April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« BoA WTF | Main | Fake news that seems about right »

Oct 20, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Billy Jones

I typed in my income and the results showed 1%.

greensboro transplant

You mean it's not as simple as the Obama admin is trying to make it?

That if you're part of the 99% the dems are your friends and the reps are your enemies - that the reps want to dirty your air and water, see crime increase, and starve children.

Billy Jones

"You mean it's not as simple as the Obama admin is trying to make it? "

We can agree there. There's not much support for Obama among Occupy. At least, not yet.

john hayes

I define myself by my sleep number setting. I am the 43%.

Bill Yaner

I read books. That's probably down to about 1%.

Billy Jones

What's a book?

Ed Cone

One-percenters.

I think this might deserve a FPP of its own.

greensboro transplant

"I read books. That's probably down to about 1%."

it's not that bad yet. maybe the next first lady will make that her raison d'être.

The three musketeers has been remade as a movie - again. i love the book, but all the movies are dreadful. this remake may be the worst of the bunch.

Preston Earle

I'm not sure just what the percentage is, but I'm pretty sure I stand with all the other commenters on this blog as somewhere above average.

liberalwatcher

"I like to think I'm defined by more than my income."

True. I'll bet that the 1% a.k.a. the "rich" feel the same way, too. They aren't having any more success than you in that regard.

sean

yeah, but ed and the vast majority of us on this blog pay our fair share of taxes. the "1%ers" have been excluded by (their own lobbied) policy based on their income, so they're being held accountable by the the same standard.

how tough is that to understand?

Billy Jones

Sean, "how tough is that to understand?

Apparently it's rocket science.

polifrog
the "1%ers" have been excluded by (their own lobbied) policy based on their income, so they're being held accountable by the the same standard.

That is not the case.

polifrog

liberalwatcher

True. I'll bet that the 1% a.k.a. the "rich" feel the same way, too. They aren't having any more success than you in that regard.


Thieving is easier from the objectified.

john hayes

It's as tough to understand as all the other bullcrap Sean likes to make up out of thin air to spew at his evil villains (like G Bush growing the government 10 fold, and other similarly out-the-butt claims)

From the above radical right wing spinmeisters:

"On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1% of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."

Are you talking about the "1%ers" that pay 38 percent of federal income tax? (OMG it's down from 40% the year before-those thieves!) I'm sure they'd LOVE to be held accountable to the same standards as the rest of us.

Back up your froth with hard numbers if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than the Buffett's secretary faithful.

john hayes

So simple, a frog could understand.

No, it's not rocket science, just good old fashioned facts.

But if you'd rather talk "fairness"...

sean

excuse me for my obtuse ability to read your graphs, polifrog, but are you trying to tell me that there haven't been tax cuts for the über wealthy over the past ten years? or that certain politicians haven't done all they can to keep the status quo as such?

i'd love to get your take on the "equality" of 9-9-9 as well.

john hayes

Notice how he immediately changes the subject? B-bu--but, what about Herman Cain?!?

And do you notice that "fairness" when it comes to liberals and taxes completely ignores what one actually pays, but rather what they still have left?, or better yet, any downward trend, like from 40 to 38%, like that's some crime against humanity? Why do I even bother?

sean

he is right here, and i didn't change the subject. i addressed it while asking another question. while we're at it though, cheripickr, why don't you apply your AB policy on butting in on a conversation with ed by zipping your lips.

mkay?

john hayes

Is that all you've got Sean? Your original comment steering the thread into this "fairness" stuff was directed at no one in particular. No facts, nothing to back up your claims? Don't want to talk about it?

polifrog

@Sean

I find 9-9-9 egalitarian.

There is a myth that the 9% in sales tax would raise the cost of goods sold. And it would be correct but for those other nines. One of those other nines reduce the amount of embedded taxes that are accrued throughout the production process of any good.

We have our own "VAT" in the form of corporate taxes which, like the European VAT, are passed on to the customer. It seems the left is blissfully unaware of the taxes they pay each time they purchase a product that has been price after including the cost of corporate taxes. Such bliss is a bad thing.

I feel it is best that we know the amount we, as a nation, pay in taxes when purchasing any product and that hiding them in the form of corporate taxes is not only unfair to liberals who prefer to live blissfully ignorant of the taxes they pay, but inherently wrong.

sean

yeah, that's all i got, cheri. there's no such thing as the bush tax cuts that have been defended by the right like a well funded custard at the alamo. this whole thing must've been made up by me.

polifrog

I think that the graphs show a few things:

== The "rich" pay the most in taxes whether as a percentage or in number of dollars.

== The graphs make clear that all incomes benefited from the Bush tax cuts.

== Tax changes during the Regan years resulted in increased taxes for only the rich.

