Ben Franklin once said, "In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
That truth is even more painful for the increasing number of people who fall into a separate tax structure called the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Those qualified for the AMT face a flat tax rate of as much as 28 percent.
Lately, a number of politicians have been crying out for AMT reform to save the middle-class, but the media has a faulty memory when it comes to who is responsible for the AMT monster.
“House Democratic leaders, in an effort to upstage Republicans on the issue of tax cuts, are preparing legislation that would permanently shield all but the very richest taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax,” reported The New York Times on April 9. “Democrats Seek to Lead the Way in Tax Overhaul,” was the headline.
On Nov. 14, 2006 CBS "Evening News" praised Rep. Charles Rangel for making AMT reform a "top priority."
But like many other media mentions of the AMT, neither the Times nor the "Evening News" explained that Rangel and a host of other sitting members of Congress voted to increase the tax rates for the AMT in 1993 and neglected to index it to inflation -- causing more and more "middle-class" households to get caught in its jaws. Many of them also voted against a full AMT repeal in 1999.
Instead a number of stories blamed something altogether different: the Bush tax cuts.
"The reach of the alternative tax is expanding rapidly, for two main reasons. The first is that the tax is not indexed for inflation ... But an equally important reason stems from Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003," said the Times in the April 9 article.
The Washington Post, CNN.com and "The Early Show" on CBS all joined the Times in blaming the tax cuts for tax increases.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, disputed this claim in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on March 7.
"The surge is not the result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts but the AMT increases of 1990 and 1993 and the failure to index income exemptions to inflation," said Norquist.
ATR’s chief economist, Daniel Clifton, said politicians’ push to raise other taxes to pay for AMT Reform is a trap, and that they “are using the AMT as an excuse to raise more taxes so they can spend more money down the road.”
—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.
Comments Policy
A low flat tax is the answer.
April 11, 2007 - 16:42 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveA low flat tax is the answer. No citizen of this country should pay a higher rate than any other citizen. Many of the people that are exempt from paying taxes purposely keep themselves that way. They don't seek to improve their condition so they can continue to have other people's wealth redistributed to them or to otherwise continue to receive government hand-outs. Our current tax system perpetuates lower income reliance on the government for survival. When everyone pays the same rate, then everyone has a stake and interest in how the government spends our tax dollars. Currently the tax exempt welfare recipients couldn't care less how high taxes are or what the government spends taxes on so long as they receive their government cheese. Flat tax = smaller government and better accountability to all citizens.
The libs and the MSM always conveniently forget they are always the first ones to espouse higher taxes or new tax code that punishes "the wealthy" for having more money than someone else.
"I'd rather be bald than to pretend that I'm not!" --Mean Gene Dr. Love on comb-overs.
Exactly! a low flat tax
April 11, 2007 - 17:27 ET by c5thenBut of course this would present problems:
The ability to use the tax structure for social experiments
The ability to use the tax structure for wealth re-distribution
The ability to use the tax structure as a campaign issue
All of that would be either impossible or very difficult.The sad thing is that many Ea
April 11, 2007 - 21:04 ET by UnsaneThe sad thing is that many Eastern European countries and even Russia see the wisdom in a flat tax! Of course, since a flat tax isn't enough for Congress to punish those Hyper-Evil Rich Leeches with, we are stuck with what we have now.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
But an equally important reas
April 11, 2007 - 19:15 ET byBut an equally important reason stems from Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003," said the Times in the April 9 article.
The point being, that without the tax cuts the affected people would be paying MORE taxes than the AMT!!!! So these people are afflicted by this only because Bush gave these rich people a tax break. (They must be rich as these were tax breaks for the rich, remember)
*holding hand up*Uh, I got
April 11, 2007 - 19:57 ET by MightyMouth*holding hand up*
Uh, I got a $600 check and I aint rich. GWB is the first president to EVER send me a check! For that alone, I cut the guy slack. But I am selfish, being a repuke and all.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, NBers, countrymen:But Chu
April 11, 2007 - 20:12 ET byMM, NBers, countrymen:
But Chuck Schumer told us that its for the rich and Schumer is an honorable man
If that's true someone shou
April 11, 2007 - 20:14 ET by MightyMouthIf that's true someone should call Webster and change the definition of "honorable"!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
We should call Webster (the g
April 11, 2007 - 20:22 ET byWe should call Webster (the guy from the 70s sitcom) he'd make a better congressman than Schumer!
