Those Dirty, Rotten Taxes

[5th line wingnutt]

5 hours ago, Eleven said:

 

A little higher than 100k but not by much. That's middle class in Buffalo.  In parts of NYC, it's making ends meet.

I left NY partly because the economy was bad and the taxes were too.  I left in 1994, have there been tax increases since then?  I really did not know it was that bad.  Y'all need to march on Albany with torches and pitchforks.

Edited July 19, 2018 by 5th line wingnutt
typo

[5th line wingnutt]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

We have a 1700 sf cape in northern NJ. Our property taxes alone are $10k. When you look up middle class on Wikipedia, there is a picture of us.

I grew up in Jersey and my parents lived there until my Dad died.  Their property taxes were outrageous, too.

[Eleven]

11 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

I left NY partly because the economy was bad and the taxes were too.  I left in 1994, have there been tax increases since then?  I really did not know it was that bad.  Y'all need to march on Albany with torches and pitchforks.

We support ourselves with state tax dollars while our federal tax dollars subsidize Florida and Mississippi.  We should be marching on Tallahassee and Jackson (again), not Albany.

[5th line wingnutt]

8 minutes ago, Eleven said:

We support ourselves with state tax dollars while our federal tax dollars subsidize Florida and Mississippi.  We should be marching on Tallahassee and Jackson (again), not Albany.

Leftists believe in the redistribution of wealth.  Now you are going to get more of it.  Oh, well.

[Eleven]

1 minute ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Leftists believe in the redistribution of wealth.  Now you are going to get more of it.  Oh, well.

Let's not believe everything we read on InfoWars, ok?

[LTS]

20 hours ago, SwampD said:

It doesn't matter that they are two different jurisdictions. In the past, we could deduct the state taxes we paid from our taxable income and thus not be taxed twice on the same monies. It is double taxation any way you want to explain it.

I had this in the quoted queue before you posted the one below.  Thanks for the link and I'll comment on double taxation below.  However, it has nothing to do with the "party of lower taxes" which is a point I also made.  This is the doing of all parties.

13 hours ago, SwampD said:

It's double taxation. You may think it's okay. That's a different argument. But it is double taxation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation

And yes, I know Wiki links are lame.

So, to dig this point further. The demarcation point of "double taxation" is the entity that taxes the income.  That's fair.  I look even deeper and see that a certain percentage of my income is pre-defined within each entities combined taxation rate as a tax for a particular purpose (medicare, SS, etc.) So, in theory my income is being taxed more than double.

My initial reading of double tax is like reading an EBITDA.  Operating Expense and Capital Expense both draw from the same revenue, however they are not double expenses, just different expenses.

9 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Let's not believe everything we read on InfoWars, ok?

Yes, but at the same time, the Democratic party has been more in favor of government programs which are funded upon taxes which does create a redistribution of wealth.  It's not specifically taking money from one person's pocket to another, but it is taking money from one person's pocket and not allowing them a choice on where it gets used.  If taxes only funded the government that would be one thing.  However, government programs deliver financial assistance to people and that is what I would certainly consider redistribution of wealth.

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Let's not believe everything we read on InfoWars, ok?

That's definitely a defining characteristic of a leftist, one that they proudly boast.

The key is that 98% of American liberals aren't leftists.

[Eleven]

55 minutes ago, LTS said:

Yes, but at the same time, the Democratic party has been more in favor of government programs which are funded upon taxes which does create a redistribution of wealth.  It's not specifically taking money from one person's pocket to another, but it is taking money from one person's pocket and not allowing them a choice on where it gets used.  If taxes only funded the government that would be one thing.  However, government programs deliver financial assistance to people and that is what I would certainly consider redistribution of wealth.

It's not redistribution of wealth any more than taking money out of my pocket and giving it to Halliburton is redistribution of wealth.

15 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

That's definitely a defining characteristic of a leftist, one that they proudly boast.

The key is that 98% of American liberals aren't leftists.

Far leftists maybe?

[darksabre]

"Redistribution of wealth" is a clumsy way of trying to oversimplify a larger concept anyway. I think most of us are advocating for a system where labor gets its fair share of the spoils of a capitalist wage labor system. We don't have to exist in this kind of economic system, but so long as we do, the accumulation of enormous wealth by a few individuals is undesirable. If you're accruing massive wealth you're taking something from someone you owe it too. So either you owe it to the government so they can distribute it, or you owe it to the people who worked for you. 

No capitalist accrues his wealth on his own and in a vacuum. It happens because somewhere in the system someone or some thing is being taken advantage of. 

