BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Dr.Who]

As far as housing, clothes, food, and energy, you are going to have to tell me what the unnecessary regulations are that would cost 15%.

The cost of regulation is easily 15%. I am going to bed soon so I don't have time to google it.

You really can not depend on poverty level people to save for their retirement. Many don't have the means, will power, or are simply irresponsible. Then what happens when they can't work anymore. They become our burden.

A larger paycheck (14%) because of a lack of SS withholding plus a 15% greater buying power from less regulation and he is not living in poverty anymore. Which he wasn't anyway based on an objective definition of poverty rather than a relative definition. he presently has enough money to buy his needs so he is not living in poverty.

You have to understand that when I see the title of a document, Exposing liberal lies I am very wary that the contents are objective. They quote figures, but don't say how they got them or what regulations cost the most, etc. There is no backup information that I saw. There is no explanation to their statement,

"The annual cost of regulation—$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate..."​

"Frequently cited estimate...". Is that the best they can do?

I agree. I have to do better.

You sure have a rosier outlook than I do. Over 80% of the workforce is in service jobs, only 10% are in manufacturing where the middle class used to be. One out of every 150 Americans are in jail. Robbery, B&E, drug dealing, prostitution, check fraud, car jacking, this is what we have in store for us with some of the downtrodden.

A service job is no worse than a manufacturing job.
Would less be in jail if they had had better jobs?

The government sure has a long way to go to reward them for their work. Industry and the rich really don't really give a crap about the problems of the lower class people of the US. Tell me about the social safety nets. I have not heard anything specific.

It does have a long way to go - first it has to stop rewarding sloth and punishing diligence. Then it has to reduce regulation except when the purpose is to stop harm - and call them laws.

Really, you have never heard of any social safety nets? Really? Come on you can do better than that. Why don't you tell me three first then I'll name three more.

 

[Lagboltz]

The cost of regulation is easily 15%. I am going to bed soon so I don't have time to google it.

When you do look it up understand that the most affordable clothes are made outside the US where manufacturing regulation does not apply. Food regulation is sometimes stupid like the oft quoted milk-is-an-oil, but regulation is important when health becomes an issue. Housing regulation is largely in building codes which are local laws. Energy regulation is often for insuring environmental quality. You can't eliminate all energy regulation.

What do you think is superfluous regulation? Some regulation helps keep costs low for consumers. In Florida energy prices would skyrocket if some regulations were eliminated. Home insurance would also skyrocket. Don't forget to include that.

A larger paycheck (14%) because of a lack of SS withholding plus a 15% greater buying power from less regulation and he is not living in poverty anymore. Which he wasn't anyway based on an objective definition of poverty rather than a relative definition. he presently has enough money to buy his needs so he is not living in poverty.

The buying power of %15 from less regulation is still very debatable.

Do you really think that employers will give a 7% raise if they don't have to pay their share of FICA anymore? The 7% deduction benefit will still be swallowed up in saving for retirement. The only difference is that to maintain the same retirement savings the employee would have to save 14% of his paycheck rather than the employer and government doing it. In that case the larger paycheck will not have any buying power benefit to the employee.

A service job is no worse than a manufacturing job.
Would less be in jail if they had had better jobs?

You are right. manufacturing jobs a few decades ago provided 30% of the employment and enabled the middle class. It seems that unions are in jeopardy so that advantage is disappearing.

Sure. Less would be in jail if there were better jobs available. But too many will be bored working at a minimum wage all day asking people if they want to supersize it. They would make more money stealing cars, robbery, etc. and they will still prefer crime over education and dead-end jobs. Sure. Shame on them, but that's life.

It does have a long way to go - first it has to stop rewarding sloth and punishing diligence. Then it has to reduce regulation except when the purpose is to stop harm - and call them laws.

Really, you have never heard of any social safety nets? Really? Come on you can do better than that. Why don't you tell me three first then I'll name three more.

Sure there are a lot of local social services in my state, but they are inadequate. State funding is drying up. Last year funding was $7 million in Florida. That was eliminated entirely. Social services can't handle the 74,000 homeless. Shelters have long waiting lists. Non government services are inadequate to handle the numbers.

 

[Dr.Who]

When you do look it up understand that the most affordable clothes are made outside the US where manufacturing regulation does not apply. Food regulation is sometimes stupid like the oft quoted milk-is-an-oil, but regulation is important when health becomes an issue. Housing regulation is largely in building codes which are local laws. Energy regulation is often for insuring environmental quality. You can't eliminate all energy regulation.

The cost of regulation is 1.75 trillion right now and thats only federal regulation. That is more than americans pay in all federal income tax. So yes without regulation we could increase the income tax and people would be as well of or better.

No all regulation cannot be eliminated but when the purpose is not to stop a direct harm it can be. And if the purpose is to stop a harm then let congress pass the law out in the open and with citizen oversight.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/22/red-tape-rises-again-cost-of-regulation-reaches-1-75-trillion/

The 2010 federal register a list of regulations is 81,405 pages long. The gov spent 55 billion funding the agencies that oversee that regulation. But the 1.75 trillion of regulations is 12% of the total GDP of the country. As a comparison the pre=tax profit for every single business in the country was 1.46 trillion.

Since the cost of regulation is more than the total profits then the cost consumers pay must include at least half going to pay for regulation.

Half the cost of everything you buy is a cost of regulation.

Every regulation that is removed is an economic stimulus, a real one. WE need some but do we really need over 81 thousand pages?