LOL. When ever I see Schume
April 11, 2007 - 20:26 ET by MightyMouthLOL. When ever I see Schumer on the tube, I just know it's gonna be damn near as funny as Bevis and Butthead. Too funny, the guy could NEVER be an actor which tells me his bafoonery is genuine. :-p
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Hate to mimick MM...but I am
April 11, 2007 - 20:15 ET by bigtimerHate to mimick MM...but I am holding up my hand here too...we got out first money back because of GWB...
Dems are doing there best to rid of us that, they love any way they can tax anybody possible, while they sit on their arses and put our money on welfare useless cases for lazy people that they know will depend on them for their next check without working themselves...and will ensure their votes for the dems/leftists.
...we support these people with our work and sweat..and this is why the dems need a socialist state, for their power and the leftists have been losing that...they want to regain that any way possible, depending on the other leftists in the media that work with them hand in hand for their own agenda for all leftist power all the time...they do their job keeping silent about reporting it.
Cuz they lied about it being
April 11, 2007 - 20:28 ET byCuz they lied about it being a tax cut for the rich and they lie about people caught by the AMT because of the Bush tax cuts, and they obsfucate about the truth of the AMT.
Tax cuts are an illusion
April 12, 2007 - 06:50 ET by fosstenBush's tax cuts, which everyone forgets are merely temporary, only slow the decline of our freedoms.
The Republicans (Bush, Frist, et al) are playing into the hands of the liberal left by keeping the changes gradual, thus keeping Americans asleep in the slowly-heating-up pot of water.
It would be better for us if the government were to pass a sweeping 75% across the board flat tax, as Americans would wake up to the danger and would revolt.
Anyone who reads Robert S.
April 11, 2007 - 22:04 ET by Howard_BealeAnyone who reads Robert S. McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice has seen this coming for years.
"Right now, the only people that want to know about AMT are the ones
that are paying it. It's a small segment," said Robert McIntyre,
director of Citizens for Tax Justice. "If they don't do something about
it in the next few years, you'll have a lot of people with loud voices
complaining a lot."
--That was back in July 2001
There's a silver lining to
April 12, 2007 - 04:31 ET by sarcasmoThere's a silver lining to this dark cloud. I view it as positive that they "failed" to index their tax to inflation in one sense: Otherwise NOBODY but Dr. Ron Paul & sarcasmo would even notice inflation, which as I've always said is a tax on the poor. From the headline to Dr. Paul's wise conclusion, it's clear that the news media doesn't think about this issue, since there's no immediate disaster. The problem is, history shows by the time it's a disaster, it's also too-late...Love your grandkids? So does Dr. Paul. That's probably part of why he's running for President & writing little-noticed articles on a subject everyone THINKS they know-about -- money. Worth thinking about? I reported, you decide.
JMR
sarc, "would even notice
April 12, 2007 - 05:02 ET by gfrrmansarc,
"would even notice inflation, which as I've always said is a tax on the poor." Huh? Inflation is a tax?...only on the "poor"
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
"Inflation is a tax on the poor."
April 12, 2007 - 05:54 ET by sarcasmoYes, when you consider the effects (if not the perpetrators...) it could be nothing else. "Inflation is a tax on the poor" because the wealthy tend to keep a much lower percentage of their net worth in cash, and the rich have a high probability of owning things a corrupt government can't print and must therefore steal directly & openly, like land. The non-serious politically-incorrect version of this sarcasmo quote is its corrolary: "inflation is a tax on strippers." In the '70s, a dollar bill bought a hot single poor mom a lot more bread & milk than it does today, but the perv-factor is the same now as then for the ugly rich old man. That's but one example... A "dollar" used to be a unit of something besides paper long-ago, and the world is waking up to that fact, slowly but surely, mark my words. (Actually, it sometimes makes me wonder why Dr. Paul insists on wanting to become President right when the "stuff" is about to hit the fan!)
JMR
sarc
April 12, 2007 - 06:07 ET by gfrrmansarc, I think you use the term here, "tax", a little loosely. Because when it all boils down to it "the poor" don't really pay "taxes" anyway.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Ok, inflation screws the poor.
April 12, 2007 - 06:12 ET by sarcasmo"Tax" is the least graphic term I could think-of, but other -- shall we say, "barnyard" -- terms come to mind. Do you have a suggestion, and term nitpicking aside, do you at least agree with my core argument that while it may affect us all, inflation tends to screw the poor much-more than it screws the rich or (especially) the veddy-rich?
