punjabi_khota Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Will respond in detail to the first comment later. I am not comparing Presidential candidates with donors. I am pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity of Obama's campaign. They have taken a stand that outsourcing is bad and that Romney has indulged in it' date=' so Romney is bad. If they truly believed that, they would be principled enough (or at least smart enough) not to take money from the guy who was more involved with Bain's outsourcing efforts than Romney himself.[/quote'] Did you read the update to the article you posted. Are you moral enough to post it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted July 19, 2012 Author Share Posted July 19, 2012 Did you read the update to the article you posted. Are you moral enough to post it ? Nope, I didn't. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, I retract, then. So, neither Lavine nor Romney was part of the Ampad deal. Good to know. And what the eff does that have to do with morality? It's not like I am spending my day looking for articles and retractions. I post a link and move on. If you found a retraction, more power to you. Get off the freakin high horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted July 19, 2012 Author Share Posted July 19, 2012 Yes' date=' you can. Evolutionary algorithms are used in every damn field there. Biologists were the first to discover them, but physicists/math/AI people have taken them far beyond biology.[/quote'] Not at the rudimentary level that Clarke was talking about. Rigorously using mathematical equations across fields is one thing, but to say talk about it in terms of what is fair or not is just ridiculous arm-waving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjabi_khota Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Nope, I didn't. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, I retract, then. So, neither Lavine nor Romney was part of the Ampad deal. Good to know. And what the eff does that have to do with morality? It's not like I am spending my day looking for articles and retractions. I post a link and move on. If you found a retraction, more power to you. Get off the freakin high horse. :hysterical: It was a joke man, I used your own line on you. Calm down professor. :nervous: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 First' date=' what does it have to do with evolution? Nothing grates on a biologist more than applying the principles of evolution to everything under the sun. Evolution is descent with modification. That's it. You cannot possibly extrapolate that to economics, sociology and such. [/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Latest joke from republican radio : Bain Capital sent job overseas not because of Romney but due to Obama ... wonder why ? One of the donors (or collectors) for Obama campaign was a director at Bains. Somehow this makes Romney guilt free and its obama's fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swing_n_Speed Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Classic right wing lunacy. He said you didn't build that in reference to what the government is providing to the businesses in the form of infrastructure like roads, not that you didn't build your own business. Not lunacy.. hypocrisy. Both sides engage in it and both sides are stupid because of it. Coming back to the conversation..hell yea he was taken out of context. You think talent-less hacks like Jay Z or Kim Kardashian or whoever would be the tycoons they currently are if they were sitting back home in Africa or Armenia? Hell No! No one can deny that America along-with a few other nations provide infrastructure and legislation that makes entrepreneurship so attractive. No doubt bout that! Either which way both Romney and Obama are two sides of the same Flippin coin! The fecking mongrels are itching to start another war. The only hope for now is Ron Paul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Romney is going to town with it: [ame= Hands - YouTube[/ame] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silva Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 As i mentioned earlier' date=' the emphasis on Darwinism. In other words, let the richer (in your words smarter/stronger) prosper more than they have in the last few decades [b']while the poor/middle class (the weaker in economic terms) is squeezed further. Not into extinction, but the idea is still relevant. The tax code can obviously be simplified but a flat tax is always harsher on the lower income groups. That's certainly not fairer unless one considered the free market as a perfect system with the CEO/worker example. This is not true. The quality of life for the middle and lower income has gone up tremendously in the past 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 This is not true. The quality of life for the middle and lower income has gone up tremendously in the past 30 years. We must be discussing diff countries or our middle class definitions are different. They sure do seem to enjoy the extremely affordable educational/healthcare/energy and other costs with the massive surge in their incomes. Which makes perfect sense to tax them further and provide more cuts for the 'job creators' by means of a flat rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Not at the rudimentary level that Clarke was talking about. Rigorously using mathematical equations across fields is one thing' date=' but to say talk about it in terms of what is fair or not is just ridiculous arm-waving.