Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 03:59pm PT
|
"Sin taxes simply say that you are at liberty to behave in ways which others do not approve of, or which could even be detrimental in some way to society, so long as you can afford it."
The very premise of a 'slippery slope' argument is to say that if you do 'A', then 'B' is certain to follow- usually 'B' is an undesirable outcome. That is using fear to put your point across.
Using that argument basically says 'I am not willing to compromise, and that my ideal is unwavering'. Fine and dandy to be principled that way, but it is not at all conducive to finding workable solutions.
Back to sin taxes. If there was any kind of reasonable pattern of individuals demonstrating real, meaningful and complete personal responsibility around their choices, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. However, the fact (and reality) is that the cumulative effects of smoking, sugar & fat filled foods, and alchohol abuse create the biggest drains on the overall health of our society, and to your point, impact healthcare & insurance costs for you, me, and everybody else.
There is ideal Ksolem, and then there is real. Solutions come from compromise.
|
|
dktem
Trad climber
Temecula
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:05pm PT
|
The tax brackets group the family living in LA on 200K in with the very rich. And should this family be frugal enough to invest a little money, the Dems want to tax what they earn on that investment as if it were new income. Tell me this is fair.
Like Fet said, these are marginal rates. Many people don't understand the marginal part.
And money one earns on investments is still earnings. A dollar is a dollar regardless of whether it came from passive ownership of something or from salary earned by digging a ditch.
My personal situation is pretty close to the one you describe above. I just did my taxes, and frankly it's not that bad. With 3 kids, a typical mortgage, and no other exotic deductions, my effective federal tax rate is about 12% (I'm looking at my TurboTax right now...) The CA State tax rate is 10%, which I honestly don't understand...
Am I very rich? I don't think so. But I am in a fortunate position. I can't give exact statistics, but I'm sure my family income is easily higher than 75% of the population living in southern California. So if the tax rate on only the money I make over $200K is a few percentage points higher, it does seem fair to me.
No one likes paying taxes. But when we actually run the numbers, we see that taxes today are not the terrible burden that many make them out to be.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Be sure to look at the rates in the 1950s. Very interesting.
BTW: My name is Dave.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:08pm PT
|
Fine and dandy to be principled that way, but it is not at all conducive to finding workable solutions.
That's only true for those who see the only workable solution as raising taxes.
And the "slippery slope" argument is about precedent, not fear. Just because I don't like something doesn't I am afraid of it or want you to be.
Gotta go now, 'till next time...
edit: Tax rates in the '50's? Nobody paid those rates. Everyone cheated and hid assets and income. Can't do that so easily today with it all on computers, so todays rates are real, not fiction.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:11pm PT
|
The tax brackets group the family living in LA on 200K in with the very rich. And should this family be frugal enough to invest a little money, the Dems want to tax what they earn on that investment as if it were new income. Tell me this is fair.
No, you're not getting it. A family making up to $250K sees no tax increase. ONLY income above $250K sees a few percentage points hike.
Earnings from investments is income and should be taxed. I think it's more fair to tax earnings from investing (passive income) than earnings from a job.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
|
Thanks, MH and apogee, for the kind words. My letter appeared in the Journal on Saturday, February 13. To clarify one thing, though, it was on the Citizens United case. Here it is in full:
Reading "The Case Against Corporate Speech" (Op-Ed February 10) by Ralph Nader and Robert Weissman makes me wonder if the authors read the Citizens United decision. The authors write about a decision allowing unlimited spending of corporate funds on candidates for public office. Citizens United in contrast,dealt with the right of a non-profit corporation to buy time to distribute its film critical of a candidate within 30 days of a federal primary election.
Their argument makes clear that the authors simply wish to silence speech with which they disagree. If anything, they make the case that what we really need are more corporations such as Citizens United, to allow individual citizens to pool their resources and have their voices heard.
John P. Eleazarian
I don't know that their decision reflected quality as much as brevity, but I was thrilled in any case!
John
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:27pm PT
|
The tax brackets group the family living in LA on 200K in with the very rich. And should this family be frugal enough to invest a little money, the Dems want to tax what they earn on that investment as if it were new income. Tell me this is fair.
Okay.. its fair. They aren't being taxed on the principle. They are being taxed on the profit.
You invest 10 dollars. Turn it into 20 dollars. You are taxed on the 10 dollars profit you made. That money is income. The original 10 dollars is not taxed. No different then the 10 dollars you earned working.
As for taxes on income over 200,000 dollars. That one is funny too. The 200,000 dollars refers to taxable income after all tax breaks. So someone with taxable income of 200,000 dollars is make a whole lot more then 200,000 dollars. Plus as has been stated, the tax increase is only on money over 200,000 dollars. So if your taxable income is 250,000 dollars, there is no increase on the first 200,000 dollars. Only on that last 50,000.
That is the way I understand it.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:28pm PT
|
And to be clear, Ksolem, I'm not an advocate of sin taxes as a means or 'regulating behavior'- I really don't give a feck what anyone does, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others.