JMR
Tax
April 12, 2007 - 06:18 ET by gfrrmanSarc, I can agree to a certain extent as much as I can agree that poor choices in life are a root cause too. Isn't there any individual responsibilty to speak of too? You're sounding like a whiney-liberal class envy Democrat. What's up with that? I'm shocked!! ;-)
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Wait a second! Complaining
April 12, 2007 - 06:46 ET by sarcasmoWait a second! Complaining about the protosocialist criminality of borrow & spend instead of tax & spend big-government is whiney-liberal? Maybe classical liberal, since that's me anyway, but I think those whirring printing presses might make your tagline somewhat ironic considering your argument here, if you're even halfway-serious, which is hard to tell over the 'net. But I'm deadly-serious about the effects of inflation on the poorest of the poor, and I'll hereby again note the media's silence on the issue. Should Ron Paul and I have to shoulder the news media's entire economics education burden, since clearly public schools now refuse to honestly teach it? It's disgraceful, and poor lifestyle choices on the part of the poor nothing to do with it, and those lifestyle choices have way-less effect on society than the lack of individual responsibility displayed in the US congress, yet nobody seems to care about it but me. What's up with THAT??!!?
JMR
That's the first I've seen of
April 12, 2007 - 07:09 ET by gfrrmanThat's the first I've seen of you commenting on tax/spend vs borrow/spend. You mean one is better than the other? Puh-leeze!!! I will agree that govt schools don't want to teach economics. The less the people know , the better for the crooked politicians. Btw, you're preaching to the choir concerning Congress and their lack of responsibility. Like my tagline says...... But I still will never agree with you about poor choices. I never got a job from a "poor" person. The more you talk the more you sound like a flaming lib. Next you're gonna spout something that it's about "the children"...god forbid!!!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
No, I've said before they'r
April 12, 2007 - 07:24 ET by sarcasmoNo, I've said before they're equally bad. My point here is the problem Dr. Paul describes is what makes both kinds of congressional dishonesty possible. And worrying about inflation instead of trying desperately to ignore it is for the grandkids, as I already said. If you're truly with me on congressional irresponsibility, then punish it with your vote, like I've been doing for the past three decades. I think the choir here likes small government talk, in theory, but in practice I think they tend to worship big government. I hope to be proven wrong, for once, we'll see...
JMR
sarc
April 12, 2007 - 07:48 ET by gfrrmansarc, I've been voting accordingly for the last 31 years. The longer these clowns fight with each other the less likely they get into my wallet. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't expand govt. though...... And most prefer security(bigger govt) over freedom.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Sarc, you keep talking over
April 12, 2007 - 09:12 ET by Challenger GrimSarc, you keep talking over and over (and complaining about) paper money etc etc. But the problem with that argument is that more and more nowadays money is expressed with just raw numbers rather than any physical means. I doubt there is enough paper money and hard currency in the world to express the wealth of Bill Gates. So why are you so hung up on paper?
Oh, and I finally figured out why you come off as incoherent so often. 1) Endless run on sentences which you then interupt with 2) tangents that seem to have only the thinnest connection to whatever 20 pts the sentence was originally expressing. If you want to get your point across, break it down, and knock off the tangents or if you can't help it, use the * footnote method.
What I did today.
Sorry, if you don't get wha
April 12, 2007 - 09:18 ET by sarcasmoSorry, if you don't get what I'm saying, I can't help you. The fact that inflation has allowed the massive government expansion your party always claims to be "against" proves my point about rhetoric around election-time vs big-government fact. The people who describe me as "incoherent" tend to just disagree but are unable to actually form an argument (see above) and whenever anyone complains at all about how a conservative uses the English language the NB-whinefest begins and you know it, so you're a bit of a hypocrite here, too, not that it's unusual around here...
JMR
Wait.. what? Are you sure
April 12, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Challenger GrimWait.. what? Are you sure you're responding to me? Look, once I said you were incoherent and you asked me to explain how in more detail. Well after studying your style more, I finally put my finger on it. Basic grammer rules. You could help me understand your point better, but instead...
It's like if an American went to the congo and tried to explain advanced economic theory to a tribesman there without bothering to learn the tribesman's language. Then when the American gets a bewildered look goes "Well if you don't understand me, I can't help you."
As for my knowledge, no I haven't really ever seen the NB "whinefest" you mention so I don't know what you're referring to. Nice though how you attempt to prescribe me as a hypocrite. Though techinically for me to be a hypocrit, I'd have to use run-on sentences and wild tangents myself. I might have a problem with tangents now and then, but I work hard to limit them and keep my points focused. So this leads me again to believe that you do not have the greatest command over basic grammer and language rules.