Not the liberal meme.

john hayes

No one's denying the Bush Tax cuts that I am aware of.

sean

poli, the concept that all income brackets benefited from the bush tax cuts is a cute way to read statistics. yes, we all received a check in the mail, but my annual $600 to $800 didn't do *jack* for me other than cover a couple of cable bills. what it also didn't do, statistically, was create jobs nor reduce the deficit.

bubba

"No facts, nothing to back up your claims? Don't want to talk about it?"

Our Seanie Drama? Make some substantive contribution? Actually back up his agenda-driven nonsense?

Why bother, when he can respond as we see here?

sean

@poli, re: the 9-9-9... if you believe for a second that by changing over to this tax system that all corporations would reduce the price point on their merchandise, services, etc. in order to "even out" the price point for the consumer, client, etc., you're living in a fantasy world.

the minute it passed (which it wouldn't), businesses would shrug and blame the government for the extra sales tax on the existing price, pushing it right back to the consumer, while pocketing the difference. competition might reduce prices over time, but mass reduction of cost isn't something that happens across one market, let alone all.

as far as the corporate tax concern, look, i'm not into bleeding anyone dry, but if a corporation is to have the unalienable rights of a person, they need to be taxed in the same league, if not the same ballpark. sure that could affect their bottom line, so they'll need to figure out other ways to make it up (which they already do by passing costs on to consumers). maybe that means that the whole "do anything to maximize shareholder value" edict becomes reexamined. maybe that's what the OWS movement uncovers. who knows...

the global market makes it both a burden (expensive work force at home) and a blessing (exponentially larger market for products and services) to operate a business nowadays. companies (and their lobby) need to quit whining and use the resources at their disposal to be innovative with the opportunities available to them. there's only so much our government can give away without collapsing.

sean

bubba and cheri, spag posted that the circle jerk isn't until later tonight at his pad. be sure to bring enough lube for the three of you.

Andrew Brod

Yes, 9-9-9 is very egalitarian.

Also, fair-minded people acknowledge that the rich pay a large portion of federal income tax. It's no defense of the rich's largesse, however, because they're earning such a large portion of total income.

Fair-minded people also go beyond reports like the one by the Tax Foundation, because while poorer folks pay less (and often no) federal income tax, they pay more in payroll and state/local taxes.

sean

how great would that graph be if presented in congress, printed out on white cardboard, reaching to the top of the 50 foot ceiling?

polifrog

Sean:

if you believe for a second that by changing over to this tax system that all corporations would , you're living in a fantasy world.

I don't believe that corporations would "reduce the price point on their merchandise, services, etc. in order to "even out" the price point for the consumer, client, etc."

I believe corporations would lower prices to keep from loosing market share to those corporations that do reduce their prices.

Why would corporations lower their prices in the first place? Because their input costs would lower as a result of a reduction in corporate taxes under 9-9-9. (admittedly, I am assuming market corporations unlike GE and Solandra that either pay no tax or are subsidized)


and

competition might reduce prices over time, but mass reduction of cost isn't something that happens across one market, let alone all.

Before the "but" -- Exactly. Free markets have that effect.

After the "but" -- It does when a change effects the entire market as the 9-9-9 tax would.

and:

As for the rest of your comment, who do you think pays corporate taxes? Hint ... you. And you don't seem to be concerned that you do not know the amount of those taxes embedded in every product you buy.

What 9-9-9 does is reveal to all of us as consumers the amount of taxes hidden in the production costs of each good we purchase.

It does this by:

1) flattening the corporate tax to 9% from approx 35%. (Goods that cost $135 would now cost $109.)

2) then adding a 9% sales tax to goods. (taking the $109 above and adding the 9% gives a total of approx. $120 when before 9-9-9 the price was $135).

Not only do consumers save money, but they know that 9% of the cost of their purchase goes to pay corporate taxes and 9% goes to pay sales tax.

polifrog
how great would that graph be if presented in congress, printed out on white cardboard, reaching to the top of the 50 foot ceiling?

It seems that the Doc links to some art that matches what you are looking for. Being that there seems to be no math or argument backing up the art, it is just that ... art.

polifrog

Sean:

bubba and cheri, spag posted that the circle jerk isn't until later tonight at his pad. be sure to bring enough lube for the three of you.

What does this mean?

sean

your primary assumption is that the 9-9-9 system would save consumers money in a free market. i might be left of you on a variety of issues, but i've run my own business for the past six years and have a slightly different take on the matter. business owners do not price products, services, et al. based on economic levity received from uncle sam; business owners price products based on what they perceive the market is willing to spend, and depending on the product or service, those price points can be extremely fluid.

if you believe that the overarching trend after such a change in the tax system would be for businesses to start dropping prices left and right, forcing their competitors to do the same, well hey, we can agree to disagree. if all markets were as simple as four gas stations on an intersection...