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jhammerton/the-hidden-cost-of-regulation

Many prominent economists hold to the view that government regulation is a form of taxation. Except that, rather than take money out of the economy to perform some function, regulations require the expenditure of private money to achieve some arguably public good.

In that sense, then, unlike taxes, the cost of regulation to the individual and to the economy as a whole is largely hidden from view.

In Regulatory Expenditures, Economic Growth and Jobs: An Empirical Study, the center finds that reducing the size of the federal regulatory budget by even modest amounts will have significant positive effects on both GDP and private sector growth.

“In particular,” the group says, “even a small 5 percent reduction in the regulatory budget (about $2.8 billion) would result in about $75 billion in expanded private-sector GDP each year, with an increase in employment by 1.2 million jobs annually.”

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...tting-federal-regulations-lowers-unemployment

I think it would do your relative a world of good if the GDP expanded by some billiion ( tax revenue going to gov would go up too). I think your relative would do well with lower unemployment, a fifty percent reduction in retail prices, and a higher wage too. Then too he would have greater freedom to strike out on his own and start his own business if he wanted.

What do you think is superfluous regulation? Some regulation helps keep costs low for consumers. In Florida energy prices would skyrocket if some regulations were eliminated. Home insurance would also skyrocket. Don't forget to include that.

Superfluous regulation is that which is not intended to stop people from harming other people. Or even if it is intended to prevent harm is arguably silly. Or even if it is intended to prevent harm and is not so silly does more damage than good. I suspect that 75% of regulation could be eliminated.

Due to the self adjusting nature of markets even regulations that are intended to cut cost, like rent controls, or to boost wages like minimum wage laws actually cost all of us more than is saved. Squeeze the balloon on one end and it will expand in another, but gets weaker in the process.
The buying power of %15 from less regulation is still very debatable.

Do you really think that employers will give a 7% raise if they don't have to pay their share of FICA anymore?

They won't want to but that is the thing about markets and competition - they have to pay as much as they can or the other business will steal all their employees.

The 7% deduction benefit will still be swallowed up in saving for retirement. The only difference is that to maintain the same retirement savings the employee would have to save 14% of his paycheck rather than the employer and government doing it. In that case the larger paycheck will not have any buying power benefit to the employee.

Yes he will have to save it himself but the gov rate of return on SS is so dismally poor that he could throw darts at a stock market chart and do tons better. In fact, most Americans would do better just to pay off their homes or sock it in a low rate CD.

Sure. Less would be in jail if there were better jobs available. But too many will be bored working at a minimum wage all day asking people if they want to supersize it. They would make more money stealing cars, robbery, etc. and they will still prefer crime over education and dead-end jobs. Sure. Shame on them, but that's life.

If they are bored they should better themselves and get better jobs. That too is the nature of business. Kids and those with no skills start off flipping burgers and then as they gain skills they move up the ladder. If they are bored they could start a company of their own. If they are bored too flippin bad and boo hoo. Work is not fun and that is why they call it work rather than play - they need to grow up.

Statics are pretty clear that criminals earn far less than minimum wage workers when you factor in legal bills and time in jail.

 

[Lagboltz]

The cost of regulation is 1.75 trillion right now and thats only federal regulation. ....

I looked at the sources you provided, all conservative, and misleading. This is an example of a quote,

Rules and restrictions imposed from Washington now cost Americans some $1.75 trillion each year. That is sharply higher that the $1.1 trillion in costs reported in 2005 in the SBA’s last such study.​

That includes all regulation, beneficial or not. In order to analyze the cost of regulations it is necessary to know how much of that cost is for important vs. superfluous regulation. They do not distinguish. What is the cost/benefit analysis? They do not say. When you talk about saving 1.75 trillion, you are talking about removing every regulation in the books. Is that what you are advocating? I don't think you are.

Here is a site I found.

Benefits far exceed costs
The draft report estimates that major federal regulations provide benefits of from $135 billion to $218 billion annually, while costing taxpayers between $38 billion and $44 billion.​

Is that reference reliable? I don't know but there sure is a huge discrepancy between the cost and benefits of regulation between your source and mine.

Look at this site under the section
FEDERAL WORKPLACE REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON GROWING BUSINESSES
It gives a list of business regulations. All of them are a benefit to employees. Sure, there is a cost to these regulations, but if they are removed, the employees would not benefit as much as businesses. And the life of my relative won't improve.

Superfluous regulation is that which is not intended to stop people from harming other people. Or even if it is intended to prevent harm is arguably silly. Or even if it is intended to prevent harm and is not so silly does more damage than good. I suspect that 75% of regulation could be eliminated.

Due to the self adjusting nature of markets even regulations that are intended to cut cost, like rent controls, or to boost wages like minimum wage laws actually cost all of us more than is saved. Squeeze the balloon on one end and it will expand in another, but gets weaker in the process.
The buying power of %15 from less regulation is still very debatable.

This is your guess. I won't even venture a guess on such a complexity.

They won't want to but that is the thing about markets and competition - they have to pay as much as they can or the other business will steal all their employees.

I would agree for employees that have needed technical skills such as engineering, but there is very little competition when it comes to minimum wage. You will be hard pressed to find that stealing employees exists at the minimum wage level. That is where my concern lies.

Yes he will have to save it himself but the gov rate of return on SS is so dismally poor that he could throw darts at a stock market chart and do tons better. In fact, most Americans would do better just to pay off their homes or sock it in a low rate CD.

As I said before, people can't be trusted to save for the future. Rampant overdrawing on credit is a fact.