[Randall Flagg]

40 minutes ago, darksabre said:

"Redistribution of wealth" is a clumsy way of trying to oversimplify a larger concept anyway. I think most of us are advocating for a system where labor gets its fair share of the spoils of a capitalist wage labor system. We don't have to exist in this kind of economic system, but so long as we do, the accumulation of enormous wealth by a few individuals is undesirable. If you're accruing massive wealth you're taking something from someone you owe it too. So either you owe it to the government so they can distribute it, or you owe it to the people who worked for you. 

No capitalist accrues his wealth on his own and in a vacuum. It happens because somewhere in the system someone or some thing is being taken advantage of. 

I don't see it this way at all. I'm not saying that doesn't happen in America, or even that it doesn't happen often, but it does not have to logically follow whatsoever. 

Of course, that can be turned around and be the equivalent to saying "Anti-western Lysenkoist farming tactics and the state sucking at resource management are not an explicit part of communist ideology just because it happened under a "communist regime" and starved dozens of millions of people." 

But I reject the notion that capitalist economics is inherently zero-sum. The degree which separates the poorest of the poor from the richest of the rich decreased after capitalism relative to before capitalism (and really, the poorest of the poor was literally everyone that wasn't related to the monarch or what have you), and that isn't coincidental to the fact that an extraordinary net amount of wealth of all people has exponentially increased as well, with the help of the manufactured middle class. Taking a step back, it's utterly ludicrous that on balance, the average poor person in a free market society lives in a wood or brick building with separate rooms, a fridge, and a few other things, at least compared to the human condition before 200 years ago. Because the economic model the U.S. and other western nations was built on emphasized voluntary association, mutual agreement, and the inherent right to do so. 

I understand I'm arguing from an ideological base, an idealism, and you're probably talking about application. I don't have the chops to go at an argument of why homeless people exist in the U.S., why people do get taken advantage of, and so on, but I'm confident we'd find points of disagreement ?

48 minutes ago, Eleven said:

It's not redistribution of wealth any more than taking money out of my pocket and giving it to Halliburton is redistribution of wealth.

Far leftists maybe?

I guess to me "far" is attached to the word "leftist." 

I've been thoroughly lectured by the group of acquaintances who are proud Marxists, or antifa members, or anarcho-communists, and the like. They distinguish leftists from the liberals like you and I who they view with the same disdain they view anyone right of center. I find dictionary entries and historical context goes along with their definition really well. 

Leftists shut down conservative speeches on college campuses. Liberals sit and debate them. And so on

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

I had this in the quoted queue before you posted the one below.  Thanks for the link and I'll comment on double taxation below.  However, it has nothing to do with the "party of lower taxes" which is a point I also made.  This is the doing of all parties.

So, to dig this point further. The demarcation point of "double taxation" is the entity that taxes the income.  That's fair.  I look even deeper and see that a certain percentage of my income is pre-defined within each entities combined taxation rate as a tax for a particular purpose (medicare, SS, etc.) So, in theory my income is being taxed more than double.

My initial reading of double tax is like reading an EBITDA.  Operating Expense and Capital Expense both draw from the same revenue, however they are not double expenses, just different expenses.

Yes, but at the same time, the Democratic party has been more in favor of government programs which are funded upon taxes which does create a redistribution of wealth.  It's not specifically taking money from one person's pocket to another, but it is taking money from one person's pocket and not allowing them a choice on where it gets used.  If taxes only funded the government that would be one thing.  However, government programs deliver financial assistance to people and that is what I would certainly consider redistribution of wealth.

Pretty sure you are incorrect on that. What you owe for SS and medicare are based on your gross earnings (or your EBITDA) but then that amount, as well as your state tax, is deducted from your taxable income in terms of what you owe to the feds.

At least, that was last year.

And it was the republicans that changed it.

EDIT: Actually, I just agreed with what you wrote. I guess the question is are those to things taxes.

Edited July 19, 2018 by SwampD
Reading comprehension 101

[5th line wingnutt]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

It's not redistribution of wealth any more than taking money out of my pocket and giving it to Halliburton is redistribution of wealth.

Far leftists maybe?

Sure it is.  Halliburton is getting paid for providing goods or services.  The welfare client is getting money for nothing (except possibly his vote).  In the latter case money goes from the taxpayer to the government to the client with nothing in return.  How is this not wealth redistribution.

[Eleven]

11 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Sure it is.  Halliburton is getting paid for providing goods or services.  The welfare client is getting money for nothing (except possibly his vote).  In the latter case money goes from the taxpayer to the government to the client with nothing in return.  How is this not wealth redistribution.

Not at anything close to fair market value, it wasn't.  It was pretty much a giveaway.  I'm sure I could find more current examples if I had the time.

