ParanoiA

It does sound like a better set of problems; it solves more than it creates, from my perspective anyway. To most, maybe not. I'm not sure people are all that concerned about sharing their entire private lives with the government or anything else really about the income tax process. They complain, but it sounds empty, like talking about the weather in an awkward silence. Interesting stuff. Didn't we have a thread on the sales tax debate? I might look for that later, and see where we ended it.

Careful...if McCain gets wind of this it'll be in his next commercial.

They don't have early voting in Missouri. But I ran across this blog entry, the one and only anti-early voting argument I saw: Just thought it was funny. I like the idea of early voting, to take my time filling in the little circles.

Oh, ok, I was missing the point of the percentages under each income range. I thought you were arbitrarily raising the tax rate, it didn't dawn on me that they were an expression of the 10,000 subtracted from the total. Anyway, I can understand the temptation to use a constant number for cost of living, and the pragmatism, but it ruins the principle of only taxing capital gain. Some poor folks may have more money going out than other poor folks - not just disparity between the classes. I'd like to think that Joe Blow could make the same as me, yet have a lower tax rate because he's got a kid in college, an energy inefficient home, and leftover debt from a failed business venture - all of which lowers his capital gain in comparison to me. So, I don't know. Cost of living is not a fair enough metric to assess capital gain, in my opinion, as many other things can qualify as a loss yet not be necessary for "living". And then, like you mentioned, the alternative is right back to sharing all of this private information. I think this is why I always come back to a national sales tax. Necessities like food, shelter, clothing being exempt, while everything else gets taxed. This really helps the poor since the bulk of their money goes to necessities, and makes a principled statement that we will not tax the citizenry for needs, but wants. Wants implies disposable income, a "gain" per say since you have more capital than what is required to sustain. It's still far from perfect, but it would allow a reasonable enough method of interpreting gain without all the privacy concerns, IRS empoyees, college degrees on a tax code...etc.

Me too, as I consider myself "in study" on the whole Austrian economic theory. I'm going to see if Paul has written anything up in reply to Greenspan's take on this. Regardless, it's pretty cool to see him just come clean like that. I wish our politicians had the capacity for that. Edit: Well, that was easy. http://www.ronpaul.com/ - front page, Youtube clip of Paul's response to Greenspans testimony.

Hmm, I'm apparently misunderstanding you. I was assuming a consistent flat tax rate, like say 30%. Then just subtract the 10,000 in expenses (which would be different for each person since we're taxing capital gain only) from income, and whatever is left over, no matter how much, gets taxed at that 30%. I wasn't getting this progressive impression from your post #23. I thought you were just talking about determing profit like any business would, and then taxing it at a flat rate. I like that.

Japan. I'm short so I'd prefer a country full of short women.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. Certainly we're not purely capitalist, but I suppose I figure we're moreso enough that we can wear the badge. Thanks for the appreciation. I'm honored for anyone to actually read my bullshit, so thanks for that. And it goes both ways, you don't know how many times I've started to type up high five to one of your posts, but then chicken out since it felt stupid to contribute nothing more than a hell yeah.

Nah, I think you had it right the first time.

Well now I'm not sure how progressive that is when the rate is flat. That's the part that smells. If my capital gain was say, 200 dollars after all of my expenses, and someone else's gain is 200 million dollars, then the same percentage rate seems fair. But passing judgement on that 200 million dollars and subjectively concluding that it's so much money we should tax an even higher percentage is bullshit. Capital gain is capital gain, if it's good for the uber-rich, then it's good for me. Otherwise it's class warfare. And makes us thugs. Incidentally, I like that assessment, and I'm guessing that's the overall intent of our income tax code, but I'd rather do that in a way that doesn't involve sharing personal information with the government and eyeballing all of my private financial life.