If they are bored they should better themselves and get better jobs. That too is the nature of business. Kids and those with no skills start off flipping burgers and then as they gain skills they move up the ladder. If they are bored they could start a company of their own. If they are bored too flippin bad and boo hoo. Work is not fun and that is why they call it work rather than play - they need to grow up.

Of course they need to grow up. My point is that they won't and there is nothing we can do to make them. That isn't the real problem though.
It's a fact that half of people are below average intelligence. A US Department of Education study in 2002 showed that 21% to 23% adults are functionally illiterate. A follow-up study showed that in 2006 there was no statistical improvement.

In 2011, the National Institute for Literacy estimated that 47 percent of adults in Detroit, Michigan are "functionally illiterate,"

People at this illiteracy level can't get much other than a minimum wage if they can get a job at all. Should they go back to school? Yes. Will they? No, for most of them.

Statics are pretty clear that criminals earn far less than minimum wage workers when you factor in legal bills and time in jail.

Try telling him that face to face. Chances are that he will steal your wallet.

 

[Dr.Who]

I looked at the sources you provided, all conservative, and misleading. This is an example of a quote,

Rules and restrictions imposed from Washington now cost Americans some $1.75 trillion each year. That is sharply higher that the $1.1 trillion in costs reported in 2005 in the SBA’s last such study.​

That includes all regulation, beneficial or not. In order to analyze the cost of regulations it is necessary to know how much of that cost is for important vs. superfluous regulation. They do not distinguish. What is the cost/benefit analysis? They do not say. When you talk about saving 1.75 trillion, you are talking about removing every regulation in the books. Is that what you are advocating? I don't think you are.

I agree that Heritage and the Chamber are conservative but as far as organizations go they are both some of the most reliable. The report was not misleading they said what the cost of regulation was the fact that there was not an analysis of the benefits does not change the fact that the cost is the cost. Both of us clearly saw that some of the regulation is needed and my guess is that 75% would not be needed and I a gave my opinion about how to go about cutting the not needed part. One of the studies said that even a 5% cut would raise GDP by 12%. So lets go for that 75% cut! But we should follow sound principles in doing so and see where the cut actually ends up.

Here is a site I found.

Benefits far exceed costs
The draft report estimates that major federal regulations provide benefits of from $135 billion to $218 billion annually, while costing taxpayers between $38 billion and $44 billion.​

Is that reference reliable? I don't know but there sure is a huge discrepancy between the cost and benefits of regulation between your source and mine.

When it comes to reliable references the US gov has got to be one of the most creative in the way they count things. This is the same entity that calls not taxing people spending. No I don't trust that as far as I could throw it.

Look at this site under the section
FEDERAL WORKPLACE REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON GROWING BUSINESSES
It gives a list of business regulations. All of them are a benefit to employees. Sure, there is a cost to these regulations, but if they are removed, the employees would not benefit as much as businesses. And the life of my relative won't improve.

The link appears broken but I can still say that all of them cost your relative something. Additionally all of them cost you and I something and we might not even get any benefit.

I would agree for employees that have needed technical skills such as engineering, but there is very little competition when it comes to minimum wage. You will be hard pressed to find that stealing employees exists at the minimum wage level. That is where my concern lies.

When employees expect an additional 14% in their paychecks it would be a completely different market.

At the moment it is a bad market for employees. In an economy with a low unemployment rate it would be a good market for stealing employees. I would add that it is always a good market to steal minimum wage employees who have even relatively decent soft job skills: skills like showing up bathed and on time.

Immigrants make up 48% of the low wage job force (i guess literacy is not really that important). How about we just stop hiring the illegal ones.

As I said before, people can't be trusted to save for the future. Rampant overdrawing on credit is a fact.

They know they don't need to. Remove the free goodies and they will change their tune really fast. Hungry people suddenly get very motivated to work. But in the end it really just isn't my job to make people save money. I am not their nanny.

Of course they need to grow up. My point is that they won't and there is nothing we can do to make them.

We don't need to make them we just need to connect work with pay. As long as we are talking about lazy people they will do the rest. If we had been talking about disabled people it would be a different ballgame. lazy people do not deserve handouts.

That isn't the real problem though.
It's a fact that half of people are below average intelligence. A US Department of Education study in 2002 showed that 21% to 23% adults are functionally illiterate. A follow-up study showed that in 2006 there was no statistical improvement.

I have extensive experience finding jobs for people with IQ's around 70. That is a non issue. The willingness to show up bathed and on time is far more important. yes it can only help if you can read but stuffing a box full of parts on an assembly line does not reqiure it.

yes reading will help. Maybe we should expect our gov schools to turn out people who can read.

[/QUOTE]
People at this illiteracy level can't get much other than a minimum wage if they can get a job at all. Should they go back to school? Yes. Will they? No, for most of them.
[/QUOTE]
People at that level are pretty well fitted for that kind of job. If they go back to get their GED great. If not then they have made the choice to remain in a mim wage job all by themselves. They better learn to have roomates and eat mac and cheese.

Try telling him that face to face. Chances are that he will steal your wallet.

Maybe I won't tell him face to face. But if he is a thief then I hope he gets caught and put in a place where he will get three squares a day all for free.