[/quote'] There's one of your counterparts (i mean prof, not conservative) that pens the idea much better than i can. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/the-taint-of-social-darwinism/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silva Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 We must be discussing diff countries or our middle class definitions are different. They sure do seem to enjoy the extremely affordable educational/healthcare/energy and other costs with the massive surge in their incomes. Which makes perfect sense to tax them further and provide more cuts for the 'job creators' by means of a ] the graphs you posted doesnt refute the fact that the quality of life amongst the poor and middle income individuals has gone up in the past 30 years. For starters that graph doesnt take into account other fringe benefites that have become large part of income since those graphs started like retirement benefits and vacation leave. Plus it doesnt track individuals rather it deals with broad categories which doesnt deal with a wide variety of specific details such as acuiring of skills and immigrants entering the workforce or people retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silva Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I would also like to point out that the us has the highest corprate tax in world and in no other country do the rich pay a higher percent of taxes than in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Two things: (1) The top 10% makes 43% of all income, but pays 71% of all federal taxes. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners (2) 49% of the population pays NO taxes. Is that an acceptable situation? Even if we did have a flat tax rate on ALL EARNINGS (wages, cap gains, whatever) with no deductions, exemptions or loopholes, the rich would end up paying a much higher absolute amount, but would be forced to be transparent. The only progression that makes sense to me is to have the lowest 5% of the population pay no more than 1 - 2% of their income, and the rest pay a flat percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silva Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/we-read-so-you-dont-have-to-tax-policy-lessons-from-the-oecd/2011/08/25/gIQAWacOWR_blog.html According to an OECD study, Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes. Recurrent taxes on immovable property appear to have the least impact. A revenue neutral growth-oriented tax reform would, therefore, be to shift part of the revenue base from income taxes to less distortive taxes such as recurrent taxes on immovable property or consumption. And the US relies the most on these two taxes and their both fairly progressive compared to consumption taxes and property. They also said There may also be gains, both in the quantity and the quality of labour supply, from reducing the progressivity of the personal income tax schedule. Estimates in this study point to adverse effects of highly progressive income tax schedules on GDP per capita through both lower labour utilisation and lower productivity (see below) partly reflecting lesser incentives to invest in higher education. Again, this implies a potential trade-off between growth-enhancing tax policies and distributional concerns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silva Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Also a major contributor of inequality in the US is the transfer of wealth from relatively poor young people to relatively rich old people through programs like medicare and social security. And the only person that's trying to solve that problem is Paul Ryan who gets accused of wanting to push granny of the cliff. http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/157072 Spending for seniors has since grown to nearly 40 percent of the budget in 2010; this amounts to over twice the spending on defense or 8.9 percent of the country's gross domestic product. Moreover, younger Americans are getting poorer, especially relative to the elderly. According to the Pew Research Center, "in 2009, the typical household headed by an adult 65 or older had $170,494 in net worth, compared with just $3,662 for the typical household headed by an adult younger than 35," and "the current gap is by far the largest since the Census Bureau began collecting these data in 1984. Back then, the age-based wealth gap was 10:1. By 2009, it had ballooned to 47:1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 the graphs you posted doesnt refute the fact that the quality of life amongst the poor and middle income individuals has gone up in the past 30 years. For starters that graph doesnt take into account other fringe benefites that have become large part of income since those graphs started like retirement benefits and vacation leave. Plus it doesnt track individuals rather it deals with broad categories which doesnt deal with a wide variety of specific details such as acuiring of skills and immigrants entering the workforce or people retiring. What about the overall picture for which the numbers are provided ? Is the middle class better off than 30 yrs back ? Will the poor be better off with a flat tax ? The so called improvements you talk about (retirement benefits, vacation etc) are not even mandatory unlike most if not all of the developed world. I don't see one Presidential candidate brag about how things are better now or even educate the public in that respect, they know the majority will give him/her a big ghanta come election