Joe didn't say the words "refundable tax credits", he just bitched about the higher tax bracket which prodded Obama's retort about spreading the wealth around. That's exactly what I said in my post too: So yeah, I never said that Joe made a case on wealth redistribution, in fact, I never mentioned his argument or his whining at all whatsoever, that's exactly the point of my post - to eliminate his credibility altogether since it is meaningless and only serves the interests of Obama's followers that are concerned about covering his "spread the wealth" intentions. Refundable tax credits are wealth redistribution since you've taken tax payer money and handed to people who make less money, because they make less money. If they were on welfare, then it would more difficult to make a wealth redistribution argument since the recipient must prove a lack of resources to maintain life, to feed themselves etc. They are applying for a safety net of resources. Refundable tax credits go to people who are already feeding themselves, clothing themselves - they are not on welfare, they just simply make less than others make. Tax credits are good, but refundable ones are not right. It's not right to take money I can barely make ends meet with and hand it out to others - to provide a class of citizens with profit gained from forcibly taking from another class of citizens.

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... Let's review my post that started our exchange:

The thing is, socialism, an investment in coercion, gets faster results because you force the population to comply, but the consequences are that coercion be maintained - it becomes required to coerce. And then you have the side effects of a compelled society, indifference to it, and etc. That society is destined to require external control indefinitely. Persuasion changes the game dramatically. Suddenly you must prove yourself, must prove value in what you're asking others to invest in; forces personal involvement. The results are slower, but more everlasting. Just like we can be conditioned for compliance, we can also be conditioned for self motivation. I'll take a self motivator over a yes-man any day.

Ok, so I guess you agree with my point that this question and answer incident is legitimate substance regardless of Joe's illegitimacy. I can only guess you agree since you keep avoiding it. No, refundable tax credits affect how we fund the poor, bascule. Remember, a refundable tax credit is a credit you get even if you have zero tax liability - which means a gain in income. If I qualify for a 2500 dollar earned income credit, and I paid a total of 1000 in taxes throughout the year and my tax liability is zero, then I'll get 3500 bucks from the feds. That's a freaking capital gain - that's giving out money for being poor enough - and these people are not on welfare. They're not even qualified welfare recipients, yet they're getting multi-thousand dollar handouts. Earned income credit is like a pyramid of opportunity - if you make too little (adjusted gross income), like way under the poverty line, then you won't get much out of it, and if you make too much, like over 30,000 or so, then you won't get much or even qualify, but if your income falls about in the middle, like maybe 20,000, then you're right in the sweet spot and can qualify for several thousand dollars, depending on children, filing status and etc. As I made more money from my career, my earned income credit got lower and lower and now I don't even qualify - lucky for you. That equates to a transfer of income from the upper classes to the lower classes. The upper classes pay in while the lower classes capitalize and earn income using credits. And, incidentally, since poverty is an education and discipline problem, and not a resource problem, they blow this blast of cash on stupid shit, like a big screen TV, iPods, Cell Phones...while they field bill collector phone calls.

Sounds like you're trying to make the case that violating one's own moral code is an unethical act. Is that right?

I like the way bascule put it. For those services that we decide it is more important to have lack of profit motive and purity in our approach to humanity, government is the current answer. For those services that we decide will be better served exploiting profit motivation, then free market is the answer. Beyond that, socialism would seem to regress the advancement of individuals and threatens the species. Intellectual diversity is jeopardized by sanitation of individuality via the legislation of morality and engineered behavior molded by the democratic process of essential majority rule. We suffer from that in the US today, already, and we're not even socialist yet. I would think diversity in intellect, application, government, philosophy, ethics, morals – all of it, would be preferred. The more diverse we are then the more prepared mankind is for future threats. It’s rolling out “generalism” whereas I believe socialism promotes “specialism”, again via the exercise of sanctioned behavior by majority rule. I've always felt that socialism merely provides an attractive band-aid to the “unmentionables” of society. We can feel good buying a big screen now because we pay taxes to help the poor, so I don’t need to pay attention to that guy holding the sign that says he’ll work for food. I don’t personally have to bother with helping the less fortunate, or to even address the real reason for their misfortune, I can blissfully ignore that world since my government will handle it. This is a nasty form of selfishness that is far uglier than materialism, in my opinion. It appears to be more about relieving personal responsibility to make it "someone else's" responsibility - for a small fee the government will deal with the "panhandlers" so you don't have to. The responsibility, of course, is self generated, and is a proud feature of being human today, so it's particularly disgusting when we undermine it with delusional notions that a centralized beaurocratic system can match that of personal involvement. It's selfishness, but we don't see it that way since we're giving money. Just like politicians, we think problems are solved by throwing more money at them. But, I do believe there are appropriate things the government should handle, and I've seriously been considering the possibility that Healthcare be one of them. It would seem to fall under the preference for a more non-profit, 'humanity first' intent.

No need for confusion. I believe Joe's questions on the detail of Obama's tax plan were worthwhile because it gets into the particulars of his philosophy as well as the plan itself, like pointing out he wants to "spread the wealth around". Joe is just asking what any responsible reporter should ask, and any responsible citizen would want to ask or know. It's important because the crux of Obama's plan is tax increases on the rich and cuts for everyone else. It's bold and it's straight forward and it's good to talk about progressive taxation and the concept of wealth redistribution. Getting into detail on this subject area is good for everyone, no matter your ideology, particularly since this man is running for president and this is his proposal. Remember, wealth redistribution is not a disparaging comment unless you believe it is wrong. As for Obama's answers, I thought they were just fine. What made you think I had an issue with his answers? Like I keep repeating...I'm making a point about dishonest redirection; making believe that the credentials of the mouth that asked the questions somehow matters. Yep. I don't think it's inherently bad, it's all about preference. We're a capitalist country and I prefer to stay that way. If for no other reason than diversity's sake. But, of course, my philosophy is that it is the natural compliment to freedom. You've heard my spill enough, I'm sure. Unless you're referring to a tax credit I missed, I don't know where you're getting the idea it encourages folks to work more. I come damn close to owing income tax now that I make more money, whereas I used to make out with three to five thousand bucks during tax season via earned income credit mainly. People are encouraged to work more so they can make more money today, and to obviously upgrade their standard of living. If they considered their credits and taxes, then one would logically conclude that working more achieves smaller and smaller refunds. But the poor outnumber the rich. The middle class outnumber the rich. They need us to maintain their wealth, far more than we need them to maintain ours. Think about it...I make money from my labor. I don't make money from 5 other people's labor. If I did, then my wealth is only maintained as long as I can convince those 5 people to keep doing labor for me. But when I'm the only one that does the labor, then I only have to convince myself to keep it up. The poor, middle class, generally speaking, really only depend on themselves to maintain their standard of living. But the rich depend on multiples of people to maintain their higher standard of living for themselves, figuratively one person. We ultimately have the superior power. That said, I've been kicking around the idea of taxing capital gain only. It's tempting because it doesn't involve subjectively judging the income vs. need of a citizen - a gigantic can of worms with hideous consequences - but rather puts a price on doing business in america, a "capitalist fee". Perhaps that's the middle ground of fairness here. Capital gain is more of a business concept than an individual income concept, although I realize many of us get taxed on capital gains come tax season. Admittedly, I don't have much experience in it, and I'm not entirely clear, philosophically, on what is truly a capital gain as opposed to even trade. My gut tells me that our labor does not earn a capital gain, but I'm not sure why it feels that way. When I think it out, it would appear to be a trade like anything else and you're free to market yourself however you can to get the maximum capital out of it. However, no one gets rich just selling their labor, they must sell other's labor in one form or another. Still chewing on this concept...

Yes, I'd wager it has been rolled out since the dawn of man. In fact, I'm sure early humans shared resources in various ways, much of which would resemble redistribution of what could be considered as wealth, or overabundance of a given resource. Redistribution of wealth is the concrete slab of socialism. It is a principle of their ideology and that same principle is codified in the democrat agenda, and has been for years. It is not part of the republican platform, even though they are guilty of it. Same as the small government feature - their actions don't match their words. That is a false dilemma. Or, more accurately, it presupposes the status quo indefinitely. Like Homie the Clown so proudly declared..."homie don't play that". If you want to fall for the propoganda regurgitated by the two party siege and abdicate your responsibility to the republic by capitulating to the thieves in washington, be my guest, but I still believe in other options and will exercise my right to think for myself, to reject the notion of Shitty Option A or Shitty Option B, and vote with my conscience even if I'm standing there alone. The government is not the arbiter of right and wrong, and will never serve as my barometer for my philosophical starting point. I will continue to fight for individual liberty from conservatives who wish to corporatize me and liberals who want to sanitize me.

To someone, sure. But generally, I would think not. Most assuredly immoral behavior can be quite ethical. Sex out of wedlock, or homosexuality, is the first to come to mind. I see no ethical issues with that whatsoever, yet millions of people devote themselves to a belief system that conditions this to be an immoral act.

I know I'm long winded when I write, but I answered why the democrats are taking the full hit on this in response to your previous post on this. If you didn't understand what I was saying, fine, but this puts a thoughtless spin on what I thought was a thoughtful answer.

Well' date=' I let myself get side-tracked on disparaging the substance and lost focus on my larger, very simple point: Why are we pretending that the characteristics of the "questioner" matters? I'm not referring to Obama's specific answers (although we can go there too, just not sure I care that much), I'm referring to why we are pretending that the guy who happened to ask the questions all of us would like to ask, has to pass some kind of integrity test before Obama's answers are relevant. If some guy asked Bush why he thinks Iraq is a smart choice for war, is it relevant that the guy who asked him happens to be a former military guy, dishonorably discharged, a known coward, with illegitimate children and Nazi collectables in his basement? My answer is no. His credibility is absolutely, without a doubt or hesitation, irrelevant. Only Bush's answers are relevant, and very much so. I'm just saying the same is true in this Joe the plummer mess. Disparaging Joe is intellectually dishonest; a blatant political ploy to avoid the obvious relevance of Obama's answers. It happens when folks are emotionally invested in their candidate and their logic circuits go on vacation. It is a socialist feature, no doubt. It may be a feature rolled out in plenty of other government structures, but I don't believe the democrats are selling feudalism, I think they're drawn by socialism, so that's my focus. A philosophical imperative to redistribute wealth is wrong, in my opinion, and quite dangerous to individual liberty. It seems all rosey when they woo you into despising the rich, so we can all rationalize theft and make believe we're a collective Robin Hood setting things straight, but you sober up once you become their target.

Well the laws of the land that benefit the rich equally benefit the poor. Laws that keep your employer from robbing your 401K money, and keep your employer honest and paying you what he/she agreed to and etc... However, I definitely share your view on supporting the infrastructure that made it all possible. I think Bill Gates has made a statement to the effect that successful capitalists have a duty to give back to the people of the land for their support of capitalism - it is tough to support a system that you aren't particularly successful at yourself. However, I don't believe in coersion, or rather I don't believe in the investment of coersion. It's difficult to conclude where you're standing in terms of investment in government, but to me, it's contrary to what I believe is mankind's long term evolutionary goal of self governance. Investment in external forces is diametric opposite from the goal of internal, self motivated force. Further, investment in this tactic of government is catastrophic to diversity of ideas, cultures, morals and etc. Investment in centralized external force can only lead to sanitization of the populus. I'm not sure how wise that is for humans. I'm pretty sure it's accepted that the most successful survival scheme for a given species is diversity and adaptability - both of which are optimized with maximum individual liberty. All that to say that I prefer to tax proportionately, but support a moral imperative for the wealthy to engage in philanthropy, in the form of extra taxes, or hopefully more in the form of private involvement. That way results are required in order to maintain the money flow; to create a working system of help. This is a point often missed when discussing the effectiveness of government assistance. We must fix the problem of people unable to provide for themselves - to hunt and gather. Not so much to maintain the system of giving them food and shelter. As some around here know, my biggest complaint about these kinds of issues is the constant misdirection of where our problems are.

Not one word goes to answering my question as to why a single damn word from Joe should matter to me or anyone else...at all. Two paragraphs of hand waving. Again, what does Joe have to do with the questions and Obama's answers? Don't lecture me on Joe. He's not running for office. Don't redirect the discussion because you're scared of your candidate's position on socialism. I don't care if Stalin rose from the dead and asked Obama these questions, they are legitimate questions and answers from the guy you just spent your vote on, for the highest office in the land.

I wonder why they keep doing it this way. I've never actually talked with someone that had a good process of estimation for judges. I usually always vote out the incumbent unless I know something about the guy. That's really the safest decision for those of us who are empowered with ignorance and impelled to wield it. Seems to me it would be better for them to be appointed. May be interesting to check into my state's government structure and its history, to see where we've been on this.