 

[Lagboltz]

I agree that Heritage and the Chamber are conservative but as far as organizations go they are both some of the most reliable. The report was not misleading they said what the cost of regulation was the fact that there was not an analysis of the benefits does not change the fact that the cost is the cost. Both of us clearly saw that some of the regulation is needed and my guess is that 75% would not be needed and I a gave my opinion about how to go about cutting the not needed part. One of the studies said that even a 5% cut would raise GDP by 12%. So lets go for that 75% cut! But we should follow sound principles in doing so and see where the cut actually ends up.

There is a difference between saying cut 75% of the regulations and cutting 75% of the cost incurred by regulations. I presume you mean the latter. I really don't think you are in a position to say what the costs actually are. You have to do more than guesswork.

When it comes to reliable references the US gov has got to be one of the most creative in the way they count things. This is the same entity that calls not taxing people spending. No I don't trust that as far as I could throw it.

I really don't trust your source at all. So, we have to disagree.

The link appears broken but I can still say that all of them cost your relative something. Additionally all of them cost you and I something and we might not even get any benefit.

No matter what I do the link gets screwed up. What I did to find it again is google the following with quotes and go to the washingtonexaminer link,
"FEDERAL WORKPLACE REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON GROWING BUSINESSES"
This is useful info and it comes from a conservative site. Sure, regulations require paperwork for the company, but these regulations directly benefit employees. Get rid of the regulations, and win one for employers, and loose one for employees. If the company chooses to pass their win directly back to the employees, then it's a wash. The employees gain no advantage either way.

When employees expect an additional 14% in their paychecks it would be a completely different market.

Nope. No win for the employees, because they would have to use that for savings for retirement. There would be zero extra discretionary income for the employee.

At the moment it is a bad market for employees. In an economy with a low unemployment rate it would be a good market for stealing employees. I would add that it is always a good market to steal minimum wage employees who have even relatively decent soft job skills: skills like showing up bathed and on time.

I'm sorry you are grasping at straws.

Immigrants make up 48% of the low wage job force (i guess literacy is not really that important). How about we just stop hiring the illegal ones.

Thank heavens for illegals. Poor kids would rather rob stores than do that. It was found that American citizens would not work at all rather than become a migrant worker.

They know they don't need to. Remove the free goodies and they will change their tune really fast. Hungry people suddenly get very motivated to work. But in the end it really just isn't my job to make people save money. I am not their nanny.

We don't need to make them we just need to connect work with pay. As long as we are talking about lazy people they will do the rest. If we had been talking about disabled people it would be a different ballgame. lazy people do not deserve handouts.

Yeah, when they get hungry they will try selling dope, or stealing cars. I'm not trying to be funny. That's simply reality.

I have extensive experience finding jobs for people with IQ's around 70. That is a non issue. The willingness to show up bathed and on time is far more important. yes it can only help if you can read but stuffing a box full of parts on an assembly line does not reqiure it.

What jobs?

People at that level are pretty well fitted for that kind of job. If they go back to get their GED great. If not then they have made the choice to remain in a mim wage job all by themselves. They better learn to have roomates and eat mac and cheese.

Maybe I won't tell him face to face. But if he is a thief then I hope he gets caught and put in a place where he will get three squares a day all for free.

Getting caught for that reason purposefully been done before. And the state foots the bill.

 

[Dr.Who]

There is a difference between saying cut 75% of the regulations and cutting 75% of the cost incurred by regulations. I presume you mean the latter. I really don't think you are in a position to say what the costs actually are. You have to do more than guesswork.

I would prefer hey be cut based on how stupid or outside of the scope of government they were. If the end result was that cost or total number of regulations were cut it would not matter to me.

No matter what I do the link gets screwed up. What I did to find it again is google the following with quotes and go to the washingtonexaminer link,
"FEDERAL WORKPLACE REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON GROWING BUSINESSES"
This is useful info and it comes from a conservative site. Sure, regulations require paperwork for the company, but these regulations directly benefit employees. Get rid of the regulations, and win one for employers, and loose one for employees. If the company chooses to pass their win directly back to the employees, then it's a wash. The employees gain no advantage either way.

Name the best regulation that you can find that benefits anyone (so long as he intent is not to protect people from being harmed) and then we can analyze that one. Since it will be the best if it is no good, silly, out of the scope of gov, or costs more than is gained we can assume that all the rest will be worse.

Nope. No win for the employees, because they would have to use that for savings for retirement. There would be zero extra discretionary income for the employee.

Of course there is a win for employees. First since just about anyuone can invest at a better rate of return compared to what we get from ss they will get a higher rate of return. Then they can keep some of the money to spend. Secondly, they gain the freedom to do what they want with their own money.

Thank heavens for illegals. Poor kids would rather rob stores than do that. It was found that American citizens would not work at all rather than become a migrant worker.

Appealing to the idea that Americas poor are lazy does not do much to endear anyone to your cause. If they are going to refuse work that is available then maybe they need to do with less.

Yeah, when they get hungry they will try selling dope, or stealing cars. I'm not trying to be funny. That's simply reality.

That may be true but it would be a poor choice considering that even cleaning toilets is statistically a better job than crime. If Americas poor are really too lazy to work and would make the choice to commit crimes then maybe the best choice for a strong America really is to build more jails.

What jobs?

Picker packer, bagger, envelope stuffer, data entry, stable assistant, liquor store stocker, chocolate factory assembly line, these are all jobs my clients actually had. All my clients were of low IQ or mentally ill and also deaf and with limited reading abilities. Some of them made quite a bit more than minimum wage. People who want to work can.

 

[GenSeneca]

This definition of fair is more in line with what I was thinking.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness
7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.​

If the woman in the example wants to receive her "fair share" of the proceeds, and the distribution of those proceeds are based on merit, i.e. her contribution to the creation of those proceeds, then people who contribute the most should get the most, that would be in keeping with your newest definition of fair...

You seem to be advocating for the exact opposite. You are saying the people who contribute the least should receive the most, and those who contribute the most should receive the least. Even according to your latest definition that would not be "fair".

I know you will interpret it to your bias, but here is my bias: A flat tax of 15% with no deductions on a family that is living on $10,000 a year amounts to $1,500 and would put them much more deeply into poverty. The same tax on earnings of $100,000 is $15,000 and is very tolerable. That 15% tax on poverty level families is too significant and is not merited relative to the family with 10 times the earnings.

Your fictional family earning $10k/yr would be receiving at least $7,500 in government assistance. After paying their fair share of taxes, $1,500, they would still be coming out ahead by at least $5k. Paying $1,500 in taxes to get $7,500 in government benefits is a pretty good deal, especially for a "family" that must be a bunch of unskilled and irresponsible couch-potatoes who, combined, work less than 30 hours per week in min wage jobs. It's likely that the "bread winner" in such a family spends more than $1500/yr on a combination of cigarettes, booze, drugs, porn etc.

That is what I have been saying.

No, you've been saying that raising PIT rates will increase revenue, while citing the NYT's fictitious revenue projections as your "proof". You have said that lowering PIT rates has not proven to increase revenue but I have no idea why you would bring it up since I never suggested it did.

We must model the future. That is where our destiny lies. How can you be so short sighted to live in the past. It's over.

History proves that your assertion about higher PIT rates increasing revenue is false.

Of course it's speculative, it's a mathematical model of the future, not the past.

i.e. Wishful Thinking

If you want to live in the past, lets go to Reagan's or Clinton's tax structure, or earlier. The country was doing OK then.

Are you claiming the country was doing better BECAUSE of the higher PIT rates?

Imposing my will? You mean the government's will? Are you saying the 16'th amendment is immoral?

Is it your will to force the "wealthy" to pay more in taxes? Yes
Are you looking to use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to impose your will on the "wealthy"? Yes
Is imposing your will on others through force immoral? Yes

The Giving Pledge is a group founded by billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Many have joined it. Look it up. They would rather donate most of their money to special causes they care about. Why should they give it to the government? Why give it to fund wars, subsidies, etc. when the government is doing that?

That only makes Buffet's calls for raising his taxes that much more perplexing... According to what you just said, the extra tax dollars Buffet thinks he should be forced to pay would only "fund wars, subsidies, etc."

It doesn't personally bother me that you are paying more taxes than I am.

An individual's income has no bearing on the validity of their statements, so these continued appeals to wealth and poverty are pointless logical fallacies.

If that's your fancy way of saying PIT, the 16'th amendment comes closest.

The 16th only outlines how taxes are to be collected, it says nothing about how it should be spent.

I would directly give it to the man. That's what Buffet is doing with his billions through the program I mentioned above.

Which is why it makes even less sense that he would ask to pay higher taxes, if he wants to help people he doesn't need to be forced by law to do so.

That's what I heard. Maybe when you do the tax calculation by stepping up through all the marginal brackets, that number pops up as being the pivot point for lower income tax decreases to upper income increases. I'm not going to do the arithmetic.

There is no arithmetic needed... The top bracket begins at $374k, the next one down starts at $174k and goes up to $374k, the figure of $250k is inside that second bracket.

So unless there has been some plan to add a 7th bracket, one that begins at $250k and goes to $374k, claiming that raising the top two PIT rates will only affect people making over $250k is an outright lie.

Aren't you going to print the definition of Wishful Thinking again?

If you need it I'd be glad to post it once again.

It's the future that I'm concerned about and that has to be projected.

Why? If we limit government spending this year to actual revenue of last year, there is a 97% probability that our government will run a surplus as a result, regardless of tax rates. Of course, that's based entirely on historical fact, which you seem to think has no place in guiding us to our future.

Basing our spending on projected revenue, as we've done for decades and as you wish to continue doing, has almost always resulted in the government overspending, i.e. running deficits which add to our debt, because the actual revenue is almost always lower than projected revenue. Again, that's historic fact... Forgive me for living in the past but I feel it's relevant to our future.

Well, personally I don't think you have much honor and integrity, nor rationality. Your logic is misguided. You are just trying to rationalize a way to keep all your money.

Feel free to use personal attacks all you like, you cannot illicit an emotional response from me and it only highlights the weakness of your arguments.

Yes, yes, I know, I know, you want to say the same thing about me.

I have too much honor and integrity to attack your character simply because we disagree on policy. Additionally, ad hominems are a logical fallacy, therefore it would not be logically sound to resort to such emotional outbursts when offering rational opinions.

 

[Lagboltz]

I would prefer hey be cut based on how stupid or outside of the scope of government they were. If the end result was that cost or total number of regulations were cut it would not matter to me.

That I agree with, but it won't amount to anything near $1.75 trillion.

Name the best regulation that you can find that benefits anyone (so long as he intent is not to protect people from being harmed) and then we can analyze that one. Since it will be the best if it is no good, silly, out of the scope of gov, or costs more than is gained we can assume that all the rest will be worse.

I think all the regulations are beneficial to employees under various circumstances some are great for one group, but inconsequential for another. I don't think picking one to quibble about is a fruitful way of proceeding.