Billy Jones

What's to stop 9-9-9 from becoming 10-10-10 or 30-30-30 at some point in the future? While I like the idea of flat taxes I don't see how Cain's plan protects us from future increases that will overburden everyone. And that's assuming 9-9-9 actually works as planned.

polifrog

sean:

business owners do not price products, services, et al. based on economic levity received from uncle sam

They and I base such pricing on what the market will bare as well as input costs. Taxes are an input cost. A reduction in taxes equals a reduction in input costs and pricing will reflect that.

Of course, you are correct to note that not all corporations will follow suit. However, if they do not offer some form of enhanced service as justification for what will be a comparatively inflated price for their product, they will fail.

It is silly to believe reducing the cost of doing business will not result in lower prices. All of human history proves you wrong; Wal-Mart proves you wrong.

polifrog
What's to stop 9-9-9 from becoming 10-10-10 or 30-30-30 at some point in the future?

When people actually know they have skin in the game and how much, it becomes much harder to change those numbers.

The more likely route to the type of changes you reference is the one we suffer under today... deductions in one form or another based on who you are.

It is unlikely a flat tax would remain flat as there is not enough room for graft among the political class without deductions and set asides.

Not surprisingly, I like a flat taxe for the same reason the political class does not.

sean

@poli

if you consider the difference between the current corporate tax rate and the proposed reduction to be so drastic that it makes a double digit percentage reduction in the price point of all products, then there might be pressure from the public (or business to business) to pass on the savings.

that said:

a) i don't believe current corporate tax "input costs" are so high when compared to other business costs (overhead, resources, material, logistics, shipping, etc.), in whatever industry

b) i don't believe consumers currently have the ability to understand the numerous costs of business across hundreds of industries. for the most part, we're comparative shopping lemmings.

fwiw, wal-mart is a *discount* store. their entire operation is based on squeezing out the lowest price to knock out the competition. it would be silly to assume all businesses differentiate themselves along the same lines (i.e. price point) within their particular markets.

bubba

"bubba and cheri, spag posted that the circle jerk isn't until later tonight at his pad. be sure to bring enough lube for the three of you."

Thanks for the validation of my comment, Seanie, as always.

Way too easy......

bubba

"What does this mean?"

He really wants to produce gay porn videos.

sean

ah, bubba...

polifrog

I attended Chapel Hill with many homosexuals. Whatever, I didn't care. Be gay. But it seemed that a portion felt that there were no social boundaries.

Once when leaving Lenoir Hall I witnessed, along with many others who chanced by The Pit, two lines of what I presumed to be approximately 30 homosexuals. They would french the person opposite them a few seconds, step back shift to the next person and french again, the loose ones at the ends of the lines stepping over to the other side. I don't know how long they did this volleyball like rotation, but it lasted the duration I was passing through.

I have never seen heterosexuals engage in anything similar in The Pit.

Just as I don't think that The Pit was the appropriate place for these homosexuals to do whatever it was they doing, I don't think this is the appropriate place for Sean to express his special form of homosexuality.

john hayes

Sean gets sexually expressive when he's angry, believe me!.
He can be tho mean, thometimes.

bubba

"He can be tho mean, thometimes."

Yeth, he thertainly can. I thay he'th jutht fwuthtwated at being laughed at again.

Take the time when he embawethed himthelf with hith exthplanation about the thtock market volume thpike being a rethult of "overnight trading". Andykinth thought tho, too.

Ath alwayth, much hilawity enthued.


sean

wow. you guys are classic. first, confusing your immature, "wanna-prove-my-manhood," homoerotic comments with actually being homosexual, and now doubling down on the behavior?

keep digging, fellas. you're doing a great job burying yourselves.

polifrog

You're not gay?

Seem defensive about it too...

Homophobic?

Andrew Brod

Wow, this was really an ugly display.

Ed Cone

Worst. Thread. Ever.

It started out well -- the funny sleep-number comment, some thoughts about the actual content of the post...

Bob's lisping comment is so weird and awful that I'm going to leave it up.

bubba

"wow. you guys are classic. first, confusing your immature, 'wanna-prove-my-manhood,' homoerotic comments with actually being homosexual, and now doubling down on the behavior?"

That comment, from the guy who wrote this:

"bubba and cheri, spag posted that the circle jerk isn't until later tonight at his pad. be sure to bring enough lube for the three of you."

You are, and will forever be, a first class jerk. That's right in line with your pompous ass enablers, as seen above.

bubba

"It started out well -- the funny sleep-number comment, some thoughts about the actual content of the post..."

....and then the "bubba and cheri, spag posted that the circle jerk isn't until later tonight at his pad. be sure to bring enough lube for the three of you." comment.

He, and you, get exactly what you deserved.

Always.

The comments to this entry are closed.