you will ever 'meet'.

I do however have a view on what makes for a fair society.


And I notice you are repeating that currently popular conservative trope, that it wouldn't make a difference. By that token cuts to medicare, and welfare programmes wouldn't make a difference, So why cut them?

[ZenGum]

It's not wealth envy. It's math. Or maths.

Cuts to services = Y

Tax rise on the rich = X

Y is less than X.

X is too small to matter.

Somehow, Y is not too small to matter.

The irrationality of this is the point.

[DanaC]

Thanks Zen, that explains it much better!

[classicman]

I've repeatedly state that the prime source of income for the uber-rich is not income, it comes from capital gains. Adjusting THAT rate could, I believe, be more effective. Loopholes ... if you make over (x)million you get none.

------------Income -----------------# filers
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000-----15,957
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000-----5,509
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000-----6,674
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000----1,047
$10,000,000 or more --------------400
Total # filers ----------------------29,587

Source IRS fiscal 2008

I still think we are looking at getting an awful lot out of a very few.
The only rational solutions is both reducing spending and increasing revenue.

Again, lets start with the military. Oops, O just sent troops into Africa, never mind.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Jon Stewart was brilliant about this during the debt ceiling discussions. On the one hand the additional taxation of the top 1 % is counted as so negligible as to not be worth the collecting, yet cuts to services and benefits that come to a fraction of that are heralded as a good start and the saviour of the economy.

As I remember it, Stewart showed that ending the Bush tax cuts is about the same amount as taking 50% of the combined net worth of all "non-tax-payers". To the right, the amount gained from repealing the tax cuts is insignificant, but the fact that 50% of Americans "don't pay any taxes" (the same dollar amount) is an attrocity.

[DanaC]

that was the one!

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by classicman

Loopholes ...

Loopholes.

Whenever any government carefully writes some policy or legislation, experts immediately comb through it to find how to use it in ways that were not originally intended.

Well, this is normal, and human self-interest, but they are abused to a ridiculous degree, and all politicians are very slow at moving to close them.

I guess this is the appeal to the "flat tax" idea, but I would expect that however that is written lobby groups would make sure there were still loopholes.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Again, lets start with the military. Oops, O just sent troops into Africa, never mind.

Only about 100, a piss in the wind compared to the larger picture.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

that was the one!

" There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs - John Rogers/Andrew Sullivan"

Wonderful quote if you are fantasy person. It is a natural state for you to look at reality in a state of fantasy.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Only about 100, a piss in the wind compared to the larger picture.

Isn't this how Nam started?