Finally, As I can check above, I did attempt to form an argument to discuss this further with you. Yet you did not respond or address that point at all, instead focusing on some percieved slight against yourself. Let me enlighten you on a rule of debates: Both sides must first agree with the basic premises. Two people can't exactly argue what should be done about the dwindling population of unicorns if one of them doesn't believe unicorns exist in the first place. Thus, there seems to be a foundation of your points that I disagree with from the start. But because you don't explain it sufficiently (instead, you proceed as if we all started with the same viewpoint), I am uncertain as to the exact manner we disagree.
Thus, clarify your starting point, let people know where you're coming from, and maybe you'll actually get a discussion. At the very least, try to treat people like individuals, don't lump everyone in together. (and this, I will admit I sometimes have trouble doing myself when it comes to more left-leaning posters)
What I did today.
Yup, I'm responding to you,
April 12, 2007 - 09:43 ET by sarcasmoYup, I'm responding to you, and I don't believe you've not seen the conservative grammar/English whinefests in question. If you think I'm a bad writer, don't read me, but some folks do like what I say. A lot. Do you really not know that my point is the US Constitution's words on money? How simple must I make it?? Inflation is morally wrong, the founders foresaw it and tried to guard against it via the limitations in the Constitution. Politicians swear to uphold said Constitution, and then ignore it. Where is that incoherent? Why can't you actually argue instead of trying to insult??? What basic premise don't you like from the US Constitution, anyway??
JMR
That must have been painful
April 12, 2007 - 09:48 ET by MightyMouthThat must have been painful sarc! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
He yammered about tangents
April 12, 2007 - 09:57 ET by sarcasmoHe yammered about tangents and unicorns at the same time...
JMR
What is your definition of
April 12, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Challenger GrimWhat is your definition of "same time" if the two subjects you mentioned are 2 paragraphs apart? Do you know what paragraphs are? I mean, if English really isn't your primary language, that's cool, it's tricky and I make mistakes all the time. But I mean, do you really not understand:
1) Seperation of thoughts
2) Though demonstration by example
3) Metaphors, similes, etc
?
What I did today.
You began with an insult, t
April 13, 2007 - 03:51 ET by sarcasmoYou began with an insult, then you whine about counter-insults, and then this. (And go read yourself, it's one paragraph apart & unicorns remain what I said they are, irrelevant.) I still think you're not telling the truth about the double standard on grammar/English whinefests here. I'll write here exactly what & how I want to write. You'd do best to concentrate on better-forming your arguments, rather than on didactic English irrelevancies.
JMR
Once not so long ago, you a
April 13, 2007 - 09:00 ET by Challenger GrimOnce not so long ago, you asked me to specifically explain what made me claim that I had trouble understanding your point. I finally figured out what it was exactly and I've since answered your question. If you don't want "didactic English irrelevancies" then don't ask for one.
Oh, and btw, by definition, nothing about language is irrelevant, since without it, you wouldn't be able to express a point in the first place. Else why don't you type on here in 6th century Latin?
(and the unicorns were a METAPHOR - please get a clue)
What I did today.
BS, hypocrite. And maybe so
April 13, 2007 - 09:04 ET by sarcasmoBS, hypocrite. And maybe some of my stuff you consider "tangential" requires YOU to get a clue.
JMR
sarc, you should be happy y
April 13, 2007 - 09:16 ET by MightyMouthsarc, you should be happy you found someone immune to your cloaking device. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'm overjoyed...(Please ign
April 13, 2007 - 09:20 ET by sarcasmoI'm overjoyed...(Please ignore this degenerating thread and judge Bill Maher's "polite" treatment of Dr. Paul for me, honestly!)
JMR
What's BS? That you asked
April 13, 2007 - 09:33 ET by Challenger GrimWhat's BS? That you asked for clarification? Here's the link. Here's your quotes:
"What's incoherent about what I said? (And is this, "don't bother to be specific" day??)"
You asked "what's incoherent" I finally answered: Run-on sentences and tangents.
What I did today.
Nice of you to call me a li
April 12, 2007 - 10:00 ET by Challenger GrimNice of you to call me a liar based upon nothing. I don't visit every topic, and even the few I do I usually have to depart after a certain time of the day.
So, are you complaining specfically on just the inflation the government is responsible for? Or the inflation that happens naturally within economic systems?
Also, I'll have to pull up a list of all the amendments, but was inflation added to the Constitution like income taxes were? If so, we'll have to go about limiting it with a different method.
Finally, I have issued arguments to you in every post, but you're the one that immediately makes them personal. Either pull out the argument part and ignore whatever riles you up or quit complaining about something that's not true. I might have respect for you sarc, but not if you keep lying like this.