In the case of sugar, tobacco, and alcohol, though, there is clear evidence and patterns of individual's choices to abuse them impacting my life and the lives of everyone else. I have no problem with taxes on those items, but would prefer to see the funds strictly directed at programs that serve the problem, mainly through education and treatment. Unfortunately, there's not much of a history of a taxation revenue stream like that remaining true to it's purpose.
We have been focussing on taxation as a part of the solution to increased medical expenses, but that's only part of the picture- education, treatment, therapies, a societal shift towards wellness...these are the more meaningful aspects of fixing the problem. A sin tax revenue stream is the logical way to fund them.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:36pm PT
|
Was up a tree all morning. Tarek will be glad to hear my palm is 10" in diameter and does not lean. Thank you Tarek for your excellent professional counsel!
The backup on my belay loop untied. But of course I had a backup on my backup.
I apologize for starting a fuss. It is just we talk endlessly but there are so few numbers in front of us. As JE(my initials are JE also) points out my graphs don't get into the details of deductions and credits. But my graphs were better than nothing - by a good bit. And yes it is only the capital gain on the stock options that get taxed at the 15% capital gains rate. It has only been recently that stockholders have decided to give cash to employees by back dating the options. They have become very generous of late. You kids have so many benefactors we old types never had.
I have another calculation going that isolates which tax brackets received the benefits from the various tax reductions. The IRS started publishing data on some of this only in 1995 so there will be some extrapolations needed for populations in each bin for the 80's reductions. Here and elsewhere we hear so much talk but see so few numbers. Now that I am a useless retarded person this is the least I can do. (If I could do less - I would.)
The huge amount of discussion around taxation suggests taxation is one of the few ways that peoples' behavior can be influenced. Had we only put a two or three dollar tax on gasolene back in the late 80's when this was done in Europe and rapid rail built with the funds - we would not now be sinking into a third world nation with complete absence of style. GM might even have avoided both the Hummer and bankruptcy.
Oiy veh.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:37pm PT
|
The Liberal's caught in another lie. Kids not covered now this.
Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill
One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to
create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on
congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat
staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans
in the same way as other Americans.
http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/
Should not the Senate force Obama into Obamacare? Duh!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:43pm PT
|
apogee,
I just had minor surgery on my middle finger (to remove a cyst that was making finger cracks rather uncomfortable), and now have a bandage on it big enough to make the world think I'm giving a sign of hostility. Unfortunately, it also interferes with my typing, so I haven't been able to respond as quickly as I'd like.
A few hundred posts ago, I opined that Republicans need to stop campaigning aginst this bill and, instead, try to fix it. I'm heartened to see your last post, which mentioned things like wellness, because that also is looking toward lowering costs, rather than shifting them, as this bill does.
I, and many other Republicans, have concerns that the direction of health care "reform" in this country is simply to create more wards of the state. This bill could lead in that direction, but with a little help from those of us on the right, it could also lead to lower-cost, more efficient delivery of health care to more people. We should be pushing for a sturctural reform that puts more decision-making in the hands of the patients and health care professionals, and less in the hands of the government, hmo's and insurance companies.
We cannot do this without tort reform (to prevent the practice of "defensive medicine" and allow more freedom of contract), and we should be fighting for that. We also should insist on equal treatment for health care expenses regardless of whether the taxpayer or the employer pays them. There is no economic reason to have health care depend on employment.
Finally, we should be fighting to build more med schools. This bill does nothing to improve supply; it's simply not somehting at which Democratic policies excel. Republicans know how to improve supplies. Instead of fighting a symbolic losing battle, we should be fighting for the people based on our principles of more freedom.
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 04:56pm PT
|
JS wrote: Had we only put a two or three dollar tax on gasolene back in the late 80's when this was done in Europe and rapid rail built with the funds - we would not now be sinking into a third world nation with complete absence of style. GM might even have avoided both the Hummer and bankruptcy.
I think a president named Jimmy Carter had a few things to say about oil and its effect on our future economy.
Also...instant effect of republicans in Colorado.
http://coloradoindependent.com/49791/beetle-kill-meeting-cancelled-by-republicans-bitter-by-healthcare
They just can't continue to say no all time. It really is going to back fire on them.
John wrote: Finally, we should be fighting to build more med schools. This bill does nothing to improve supply; it's simply not somehting at which Democratic policies excel. Republicans know how to improve supplies. Instead of fighting a symbolic losing battle, we should be fighting for the people based on our principles of more freedom.
John..haven't modern day republicans cut aid to education as a way of lowering the deficit? I also disagree with your assessment that this bill does little increase the supply of primary care doctors...I don't think I'm the only one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-reform-doctors-patients
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:12pm PT
|
happiegrrrl:
No, it does indeed make a big difference as to what size of check you will get.
The more someone has earned in their life, the more they would have paid
into social security equals the bigger SS check they will receive.
There is a maximum monthly SS check amount, regardless of how much you made,
or paid in, or how long you worked.
You should get a letter from SS every year telling you how much your benefit
check would be if you continued earning at your present rate until you
reach age 62, then full retirement age around 66, for an even bigger check.
Of course, it goes without saying that you do NOT have to receive a check.
When your time has come, you can tell SS to not send you a check, to just
put that money in the general fund.