Of course there is a win for employees. First since just about anyuone can invest at a better rate of return compared to what we get from ss they will get a higher rate of return. Then they can keep some of the money to spend. Secondly, they gain the freedom to do what they want with their own money.

I'm talking about poorer paycheck to paycheck people, and there are a lot of them. They can't be counted on to save their money, so when they can no longer work, they are out on the street, and it becomes our problem.

Appealing to the idea that Americas poor are lazy does not do much to endear anyone to your cause. If they are going to refuse work that is available then maybe they need to do with less.

That's the way life is. As I said they become our problem.

That may be true but it would be a poor choice considering that even cleaning toilets is statistically a better job than crime. If Americas poor are really too lazy to work and would make the choice to commit crimes then maybe the best choice for a strong America really is to build more jails.

The average cost per inmate is $29,000 a year. That has to be funded. Ironically it is more than minimum wage.

Picker packer, bagger, envelope stuffer, data entry, stable assistant, liquor store stocker, chocolate factory assembly line, these are all jobs my clients actually had. All my clients were of low IQ or mentally ill and also deaf and with limited reading abilities. Some of them made quite a bit more than minimum wage. People who want to work can.

What I meant by "what jobs" is that in Florida there is over 10% unemployment there are no jobs for bagging, clerks, etc.

Here is my overall concern. By every statistic, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. If we want to keep the streets clear of neer-do-wells, much resources are needed. Eliminating social programs is undesirable in that regard, but it is crushing the economy. It is a dilemma. I have not seen a solution including any that I have given that will satisfy congress as a whole. The Tea Party is myopic to these problems. The bickering congress will not come up with anything. It is truly a dilemma.

 

[Lagboltz]

Your fictional family earning $10k/yr would be receiving at least $7,500 in government assistance. After paying their fair share of taxes, $1,500, they would still be coming out ahead by at least $5k. Paying $1,500 in taxes to get $7,500 in government benefits is a pretty good deal, especially for a "family" that must be a bunch of unskilled and irresponsible couch-potatoes who, combined, work less than 30 hours per week in min wage jobs.

??? I thought you were one of those who wanted to eliminate all social programs. Now I don't know what your assumptions are for the $7,500 assistance. Food stamps? Welfare? Since it is a fictional family, why are you so disgusted with them? For the sake of argument, my fictional family has 3 kids that are too young to work, a mother that has to take care of them, and can only find part time work at a motel cleaning rooms, and a father who is nowhere to be found. Yes, shame on her for coupling with a delinquent father and having too many kids, but that is a very typical scenario.

It's likely that the "bread winner" in such a family spends more than $1500/yr on a combination of cigarettes, booze, drugs, porn etc.

My gosh. What kind of a straw man argument is that? For the record lets just say the bread winner of my fictional family can't afford cigarettes, booze, drugs, or porn. You have an unbelievable warped view of poor people. Some just can't find work for no fault of their own. Sure, some of them are boozers and druggies, but some are incapacitated, mentally and physically. Some are too old and feeble. Your kind of thinking is why you and I have such a rift in our view of the problems facing America.

No, you've been saying that raising PIT rates will increase revenue, while citing the NYT's fictitious revenue projections as your "proof". You have said that lowering PIT rates has not proven to increase revenue but I have no idea why you would bring it up since I never suggested it did.

You got it wrong. I'm saying that the NYT site shows that it will increase revenue. I'm accepting their projections as accurate, but I have no proof that their projections are accurate.

History proves that your assertion about higher PIT rates increasing revenue is false.

Where should I look to see that historical proof? Please cite an objective source, and not a conservative think tank. A government site would be good.

Are you claiming the country was doing better BECAUSE of the higher PIT rates?

No, I'm saying the country wasn't doing worse, so let's go for that historical PIT since the NYT projects it to cut our debt.

Is it your will to force the "wealthy" to pay more in taxes? Yes
Are you looking to use government's monopoly on the legal use of force to impose your will on the "wealthy"? Yes
Is imposing your will on others through force immoral? Yes

Well, since the gov has a legal option for PIT, what's the problem? Everybody complains about taxes, not just you. Yes, I know you want to pay less taxes, but there is the old saw, " The only thing certain in life is death and taxes."

That only makes Buffet's calls for raising his taxes that much more perplexing... According to what you just said, the extra tax dollars Buffet thinks he should be forced to pay would only "fund wars, subsidies, etc."

Buffet didn't say that. Those were my thoughts projecting. My guess on his situation confused things. I don't know what he thinks about voluntary taxes, but his mind seems to be in the right place about his Giving Pledge charity.

An individual's income has no bearing on the validity of their statements, so these continued appeals to wealth and poverty are pointless logical fallacies.

You are right, but it sure shows why everyone has a rabid motivation to twist everything to their own interests and cherry pick only information that seems to confirm their viewpoint. But, please understand: I'm not pretending to make a valid argument here. I'm just analyzing motivations.

The 16th only outlines how taxes are to be collected, it says nothing about how it should be spent.

That's right.

Which is why it makes even less sense that he would ask to pay higher taxes, if he wants to help people he doesn't need to be forced by law to do so.

Well I guess you don't understand the mind of Buffet.

There is no arithmetic needed... The top bracket begins at $374k, the next one down starts at $174k and goes up to $374k, the figure of $250k is inside that second bracket.

So unless there has been some plan to add a 7th bracket, one that begins at $250k and goes to $374k, claiming that raising the top two PIT rates will only affect people making over $250k is an outright lie.

Well, maybe it's not an outright lie, and maybe what you state was actually Obama's plan. You will have to do research on it to see how it came about.