What I did today.
CG it does no good to argue w
April 12, 2007 - 10:14 ET by dscottCG it does no good to argue with Sarc regarding the paper currency versus the nostalgia of the Gold Standard he advocates. I don't know if it's just a libertarian thing or something else. The Gold Standard was abandoned in the late 1800s after or during the Civil War, it's not coming back no matter how much Sarc wants it to. Bottom line, there isn't enough Gold, precious metals and diamonds in the world to back the US currency let alone all the other countries in the world. Get over it buddy (Sarc).
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Wow, so Tricky Dick closing
April 12, 2007 - 10:27 ET by sarcasmoWow, so Tricky Dick closing the gold window in the '70s had nothing to do with it, right at the start of the great expansion of big government? "Revisionist" almost does this version of "history" no justice...
JMR
Actually i'm pretty sure go
April 12, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Challenger GrimActually i'm pretty sure government started expanding at record pace during WWI, slowed for a moment afterwards then continued a never ending spiral upward from WWII on - long before Nixon.
But anyway, we're now back to my previous point that money nowadays is more and more raw numbers (credit). If you have a problem with that, are you really ready to tank the world's economy and condemn millions to poverty in order to reinstate a hard curency standard? (because like I said, there's not enough hard products in the world just to represent the money of bill gates and george soros)
What I did today.
Take a look at the red line
April 13, 2007 - 04:56 ET by sarcasmoTake a look at the red line on the second chart down. Or take a look at the second one down on this one.
JMR
What am I supposed to be lo
April 13, 2007 - 08:31 ET by Challenger GrimWhat am I supposed to be looking for? I certainly won't argue that the government spends way more on social crap than it should on more important things. I notice that on graph 2 at link 2, the debt was very VERY low before the 1940s and then sky rocketed up, flattened at the new height for a bit, then continued upward from the 1980s on.
So umm... really what point were you trying to make?
What I did today.
Just what I said. Things st
April 13, 2007 - 08:35 ET by sarcasmoJust what I said. Things started getting really-bad for fiscal conservatives in/after the '70s. WW2 is a different circumstance.
JMR
I repeat, I don't believe y
April 12, 2007 - 10:20 ET by sarcasmoI repeat, I don't believe you have not seen the grammar whinefests if you're a regular NB reader, and they seem to show a double standard. Sorry, but I don't believe you're telling me the truth because I've seen the whinefests CONSTANTLY when some lefty makes fun of a conservative's grammar/English here. I'd trust Balboa to mediate this dispute, if you like...
Government is responsible for 100% of inflation, too, so as with English style we're starting from 2 different points, you're going to have to show why inflation is at all Constitutional, much less "natural." I think it's one of those parts of the constitution politicians ignore. And I have yet to lie, once.
JMR
sarc
April 12, 2007 - 10:31 ET by gfrrmansarc, I think his/her point was that the word inflation doesn't come up in the Constitution. Nor does the tax code.
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Um, for some reason, they s
April 13, 2007 - 05:03 ET by sarcasmoUm, for some reason, they stuck in a 16th amendment. In fact, certain people thought it was needed-enough that at the time it was questionably-ratified, so you might want to do some Constitution-rereading....
JMR
Ok, now we can talk. First
April 12, 2007 - 10:39 ET by Challenger GrimOk, now we can talk. First of all, I'm not going to show the constitutionality of inflation because I disagree with your basic premise.
From wikipedia (emphasis mine):
In the long run, inflation is generally believed to be a monetary phenomenon, while in the short and medium term, it is influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates. [1] The question of whether the short-term effects last long enough to be important is the central topic of debate between monetarist and Keynesian schools. In monetarism, prices and wages adjust quickly enough to make other factors merely marginal behavior on a general trendline. In the Keynesian view, prices and wages adjust at different rates, and these differences have enough effects on real output to be "long term" in the view of people in an economy.
A great deal of economic literature concerns the question of what causes inflation and what effect it has.
Notice that phrase: "question...what causes inflation."
If major economists are still debating the source of inflation, I question therefore your statement that gov is 100% responsible for it. You'll notice further down the page there is discussed a triangle model for inflation, of which government only plays PART of 1 side of that triangle. Thus meaning that gov would be responsible for less than 33% of inflation.
What I did today.