This is what Fattrad is planning to do, along with not taking Medicare.
I understand Corniss also believes these programs to be "big government",
arguably "socialism", borderline "communism", and so he has opted out.
These are men of principle as we all know so well, and very high intelligence.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:14pm PT
|
Health care would be as cheap as McDonald's french fries if it was
forbidden to file any claim for any kind unhappy outcome.
Not Tort reform but Tort Elimination.
Smart phone apps for checking a doctor/hospital success ratio would let you
know to reject any doctor on the spot ie coded due to 'complications'
rate seems to high.
If I was Emperor of America we'd have that new law today.
Plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers would be working at McDonald's
and anyone could afford Cadillac plans for a tiny fraction of
existing cost.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:16pm PT
|
happiegrrrl:
No, it does indeed make a big difference as to what size of check you will get.
The more someone has earned in their life, the more they would have paid
into social security equals the bigger SS check they will receive.
There is a maximum monthly SS check amount, regardless of how much you made,
or paid in, or how long you worked.
You should get a letter from SS every year telling you how much your benefit
check would be if you continued earning at your present rate until you
reach age 62, then full retirement age around 66, for an even bigger check.
Of course, it goes without saying that you do NOT have to receive a check.
When your time has come, you can tell SS to not send you a check, to just
put that money in the general fund.
This is what Fattrad is planning to do, along with not taking Medicare.
I understand Corniss also believes these programs to be "big government",
arguably "socialism", borderline "communism", and so he has opted out.
These are men of principle as we all know so well, and very high intelligence.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:18pm PT
|
"dktem, The Buffet example is such an extreme anomaly as to be irrelevant."
You're dead wrong about that Ksolem.
The tax system is structured to benefit entrepreneurs. The people who get shafted are the nine to five working stiffs. Ironic really, because its always small business owners who whine the most about taxes, when if fact the system is structured to ensure that they don't have to pay their fair share. I say this as a small business owner myself.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:22pm PT
|
add blue to the list of high moral people that will refuse SS.
In fact, I'm surprised he has any kind of insurance. After all, shouldn't he just pay for things out of pocket as they arise? If you make an insurance claim - auto, medical, home owners - it strikes me that you'll get more out of the system than was put in.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:22pm PT
|
JS...read and weep.
Jimmy Carter was so far ahead of the curve on this one.
From his energy speech:
Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline. It's a cause of the increased inflation and unemployment that we now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.
Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.
Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.
Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.
These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.
Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.
Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.
We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.
Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.
I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.
Democrats screw him on this one!! We should have took the hit back then.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:34pm PT
|
"our principles of more freedom."
Our thought is inevitably most influenced by things like this that can be tightly compassed and succinctly expressed. But, has the immense freedom given to Wall Street wonks really proven of value to us - lately?
Clearly we need more people trained in the medical profession. But do we need to train individuals who are focussed only on the prospect of becoming wealthy - over night? Who is being served by this training?
I can make a case that our health might actually be more significantly improved by making citizens aware of the influence the food they eat has upon them. Look at pictures of americans who live on HFCS, unknowingly, and who are subject to the huge increases today of diabetes/ type II. Sagging jowls on young people! That Whopper with melted cheese has a huge externalized cost. It costs, what, $1.89(I dunno), but there will be a $100,000 heart surgery not all that far behind. They HAD to kill the cow in that hamburger. It was eating just this same kind of diet and it was going to die if it was not slaughtered.
It is lack of trust that is killing us.
Sure we need lots of good doctors. No argument. But the question of where to put our shrinking resources as reagards really complex alternatives depends on our trusting large studies and the people who perform them.
Our political polarization, while fun, is conditioning us to believe no one, a study least of all.
So we stagger on, without compass, pushing Big Macs down our gullets.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 05:56pm PT
|
jstan,
I think we need to look a little deeper about why we eat what we eat. Most children eat what their parents provide. For my generation of children, that was mostly a home-cooked meal. Even when I was single, I rarely ate out.
My generation as parents, however, hasn't done so well. We've fed ourselve and our children based on convenience, not nutrition. I doubt that government diktat will solve the problem easily, if for no other reason than if the government can decide anything of economic importance, the economic actors will find a way to corrupt the decision.
I find it particularly disheartening -- but unsurprising -- that we blame fast food, manufactured food, greedy corporations, or anyone else but ourselves for the state of our weight. The Devil isn't making us do it; we're choosing to do it to ourselves. We need to grow up (something my generation of Baby Boomers seems to do rather poorly), take responsibility for our well-being, and make it right. If we made it socially unacceptable to abuse our food intake in the way we've made smoking anathema, we'd accomplish far more.
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010 - 06:01pm PT
|
John wrote:I think we need to look a little deeper about why we eat what we eat. Most children eat what their parents provide. for my generation of children, that was mostly a home-cooked meal. Even when I was single, I rarely ate out.
My wife was a stay at home Mom...three home cooked meals a day, daily conversation and the fact that my wife took the time to search out healthy foods made the meals even more tastier.
Looking back I don't know how we made it on one salary but we did and not having all the bells and whistles really had a positive effect on our lives. I think? :-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!