Why? If we limit government spending this year to actual revenue of last year, there is a 97% probability that our government will run a surplus as a result, regardless of tax rates. Of course, that's based entirely on historical fact, which you seem to think has no place in guiding us to our future.

Basing our spending on projected revenue, as we've done for decades and as you wish to continue doing, has almost always resulted in the government overspending, i.e. running deficits which add to our debt, because the actual revenue is almost always lower than projected revenue. Again, that's historic fact... Forgive me for living in the past but I feel it's relevant to our future.

OK. Maybe we should have macroeconomists look into a more solid way of projecting the economic future. That would be certainly be better than a bunch of lawyer congressmen, tea partiers, NYT, me, or you trying to decide what's best for the future..... naw, we are stuck with a bickering congress.

Feel free to use personal attacks all you like, you cannot illicit an emotional response from me and it only highlights the weakness of your arguments.

I have too much honor and integrity to attack your character simply because we disagree on policy. Additionally, ad hominems are a logical fallacy, therefore it would not be logically sound to resort to such emotional outbursts when offering rational opinions.

Don't get so huffy. You said,

"Perhaps that is how you conduct yourself and arrive at your opinions but I have more honor and integrity than that." ​

You committed ad hominem on what you thought about my conduct, and not my argument per se. You were the one that was boasting about your honor and integrity, and challenging mine. However two wrongs don't make a right, so lets both can the personal crap.

 

[GenSeneca]

For the sake of argument, my fictional family has 3 kids that are too young to work, a mother that has to take care of them, and can only find part time work at a motel cleaning rooms, and a father who is nowhere to be found.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's your view that such a person should pay absolutely nothing in taxes while receiving unspecified amounts of government money that comes from actual tax payers. That does not match your latest definition of "fair".

It's my view that such people can, and should, pay income taxes. It's not fair to let them get benefits without having to contribute.

Your kind of thinking is why you and I have such a rift in our view of the problems facing America.

I agree. I think it should be my choice as to whether or not someone deserves my charity. You don't think I should have a choice.

You got it wrong. I'm saying that the NYT site shows that it will increase revenue. I'm accepting their projections as accurate, but I have no proof that their projections are accurate.

Wishful Thinking.

Where should I look to see that historical proof? Please cite an objective source, and not a conservative think tank. A government site would be good.

This from the guy who cites the NYT's...

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

The CBO is my primary source for data relevant to the subject. If you look at actual revenue from year to year, you will see that limiting spending for our current fiscal year to actual revenue from the previous will result in a budget surplus nearly 100% of the time - regardless of tax rates.

No, I'm saying the country wasn't doing worse, so let's go for that historical PIT since the NYT projects it to cut our debt.

Non sequitur.

Everybody complains about taxes, not just you.

I have no objection to paying taxes for services I actually receive, such as police, fire, military, courts etc. Paying higher taxes to feed, clothe, and house your family is not my responsibility. Forcing me to pay your way through life is immoral.

My guess on his situation confused things.

You're the only one who's actually confused. I know why he wants to be forced to pay higher taxes and refuses to do so voluntarily - He has nothing to gain by voluntarily donating more of his money in taxes.

You are right, but it sure shows why everyone has a rabid motivation to twist everything to their own interests and cherry pick only information that seems to confirm their viewpoint.

That is what you accused me of doing.

But, please understand: I'm not pretending to make a valid argument here. I'm just analyzing motivations.

Then you're just wasting my time.

Well, maybe it's not an outright lie, and maybe what you state was actually Obama's plan. You will have to do research on it to see how it came about.

Obama made no plans for a 7th bracket, it's just political rhetoric designed to incite support for raising taxes.

OK. Maybe we should have macroeconomists look into a more solid way of projecting the economic future. That would be certainly be better than a bunch of lawyer congressmen, tea partiers, NYT, me, or you trying to decide what's best for the future..... naw, we are stuck with a bickering congress.

My solution is logical, rational, and completely based on reality. I agree, Congress would never go for it.

Don't get so huffy. You said,

"Perhaps that is how you conduct yourself and arrive at your opinions but I have more honor and integrity than that." ​

You committed ad hominem on what you thought about my conduct, and not my argument per se. You were the one that was boasting about your honor and integrity, and challenging mine. However two wrongs don't make a right, so lets both can the personal crap.

You accused me of cherry picking data to which I gave the response, "Perhaps that is how you conduct yourself and arrive at your opinions but I have more honor and integrity than that." That is not an ad hominem, you attacked my character and I defended it. I did not accuse you of cherry picking data or lacking in honor and integrity. I simply stated that I have too much honor and integrity to cherry pick data. You could have replied that you also have too much honor and integrity to cherry pick data, and that would have been the end of it, but instead you chose to once again attack my character.

If you think I'm in error, then I welcome you to take it up with the moderators.

 

[Lagboltz]

It's my view that such people can, and should, pay income taxes. It's not fair to let them get benefits without having to contribute.

You didn't answer an important question.
In post #98 you said

Your fictional family earning $10k/yr would be receiving at least $7,500 in government assistance. After paying their fair share of taxes, $1,500, they would still be coming out ahead by at least $5k. Paying $1,500 in taxes to get $7,500 in government benefits is a pretty good deal, especially for a "family" that must be a bunch of unskilled and irresponsible couch-potatoes .....​

In light of that I responded

??? I thought you were one of those who wanted to eliminate all social programs. Now I don't know what your assumptions are for the $7,500 assistance. Food stamps? Welfare? .....​

I would like to ask that question again, what is the $7,500 referring to? I.e. What is it and in what form does it come to the family.