It figures Wikipedia would
April 13, 2007 - 03:44 ET by sarcasmoIt figures Wikipedia would claim that it's only 1/3 big-government's fault, but sorry, I do not agree. I do not buy a bit of the ever-changing Keyensian view. I think inflation is due to government spending policy, and the solution proposed by the late professor Friedman is to strictly limit the growth of the paper money supply to the growth of the US economy itself. It's amusing how many of you seem to want to talk about gold. I'm in the gold business, but I'm talking paper dollar inflation, here. Almost anything can be money in the right situation, cigarettes during just about every war since 1860 being the prime example. None of you (despite various hallucinations to the contrary every time the topic comes-up...) will ever see me propose "going back to a gold standard" or getting rid of the paper dollar, because what I propose is competition and fiscal restraint instead. They're both concepts foreign to most people these days, but obviously not Dr. Ron Paul.
Once the Fed (which is actually private) quit publishing M3 during an expensive, long war, eventual dollar hyperinflation was guaranteed -- especially since the news media didn't bother to cover it. In fact, I personally covered the media's non-coverage of the M3 scandal right here. But let's get back to the original article which started all this. In it, Dr. Paul concludes: "Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars." Once a disaster really comes, it may not be possible for me to tell people: "I told you so," but if you think of me after one, please also think of those 4 words and get infuriated at me, since this irresponsible government spending is clearly all us libertarians' fault...And to those who dislike my "inflation is a tax on the poor" saying, I ask: What if I'd said: "Inflation is taxation without legislation," instead? Still disagree with me??
JMR
Well Milton Friedman does r
April 13, 2007 - 08:42 ET by Challenger GrimWell Milton Friedman does rock. But I wondered if you notice the wikipedia article doesn't focus exclusively on the keyensian view but presents all the angles.
Now, you pointed out:
"It's amusing how many of you seem to want to talk about gold"
Well, you always bring up gold and hard currency (often times in random tangents) without throughly explaining what your point about them is. Great, so then we do agree on competition and spending restraint (amen brother).
So umm... what's the problem? Or do you just like picking a fight?
Here's an idea. Go read this. It applies specifically to film, but the blog's root point is applicable in any communication medium. Especially important parts:
"Time to grow up and ask yourself why your friend said that. ... This is a good example of where you need to sometimes interpret what people say — not dismiss it — not cave to it — but interpret it. ... But if you look beneath the comment you’ll find out what the real problem is." You're not perfect sarcasmo. If people are misunderstanding your point, maybe you should try expressing it differently (song, verse, dance etc) rather than taking it personally and screaming and yelling at everyone.
You might find yourself a few more friends and allies that way.
What I did today.
Hypocrite on parade
April 13, 2007 - 08:53 ET by sarcasmoI love it, I'm accused in message one of being "incoherent" and then in this latest message of somehow wanting to pick a fight. Pot, kettle....And people who honestly misunderstand a point, instead of wanting to pick a fight, tend not to behave like YOU. I've never claimed to be anything CLOSE to perfect, and I'm not "screaming and yelling" when I make my points here, you simply don't like 'em. Tough.
JMR
Anything else you'd like to
April 13, 2007 - 09:06 ET by Challenger GrimAnything else you'd like to say to the strawman?
Actually, I'm all for fiscal restrain, competition and hey! if you want repeal the 16th amendment, I'm backing you 100%.
But of course, once again you attribute something to me that's completely false. That's ok, here's your strawman, I'm going to go do something constructive - like destroy France.
What I did today.
Nothing I said is false, bu
April 13, 2007 - 09:09 ET by sarcasmoNothing I said is false, but then, that's exactly what you dislike about my message. Hypocrite. I think, once again, that rhetorically you're for fiscal restraint, but in the voting booth I suspect you vote for more big government. Consistently.
JMR
Are you spying on me in the
April 13, 2007 - 09:41 ET by Challenger GrimAre you spying on me in the booth? That's supposed to be private! Of course, do you have any idea what state/district I'm from and how I've voted for local issues? Who said I dislike your message? I'm all for government downsizing. (hmmm... another falsehood?) You keep saying "hypocrite" well to quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I mean, sure I voted for Bush but he wasn't my first choice in the primaries. And compared to Kerry/Gore, I think he was the more fiscally restraining.
What's your thoughts on Fred Thompson in '08? That's who I'm pulling for.
What I did today.
gfrrman, that would be &quo
April 12, 2007 - 06:22 ET by Jack Bauergfrrman, that would be "income" taxes, or direct taxation which the poor do not really pay.
Everyone pays indirect taxation on all goods and services.
Now if gas stations, for instance, had a big flashing sign that told customers how much of a price of a gallon went to whom... federal, local, oil company, refinery, gas station owner, etc, people might be surprised!