(BTW I greatly prefer "workfare" to welfare anyway.)

[5th line wingnutt]

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

"Redistribution of wealth" is a clumsy way of trying to oversimplify a larger concept anyway. I think most of us are advocating for a system where labor gets its fair share of the spoils of a capitalist wage labor system. We don't have to exist in this kind of economic system, but so long as we do, the accumulation of enormous wealth by a few individuals is undesirable. If you're accruing massive wealth you're taking something from someone you owe it too. So either you owe it to the government so they can distribute it, or you owe it to the people who worked for you. 

No capitalist accrues his wealth on his own and in a vacuum. It happens because somewhere in the system someone or some thing is being taken advantage of. 

1st bold: why?

2nd & 3rd bold: The capitalist offers a job to the laborer, under certain terms and conditions, such as wage rate, and the laborer accepts.  The laborer labors and the capitalist pays him, as agreed.  This is a completely voluntary exchange.  If the laborer was not getting a "fair share" why did he agree to the exchange?  Where, exactly, is the taking.

Your post seems to be a backwards way of expressing the Marx (not Groucho) labor theory of value.

[5th line wingnutt]

Just now, Eleven said:

Not at anything close to fair market value, it wasn't.  It was pretty much a giveaway.  I'm sure I could find more current examples if I had the time.

(BTW I greatly prefer "workfare" to welfare anyway.)

You are not refuting my point.  You are arguing that the government made a bad bargain, and I agree with that.

I also agree with that workfare is way better than welfare.  Certain folks talk about "what do we owe the poor"?  They never ask "what do the poor owe the taxpayer."  I think the answer is along the lines of "an honest effort to support themselves."  I am not mean spirited, I am willing to help those who cannot help themselves.  Many can make an effort.  If they fall short I am willing to help.  The current system encourages zero effort in many ways.

[Eleven]

12 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

You are not refuting my point.  You are arguing that the government made a bad bargain, and I agree with that.

I also agree with that workfare is way better than welfare.  Certain folks talk about "what do we owe the poor"?  They never ask "what do the poor owe the taxpayer."  I think the answer is along the lines of "an honest effort to support themselves."  I am not mean spirited, I am willing to help those who cannot help themselves.  Many can make an effort.  If they fall short I am willing to help.  The current system encourages zero effort in many ways.

Seems we're in agreement on the second point.  On the first, Halliburton was not merely a "bad bargain."  It was corporate welfare.

[5th line wingnutt]

18 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Seems we're in agreement on the second point.  On the first, Halliburton was not merely a "bad bargain."  It was corporate welfare.

If it was a bad bargain so be it.  If it was corporate welfare I am against it.

[LTS]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

It's not redistribution of wealth any more than taking money out of my pocket and giving it to Halliburton is redistribution of wealth.

Far leftists maybe?

The government paying a contract to provide value is not redistribution of wealth.  Now, it may be a corrupt contract where more money than necessary gets spent on the contract, but there is a value being returned.  Straight up government aid doesn't return value to the government.  (Not saying it does not provide value to those who get it).

2 hours ago, darksabre said:

"Redistribution of wealth" is a clumsy way of trying to oversimplify a larger concept anyway. I think most of us are advocating for a system where labor gets its fair share of the spoils of a capitalist wage labor system. We don't have to exist in this kind of economic system, but so long as we do, the accumulation of enormous wealth by a few individuals is undesirable. If you're accruing massive wealth you're taking something from someone you owe it too. So either you owe it to the government so they can distribute it, or you owe it to the people who worked for you. 

No capitalist accrues his wealth on his own and in a vacuum. It happens because somewhere in the system someone or some thing is being taken advantage of. 

Fair share is the term used, but it's an impossible term to quantify.  Who gets to decide that?

The other day a guy I know who is about 2 years younger (43) than me and makes $60K per year (as so stated by him) with no kids, no house was bitching about how the world makes it impossible to live on a single income.

My friend and I, one of whom is a teacher and makes about $60K, scoffed at that notion.  My family is a single income.  My kid plays hockey, I have a house, etc.  We are doing fine.  Yes I make more than him, but I don't make that much more than him.  My teacher friend, single family income, has two kids, one of them at University of Rochester.

The point is... the friend bitching can be found at the bar or a restaurant for every meal.  He probably spends on average $100 a day if not more on such things.  

Fair?  It's his spending that is in question, not how much he's earning.

[Eleven]

18 hours ago, LTS said:

The government paying a contract to provide value is not redistribution of wealth.  Now, it may be a corrupt contract where more money than necessary gets spent on the contract, but there is a value being returned.  Straight up government aid doesn't return value to the government.  (Not saying it does not provide value to those who get it).