More broadly what do you see as the ideal government that is consistent with the constitution? You said you have a rational and logical concept. Are you referring to more than flat taxes? If so, what is it?
I know you want flat taxes. 15% was a talking point. What do you actually think would work?
Any Social Securty?
Any Medicare?
Any Medicade?
Food stamps?
Welfare?
Any other social programs?

 

[GenSeneca]

You didn't answer an important question.

I didn't answer because I thought it was obvious that such a family would qualify for at least that much in government assistance but now I'm curious to see where you're going with this... Are you seriously going to suggest that your hypothetical single mother of three would qualify for less than $7,500 in annual benefits from government assistance programs?

The average monthly benefit from SNAP is $101 per person, your hypothetical family would therefore be getting roughly $4,848 per year in SNAP benefits.

Section 8 Housing would cover the family's rent above 30% of their income, so they could live in an apartment/home that rents for $600 a month and pay only $250/mo, the program would cover the other $350/mo. The annual benefit from such a program would therefore be $4,200. (Chances are that a suitable apartment/home for a family of four would be closer to $800/mo, so the potential benefit is much greater but I have used the median rent of $600 for apartments in my hometown of Cincinnati.)

Those two programs alone provide the hypothetical family with an annual benefit of at least $9,048 in government assistance, well above my $7,500 estimation, and there are many other government assistance programs that such a family would qualify to receive.

So yes, it is my position that contributing $1,500 in taxes is a small price to pay for receiving at least $9,048 in government assistance and their contribution would also help sustain the welfare state that they've become dependent upon to survive.

I thought you were one of those who wanted to eliminate all social programs.

It is immoral to force me to feed, clothe, and house YOUR family. However, I understand that we cannot eliminate the welfare state overnight but it does need to be dismantled over time. We currently fund our welfare state through coercion and the results are deficits and debt, such a system is unsustainable and will inevitably collapse.

It is possible to build a welfare state without redistributing the nations wealth, without using force to take from some for the benefit of others, a sustainable welfare state that isn't funded on deficits and debt. However, such a system would take a great deal of time and effort to build, so it's not considered "pragmatic" by people who see it as being much faster and easier to simply take what they want by force of law.

You said you have a rational and logical concept.

My concept of limiting spending for the current fiscal year to the actual revenue from the previous year is both rational and logical. We would go from running deficits every year to running a surplus 97% of the time.

I know you want flat taxes. 15% was a talking point.

15% was a hypothetical number for the sake of argument, not a "talking point", but my point remains valid; having all persons pay the same % of their income in taxes meets the dictionary definition of "fair". The "rich" would still pay far more in terms of actual dollars, the "poor" would still receive more in benefits than they contribute to the system, and revenue to the government will skyrocket as a result of having the bottom 50% of Americans (who currently pay nothing in taxes) once again paying into the system.

 

[Lagboltz]

So yes, it is my position that contributing $1,500 in taxes is a small price to pay for receiving at least $9,048 in government assistance and their contribution would also help sustain the welfare state that they've become dependent upon to survive.

That's fine.

It is immoral to force me to feed, clothe, and house YOUR family. However, I understand that we cannot eliminate the welfare state overnight but it does need to be dismantled over time. We currently fund our welfare state through coercion and the results are deficits and debt, such a system is unsustainable and will inevitably collapse.

It is possible to build a welfare state without redistributing the nations wealth, without using force to take from some for the benefit of others, a sustainable welfare state that isn't funded on deficits and debt. However, such a system would take a great deal of time and effort to build, so it's not considered "pragmatic" by people who see it as being much faster and easier to simply take what they want by force of law.

I presume you mean the $9,048 roughly will remain as an assistance of some sort for that hypothetical family. You didn't say what sort of system you visualize or advocate that will replace the welfare state.
You still didn't answer my questions, maybe I wasn't clear. Do you think the government should eventually not pay for,
Any Social Security?
Any Medicare?
Any Medicade?
Food stamps?
Welfare?
Any other current social programs?
Are you suggesting we do not keep a FICA tax or substitute?

My concept of limiting spending for the current fiscal year to the actual revenue from the previous year is both rational and logical. We would go from running deficits every year to running a surplus 97% of the time.

I agree that what we have been doing for the last few decades is unsustainable. What do you think the major spending cut should be?

15% was a hypothetical number for the sake of argument, not a "talking point", but my point remains valid; having all persons pay the same % of their income in taxes meets the dictionary definition of "fair".

You still didn't answer my question. After sufficient (that is to say huge) spending cuts are made, roughly what percent flat income tax do you think will bring adequate government revenue if not 15%. Further questions are what percent flat capital gains tax do conservatives advocate if not 15%. And you mentioned wealth tax: do you think that a flat wealth tax is fair?

 

[GenSeneca]

That's fine.

I thought you were going somewhere with that, but you weren't... that was anticlimactic.

You still didn't answer my questions...

You still didn't answer my question.

After going through the trouble of answering your last "important" question only to get, "That's fine." as a response, I get the feeling I'd just be wasting more of my time by answering all these other questions... So I'll just recap some points I've made over the course of the thread:

The Progressive Income Tax law is not fair according to the dictionary definition of the word, raising the top marginal rates will not just affect "the top 2% of the wealthiest", nor will it only affect "people making over $250k", nor will it have the causal effect of increasing revenue or GDP.