Jack
April 12, 2007 - 06:32 ET by gfrrmanJack I understand that we all pay a "consumption" tax. I do agree that if people really looked at a gallon of gas and the taxes they would see that the mean old oil companies aren't the bad guys when it comes to "record profits". Of course if people really looked at their paystubs and studied them more and then stopped the stupid, "look how much I got back" on their tax "refunds" they'd be super pissed. Politicians love stupid constituancies and they love that they are indoctrinated in govt. schools too!!
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
Politicians love stupid con
April 12, 2007 - 06:47 ET by Jack BauerAbsolutely.
I remember listeing to Arnie trawling for votes during the recall saying he wouldn't have to raise taxes to fix the Californian deficit because he'd be looking to the FEDERAL government for help...
Like uh, what? They just magic up the cash out of thin air? Now he knows very well that there is no such thing as "government" money" only our money. Yet he's happy to whore himself.
And he was supposed to be a Republican!
Spending is like heroin for
April 12, 2007 - 06:59 ET by sarcasmoSpending is like heroin for them, and the longer they stay the worse they get.
JMR
There is a true story from.
April 12, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Challenger GrimThere is a true story from... Michigan I think (well, the state started with an 'M'), where taxes were raised on gas. People started to complain about the money they were paying at the pump so the stations posted a price breakdown showing the amount they paid in taxes, for the actual gas, etc.
Of course, this led the people to complain and protest to the lawmakers so what did the lawmakers do? They immediately launched into action and passed a law that made it illegal to post the breakdown of gas prices.
What I did today.
Grim
April 12, 2007 - 09:30 ET by gfrrmanROTFLMFAO!!! I'm tearing up here, Challenger. That is rich....
Thanks for the chuckles...
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER
"The surge is not the result
April 12, 2007 - 08:30 ET by dscott"The surge is not the result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts but the AMT increases of 1990 and 1993 and the failure to index income exemptions to inflation," said Norquist.
Looks like they have found a new way to spin the idea that the tax cuts didn't do anything. Wonderful, does anyone else sense the desparation in the lib/Dem camp, new heights or rather lows in deception. At least they are being consistent, up is down, north is south, morality is hate mongering.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I found a website discussing
April 12, 2007 - 09:15 ET by dscottI found a website discussing the AMT, the whole line about the AMT causing the receipts increase and not the tax cuts is a load of bull.
This other CBO website says AMT receipts in 2010 will total about $90 billion, roughly 7 percent of total individual income tax revenue. Nevertheless, the AMT is only partially successful in imposing tax liabilities on all high-income people: in 2001, nearly 1,100 tax filers with AGI above $500,000 paid federal income taxes only because of the AMT,(9) but almost 900 people in that income range paid no federal income tax at all despite the AMT.(10) Whether a particular taxpayer will have AMT liability depends primarily on income, number of dependents, and whether he or she lives in a locality with high property and state income taxes.
So how is collecting less than $90 billion from AMT equal to the $300 billion increase in receipts???? Must be that new math of the lib/Dems.
What else did we expect from the Dems?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Reform tax laws
April 12, 2007 - 10:12 ET by econ 101Getting ready to do my taxes...makes me sick
Write call email your Congressmen about the fairtax
FOX NEWS is news. MSM is Jerry Springer crap
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG
Why the "Fair Tax" isn't
April 12, 2007 - 21:10 ET by UnsaneI have argued this before, both on NB and off, with these "fair tax" advocates. Here is some of what I have to counter it with, based on previous sparring:
Why I don't want a national sales tax:
1) Attacks "C" of "C+I+G+X-M" (the equation of GDP). C = consumer spending, and is the largest component of the economy.
2) Do we really need a federal bureaucracy keeping tabs on each and every business in the United States, ensuring they all pay their sales taxes? Some on NB have whined that the IRS now is too oppressive towards people - apparently they never saw what happens to a business that doesn't pay its sales taxes, as I have.
3) The 16th Amendment MUST be removed before a sales tax is imposed in any event...
4) This is a sure-fire way to force prices to go up across the board. Sure, it isn't a VAT (which taxes at every point of production), but it may as well be. Think of an auto-repair shop in the aftermath of the imposition of a national sales tax. Do you seriously believe that the business will not pass on the sales taxes it must pay for its office supplies, telephones, fax machines, tools, auto parts, and so on, to YOU? Of course it will!
Hence, for me, the national sales tax doesn't fly with me at all...