 

I addressed this above.  Giving a company a no-bid $7B contract to perform $1B (if that) of work is not substantively different than just giving the company $6B for nothing.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Eleven
I forgot to put in the amount of the contract! Geez. Kind of the whole point.

[North Buffalo]

14 hours ago, darksabre said:

is kind of economic s

 

11 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

If it was a bad bargain so be it.  If it was corporate welfare I am against it.

I am a Keynesian economic theorist.  Helping out by providing assistance and incentives when needed, but only short term, so workfare is great and even short term tax break to corporations when there is a socioeconomic benefit.  However, too many of these programs, both on the welfare side and the corporate welfare side end up being long term... far past their need.  Corporate tax breaks, farm subsidies for large farms are classics examples of incentive programs that over time end up just being giveaways that no longer provide society with a benefit because the companies have reached a point of profit where they would be taking the same actions without those incentives.... hence these programs have become corporate welfare.  

These programs were not bad bargains to begin with, many of them. They provided incentives to get started... ethanol... solar and oil.  But now those programs have their own entrenched constituencies that have greased the proper wheels and are hard to get rid of politically.

Edited July 20, 2018 by North Buffalo

[Eleven]

7 hours ago, North Buffalo said:

 

I am a Keynesian economic theorist.  Helping out by providing assistance and incentives when needed, but only short term, so workfare is great and even short term tax break to corporations when there is a socioeconomic benefit.  However, too many of these programs, both on the welfare side and the corporate welfare side end up being long term... far past their need.  Corporate tax breaks, farm subsidies for large farms are classics examples of incentive programs that over time end up just being giveaways that no longer provide society with a benefit because the companies have reached a point of profit where they would be taking the same actions without those incentives.... hence these programs have become corporate welfare.  

These programs were not bad bargains to begin with, many of them. They provided incentives to get started... ethanol... solar and oil.  But now those programs have their own entrenched constituencies that have greased the proper wheels and are hard to get rid of politically.

You wouldn't happen to have taught at Buff State a few years back?

[LTS]

18 hours ago, Eleven said:

I addressed this above.  Giving a company a no-bid $7B contract to perform $1B (if that) of work is not substantively different than just giving the company $6B for nothing.

I think the substantive difference for me is what you outline is what I would call corruption.  Fundamentally, wealth (money) is being redistributed but I feel it's different when it's targeted to a single entity as opposed to an open program from which a wide pool of people can draw.

That said, I'm not a fan of either because it takes money from me.  Corruption is a massive governmental issue, and one that underscores why I want the government involved in less rather than more.

 

[North Buffalo]

25 minutes ago, Eleven said:

You wouldn't happen to have taught at Buff State a few years back?

No never taught it, went to GW in DC and worked on the Hill for 18 years.

[SwampD]

3 hours ago, LTS said:

I think the substantive difference for me is what you outline is what I would call corruption.  Fundamentally, wealth (money) is being redistributed but I feel it's different when it's targeted to a single entity as opposed to an open program from which a wide pool of people can draw.

That said, I'm not a fan of either because it takes money from me.  Corruption is a massive governmental issue, and one that underscores why I want the government involved in less rather than more.

 

I hear this all the time and don't believe it at all. Literally, yes, it's taken away from you, but employers pay the least amount they can to their employees as they can get away with. If there were no taxes or SS etc, taken out, salaries would come down commensurate to the employees station, and in the end it would be a push anyway.

[LTS]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

I hear this all the time and don't believe it at all. Literally, yes, it's taken away from you, but employers pay the least amount they can to their employees as they can get away with. If there were no taxes or SS etc, taken out, salaries would come down commensurate to the employees station, and in the end it would be a push anyway.

That's quite possible. 

Interesting statement about employers paying the least amount they can.  It doesn't mean that they don't pay more than they think they should.  After all, my employer pays me a wage that is the least amount they can and it's also the most I can demand from them.  There's an insinuation in your phrasing that they would cut that money from the overall salary and tell me to stick it.  Conversely, I know their budgets are already made based on the taxes that I used to have to pay.  As such, they are not going to go broke if they meet me somewhere in the middle.  There's a negotiation and we end up at a number.  It will, by definition, be the least amount they can get away with and I will get the most I can get.

Of course this assumes we each bargain to our fullest potential.  Then again, even if we didn't... let's assume I am a bad negotiator.  Someone else might be able to get another $5k out of the company, but I cannot.  It is still the least amount relative to my situation.  If you assume everyone is equal.  Anyway.. a bit too philosophical now.  ?