day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Two things: (1) The top 10% makes 43% of all income, but pays 71% of all federal taxes. http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners (2) 49% of the population pays NO taxes. Is that an acceptable situation? Even if we did have a flat tax rate on ALL EARNINGS (wages, cap gains, whatever) with no deductions, exemptions or loopholes, the rich would end up paying a much higher absolute amount, but would be forced to be transparent. The only progression that makes sense to me is to have the lowest 5% of the population pay no more than 1 - 2% of their income, and the rest pay a flat percentage. What's wrong with the higher percentage contribution ? It essentially boils down to our respective belief in the market as the ultimate decider. You seem to feel that an individual making 100 times more than minimum wage contributes 100 times more to society than the minimum wage earner, which i cannot seem to grasp. I welcome some introduction in progression on your part though. From what i hear, everyone pays the payroll tax on income, and then there's the other taxes based on consumption which might not be our main point of discussion. To bring some fiscal sanity by reducing the deficit, it makes sense for the middle class to bear some of the burden. But further tax reductions by means of a flat tax for the well off after all the growth they enjoyed in the previous decades :whatchutalkingabout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silva Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 What about the overall picture for which the numbers are provided ? Is the middle class better off than 30 yrs back ? Will the poor be better off with a flat tax ? The so called improvements you talk about (retirement benefits, vacation etc) are not even mandatory unlike most if not all of the developed world. I don't see one Presidential candidate brag about how things are better now or even educate the public in that respect, they know the majority will give him/her a big ghanta come election day. the US has the most progressive tax system in the world. The reason why wealthy people pay little is because over all tax burden is low in the US compared to other developed countries. Poor and middle income earners are heavily taxed in those European social welfare countries that offer those mandatory benefits. I think the Payroll tax and corporate tax should be replaced with a consumption tax and the Income tax have should have lower rates across the board for every income earner with no loopholes. As the OECD study showed Income and corporate taxes are the worst for GDP growth and the US relies on both of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 the US has the most progressive tax system in the world. The reason why wealthy people pay little is because over all tax burden is low in the US compared to other developed countries. Poor and middle income earners are heavily taxed in those European social welfare countries that offer those mandatory benefits. I think the Payroll tax and corporate tax should be replaced with a consumption tax and the Income tax have should have lower rates across the board for every income earner with no loopholes. As the OECD study showed Income and corporate taxes are the worst for GDP growth and the US relies on both of them. I am a little nervous about increased consumption taxes as they leaves a lot of room for under-the-table sales and black markets. As it is, I find that more and more service-providers (handymen, plumbers, landscapers etc.) are willing to waive sales taxes in exchange for personal checks written to them rather than their company. A flat income tax deducted at source would be ideal IMO. What's wrong with the higher percentage contribution ? It essentially boils down to our respective belief in the market as the ultimate decider. You seem to feel that an individual making 100 times more than minimum wage contributes 100 times more to society than the minimum wage earner' date= which i cannot seem to grasp. I welcome some introduction in progression on your part though. You misunderstand the intent of a flat tax. It is not about rewarding the rich. It simply acknowledges that even the poor or middle-class use roads, bridges, police and firefighters, and thus each owe a small share. That way, you broaden the tax base, simplify the tax code and cut out loopholes that the rich exploit anyway. As it exists today, 49% of the population pays no tax whatsoever. The top 10% pays 70% of the tax revenue while making 43% of income. That they can afford it is immaterial. You'll get nowhere going down the road of quantifying "contribution to society." Let alone a progressive tax - even with a flat tax, the rich end up paying more in absolute terms. A doctor who is making $500,000 ends up paying 10x the tax as his secretary who makes $50,000. Does that mean that the doctor is using 10x the govt services as the secretary? How do you quantify the risk that s/he took in starting this venture that hired the secretary? How do you quantify the tax revenue that s/he generates indirectly for the government via the jobs that s/he has created? I understand that there the wealth gap has widened. That CEOs of financial giants and big pharma (and Yahoo!) are making obscene amounts of money. That does not mean that the government has to step in, use taxes as a punitive measure and try to redistribute wealth. All it does is make for good political rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts