degsme
Council Member
Simple math is non-partisan. But nothnig in that list is "simple math" - since it leaves off significantly important data that are necessary for the discussionNot in the long term.
Simple Math is non-partisan.
Simple math is non-partisan. But nothnig in that list is "simple math" - since it leaves off significantly important data that are necessary for the discussionNot in the long term.
Simple Math is non-partisan.
Fine -- so long as I don't have to pay in for all of my life. If I am forced to pay into the system all my life, you can't test my means to see if I can make use of it. The reason means aren't in the Social Security/Medicare system is that the politicians who created those systems wanted to avoid class warfare -- do you want to institute it?why would the person of the great means need to get on medicare? he can pay for his treatments out of his own resources. Did not buy two pictures =pay for hip replacement yourself.
See, the point now, means testing. .
that is a valid point that politicians at the time of creation of those programs thought that means testing =class warfare.Fine -- so long as I don't have to pay in for all of my life. If I am forced to pay into the system all my life, you can't test my means to see if I can make use of it. The reason means aren't in the Social Security/Medicare system is that the politicians who created those systems wanted to avoid class warfare -- do you want to institute it?
(Sticking with the top-qualifier that we're talking specifically about federal income taxes)....53 % of the nation lives in a household that pays federal income tax.
47% does not.
While just about every worker has taxes withheld, many people have the entire amount refunded at tax time. With child tax credits and earned income tax credits, some people get more money from filing a return than they paid in.
30 % of Americans live in households that receive some sort of public assistance that is means tested.
92 million people are on public assistance in one or more of its forms.
That includes 33 million children – or 45 percent of all the people under 18.
74 million people receive Medicaid. That is nearly one in four Americans.
34 million Americans receive food stamps or one in nine people.
Almost 20 million people live on cash welfare and 11 million live in public housing.
The data is from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2009. Today these are higher..
Well if a reduction in tax rates counts as a refund then Reagan+GWB refunded more than 50% of taxes to the wealthy...FICA does indeed get refunded in part...now...or was that reduction and now extension a mirage..?
The germans have an interesting progressive taxation system..some singles pay upwards of 50% post solidarity taxes etc
Germany individual income tax rates ,2011
Tax % Tax Base (EUR)
0 Up to 8,004
14% 8,005-52,881
42% 52,882-250,730
45% 250,731 and over
Irrelevant.Simple math is non-partisan. But nothnig in that list is "simple math" - since it leaves off significantly important data that are necessary for the discussion
Germany's top marginal tax rate is about 70%.... And while they do have national debt, they largely tax for their benefits. It is precisely because they tax top earners aggressively that their economy is more efficient. You can compare them to Switzerland with a higher Wealth disparity and lower marginal tax rates (basically the same as USAs) - which had the same GDP growth rate over the last decade (I'm leaving out the crash) as the USA.I'm just asking.. and what makes it invalid?
in the case of the Germany example/..how did they get there?
It wouldn't be "anathema" if those benefits were at Germany's levels. That for example is the myth that conservatives engage in when they point to how Canada "stabilized" its economy some 2 decades ago... they talk about Cutting taxes and benefits.... well yes that did occur. But AFTER THE CUTS the tax rates were at about 70% marginal rates and the BENEFITS were much higher than anything the USA has had AT ITS MOST GENEROUS (much less what we have now).I think it was called Agenda 2012 or some such.... they diminished social payouts (namely by capping UC and tying it to work requirements...and wrung concessions out of unions capping costs..)...anathema to the US political sphere...
Cuz for roughly 31 years, we have been engaged in supply side economics... and it simply does not work. There is no historical example of supply side economics working.sure..but why then in this 31 year trend of diminution have costs gone...up.... extortion and or barstool quarterbacking notwithstanding....
NopeIrrelevant.
2+ (-3) = -1
3 + (-10,000,000,000) = -9,999,999,997
That's for simple addition and subtraction. But the economy works a bit more complexly than that.See...no matter what you do, when you TAKE more out of the equation, than you put IN, you end up with a net NEGATIVE.
You keep forgetting that the defintion of what "1" means is not fixed. $1 has no fixed value.The only question for the United States and, Western Europe, is "how far into the red can we go, before the resources are all gone, and we simply have no more Golden Gooses to eat, as oppoed to just taking a few of their eggs, from time to time....????"
I understand you perfectly, now......Nope
2+(-3)=FF
3+(-10,000,000,000) = 17,7777,7777,6653,7501,6003
See no matter what you do, you first have to agree on the context.
That's for simple addition and subtraction. But the economy works a bit more complexly than that.
You keep forgetting that the defintion of what "1" means is not fixed. $1 has no fixed value.
The false dilemma is that you posit these primarily as costs, when the data suggests that they may be the very thing that actually ACCELLERATES GROWTH.What false dilemma? at issue is how to pay for the needs of the nation...and contrary to what your thoughts may be..I dont think we're far apart at all..
Ah here I think we have our major disagreement. just witness the rhetoric of posters like NC, Jen and AoD.the values of the nations..conservative or no..are prety straighforward in my estimation..
I can tell you from my interations with an old acquaintance who made his money at Microsoft, that "good universal education" is absolutely not something he supports.good/universal healthcare / education / needs based social services... at issue is how to pay.
Again, I don't think any of those are in any way "straightforward values of the nation"... just listen to the rhetoric about "job creators" or go read Lukey's posts on how taxation is the equivlient of slavery and you quickly get disabused of the universality of this view.No question that the top earners should pay more, and the lowest earners should pay leaset...the poorest..none..
I think you and I may agree on this, but I don't think that it fits with the view many have of our nation. Actually I think the Canadian system is one that would work better in the USA, in as much as it is a bit less proscriptive. I was recently talking with a Fulbright Scholar on the difference between EU and North American legal systems (in a discussion with a French trained lawyer). In the EU a law about something tends to enumerate all possibilities, where as the USA and Canada (and UK) tend to instead legislate principles and policies and leave it to the courts to explore the nooks and crannies.In the example of germany..theire reobust social services and quality HC and ed systems are funded by an aggressinve progressive taxation system. great system..something we should parallel.
As I responded to your "how do we deal with the National Debt " thread - we don't really need to. What we need to do is deal with THE DEFICIT and GROWTH.would be great to have it go down that way here too... but it wont. It's not a false dilemma..because no one is going to get 'just' the richest to pay. it's patently unfair.