And, point by point, I attack the arguments made for this "fair tax" (which isn't fair at all):
"Abolishes the IRS" - What a lie. Who in the hell will enforce the sales tax and collect the revenue then? Even in my scenario, there will STILL be an IRS; just a infinitely smaller, more efficient one. Of course, there are those who say "the states will enforce it!" Really? You think the state governments are just going to bend over and let the feds get in on the action? Sure. And for those who think the IRS is oppressive: surely you have never seen what happens to a business that doesn't pay their sales taxes...
"Closes all loopholes" - So does my plan if you bother to read it - "and brings fairness to taxation" - How? You DO know that sales taxes of all kinds falls disproportionately harder on those least able to pay, correct? (meaning, a "regressive" tax) Can you explain to me how THAT is "fair"?
"Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding" - Without explaining how, of course. I'd prefer privatizing both. Do me a favor and do some research into what some lucky Galveston County residents managed to do with Social Security back in the early 1980s...
"Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy" - So does my idea, and all without attacking "C", and forcing prices to go up everywhere.
"Allows American products to compete fairly" - Well, they do now. It isn't my fault or anyone else's that products made in the United States are of such crappy quality or done with scant attention given to the end consumer that they don't sell...nor is it my fault that American products are often made with unionized labor, which sets an artificially high price for labor.
"Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities" - Who decides what a "basic necessity" is? YOU? A bunch of bureaucrats?
"Enables retirees to keep their entire pension" - So does my idea, as it will not tax incomes over and over again. The "flat tax" as envisioned by Steve Forbes leaves things like capital gains the hell alone.
"Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck" only to have it gobbled up having to pay for everything at greatly inflated prices as this sales tax is embedded in everything, as the sales tax paid to produce the products and services used is passed down to the consumer.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane
April 13, 2007 - 09:11 ET by econ 101Ireland seems to be doing OK with it
1. More money to spend
2. Fine with me
3. OK
4. Prices will go up. My paycheck will go up too and I wont have April 15th (16th) hanging over me as bad
The system stinks the way it is now. I like flat tax better then what we have now, But it still has Uncle Sams hand on MY earned income
http://fairtaxreform.blogspot.com/
FOX NEWS is news. MSM is Jerry Springer crap
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG
Unsane, what is your proposal
April 13, 2007 - 09:24 ET by dscottUnsane, what is your proposal on the income tax issue? BTW- I am against the so called Fair tax myself as it is regressive and would require a levy of around 23% on retail items (excluding food and clothing) on top of what the States now collect. I am not entirely against the idea of the AMT as it represents more of a "flat" income tax with few deductions "theoretically" leading to a simpler income tax collection scheme.
Ultimately though, any system of collecting taxes for government operations runs on the rocks of vote buying scams by politicians who will promise anything to everyone in order to get elected. Politicians bribing people to vote for them from the tax coffers is an obscene distortion of Democracy or Representative type government. Until the majority of citizens refuse to vote for politicians who pull this scam, any reformed system of tax collection perversely serves only to perpetuate the practice. From my point of view, tax reform is wasted hyperventilating and a distraction from the real issue of wasteful spending by corrupt politicians.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
please read before commenting
April 13, 2007 - 10:08 ET by econ 101No exclusions and a rebate for low income
FOX NEWS is news. MSM is Jerry Springer crap
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG
http://fairtaxreform.blogspot.com/
Even with no exclusions, a sa
April 13, 2007 - 11:36 ET by dscottEven with no exclusions, a sales tax rate of 20% is way to high to allow retail sales growth. Can you imagine paying a 20% tax on the sale of your house? How about on your car? How about a utility building a power generating plant that would be automatically 20% more expensive or any business enterprise putting up an office building paying 20% more for their materials? No thanks. And BTW- this in itself will be a regressive tax since everything built will cost 20% more and so the poor and the middle class will have more of their income consumed than compared to the rich. The bottom line here is government is simply too big so any reform you attempt will fail.
All a Fairtax will accomplish is create an underground economy where everyone sells to each other under the table like they do now to avoid the income tax (estimated $1 trillion annually). Worse yet, like in Virginia where they used to have a full on personal property tax on vehicles, the response was to keep older vehicles running longer to avoid the annual tax because the older the car got, the less tax you paid. The response will be not to continue buying new items but used items that will be easily sold between parties with no sales tax. The scales of funds we are talking about to run the federal government are simply too huge to support such a tax.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Facts about TAX
April 13, 2007 - 09:31 ET by econ 101Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all did tax major tax cuts. Results were the same: tax revenues increased.
Why is it so hard for people to get it through their heads that we as consumers drive the economy.
I would never spend $500 for hammer!!!! (remember that, back in the day)
FOX NEWS is news. MSM is Jerry Springer crap
WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG