11 March 2009

Let The ChiComs Show Us The Way

I told you we were living in parallel universes.

Our economy tanks, and the Dems propose all kinds of new taxes. What happens? Auto sales fall through the floor, along with the stock market. The Chinese economy tanks and they enact a healthy tax cut. What happens? Auto sales rise 25%.

While we embrace many tenets of socialism and "spreading the wealth around", the ChiComs embrace many of the tenets of free-market capitalism.

They learn from us, we learn from them. Great, isn't it?

Wake me up when the nightmare is over.

16 comments:

James F. Epperson said...

"Our economy tanks, and the Dems propose all kinds of new taxes."

Precisely what new taxes on folks making less than $200K has Obama proposed? In general, what new taxes of any sort has he proposed?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

What has the "less than $200k" got to do with anything? You've not looked over the budget proposal, have you?

Are you familiar with the capital gains proposals?

Are you familiar with Cap & Trade? Do you understand all the ramifications?

James - I welcome your input here, but please try to elevate the level of your comments.

James F. Epperson said...

"I welcome your input here, but please try to elevate the level of your comments."

An implied insult is an odd way to welcome my input.

The $200K line is an issue because of the issue of fairness. The nation needs more revenue; I would think that is not something to be argued. Obama is proposing to get this additional revenue by raising taxes only on those folks whose economic status allows them to afford it. The vast majority of folks will see no tax increase.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

James - no insult, an honest request. Certain facts and realities are assumed. I'm not going to waste time debating the wetness of water.

If its fairness you're after, then a flat tax on EVERYONE of 15 - 20% with no deductions would be the answer. Everyone pays the exact same %. That's would be "fair." Right?

Currently James, the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of all income taxes. Sound "fair" to you? Please don't throw up the straw man of "fairness." I'm not in that category, by the way. I'm very middle class.

But the subject here was not about fairness, it was about more taxes in a downturn, the opposite of what the ChiComs are doing. Communists cutting taxes, us raising them.

What % of Americans make over $200k? Take ALL their money. How much would you get? There will be a tax increase on the middle class because, as Jesse James said, that's where the money is. You're naive if you think that isn't coming.

The nation needs more income? No James, the nation needs less outgo.

Steve Shea said...

Rick: You are spot on. I'd go one step further and scrap the income tax altogether (it is unconstitutional anyway). Rep. Ron Paul illustrated how that can be done. As for 'fairness' our messed up tax laws skewer the rich thusly:

Top 1% (AGI over $388,806): 39.89%

Top 5% (AGI over $153,542): 60.14%

Top 10% (AGI over $108,904): 70.79%

Top 25% (AGI over $64,702): 86.27%

Top 50% (AGI over $31,987): 97.01%

Bottom 50% (AGI <$31,987): 2.99%

These are for tax year 2006. I can tell you what'll happen (because it happens EVERY TIME boneheaded presidents raise taxes: the very wealthy move their wealth offshore so it can't be taxed, and the somewhat wealthy simply stop working at some point in the year to prevent additional income (which results in a net loss of income as you move into a higher bracket). Under Carter, my dad (self-employed at the time) would stop working around September; it simply didn't pay to work more.


Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Thanks Steve. Excellent information, straight from the horse's mouth (IRS).

This is what I meant by elevating comments James. Hard facts & reality and a basic understanding of economic theory instead of emotional concepts like "fairness."

No insult, we're all adults here, just an honest criticism and request.

James F. Epperson said...

"This is what I meant by elevating comments James."

????? Mr. Shea provided numbers, true, but he didn't identify what they were supposed to be, nor did he give a precise citation. Saying they come from the IRS is not sufficient. I'm really confused as to what the percentages on the right mean.

A flat tax is an intriguing idea, if only for its simplicity. I don't think there is much argument that the tax code needs revision for the sake of simplicity. However, most suggestions for a flat tax that I have seen shift the tax burden *far* too much onto the low income end of the population, and that is not right, IMO. My biggest complaint about the flat tax idea is that (again, most of) the proposals I have seen tax only wages. Someone like Bill Gates, who lives entirely off interest from investments, would pay no tax at all. And that simply is Not Right.

But, to return to the original topic: You claim that Obama is going to raise taxes. Other than a tax increase on those making more than $200K, what tax increases have been proposed?

Let's be honest: Most folks don't like paying higher taxes. But I would love to pay higher taxes under the Obama plan because it would mean my book sales had shot through the roof and I was making more than twice what I am making now. I'll take the higher tax burden in those circumstances, thank you.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

James:

"I'm really confused as to what the percentages on the right mean."
(?!)
Again, most of our discussions here are a little beyond the elementary. I'm sorry if you take that as an insult, but that's just the way it is.

If you're not aware of Obama's plans for new taxes, I suggest you do a Google search - that way you may discover the truth for yourself. Here's a quote from a recent news piece:

"Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration."

Story here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22

"But I would love to pay higher taxes"

Then I suggest you go ahead and do so. If its fairness you're interested in, there's no need to wait for the rest of us, just send a contribution to the Treasury.

I'd be interested in your writings. What is your field?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

James:

"Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011"

Read the exciting details here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

And remember, corporations don't pay taxes, people do. All business taxes roll down hill, meaning consumers pay them one way or another. Economics 101.

Steve Shea said...

Mr Epperson, the source document is here:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01etr.xls

Should be self-evident, but then I thought it was in the original posting as well.

I do not support a flat tax. I support no Federal income tax. It is against the Constitution, but then probably about 90% of what this government does is.

I concur with Rick; you want to give the Feds your money, go right ahead. I just take offence at the notion of $2,521,200,000,000 in tax receipts (2008) being insufficient.

James F. Epperson said...

"Again, most of our discussions here are a little beyond the elementary. I'm sorry if you take that as an insult, but that's just the way it is."

I note that instead of offering any explanation of the table Mr. Shea offered, you continue suggesting that my inability to deduce its meaning is the result of some deficiency on my part. Do *you* underestand the data in that table? If so, I invite you to show off your brilliance by explaining it to me.

"Then I suggest you go ahead and do so [pay more taxes]. If its fairness you're interested in, there's no need to wait for the rest of us, just send a contribution to the Treasury."

Cute. I never said I thought *my* taxes were too low. Like most folks, I think they are too high. (I ain't close to the $200K line. Wish I was; I'd gladly pay the necessary taxes...)

"I'd be interested in your writings..."

No, you wouldn't. I'm a mathematician, and I've written an advanced text which is doing tolerably well.

I didn't see anything horrible in the ABC story you cited. The vast majority of the projected new revenue is to come from taxes on the wealthy. You and I will have to pay some new taxes that are passed on to us because the corporations involved do that, as you noted.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

James:

I'm sorry, I simply don't have time to explain the obvious. Mr. Shea sourced the link, should you want to look at the stats closer. I, too, believe they are self-explanatory.

If you think your taxes are too high, why do you think the wealthy should pay more when the IRS stats prove there already paying MORE than their "fair" share?

Class warfare?

As I said, I'm very middle class, but have no desire to see the "rich pay more" - they already do. As a mathematician, you certainly can look at those figures cited at the IRS site and see that to be true.

James F. Epperson said...

"I'm sorry, I simply don't have time to explain the obvious. Mr. Shea sourced the link, should you want to look at the stats closer. I, too, believe they are self-explanatory."

?????

There is no source information appearing on my machine, other than the rather indefinite "Internal Revenue Service". No URL, no mention of a text, nothing. Nada. Zip.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

James:

Mr. Shea's post clearly shows this URL:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01etr.xls

Its not a "live" link, but you should be able to copy and paste it into your browser.

James F. Epperson said...

"Mr. Shea's post clearly shows this URL:"

?????

I kid you not, there is no URL in his post as it appears on my machine. Do you think I would have pushed this point if there was a URL in front of me?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just now noticed a follow-up post of Mr. Shea's which has the URL. I had not seen that post before. I just flat missed it. My error.

OK, it will take me some time to assimilate this material, and I will be away from my machine tomorrow.

I'm curious about one thing: How can the income tax be illegal, since it was authorized by a constitutional amendment?

Arthur B. Breedlove said...

"I'm curious about one thing: How can the income tax be illegal, since it was authorized by a constitutional amendment?"

A strict constructionist could make the argument that it violates the spirit and tenor of the Constitution. The idea of the "progressive" income tax was unknown during the founding era. It made it's first appearance during the "Civil War", along with the IRS. All part of the growth of the leviathan state.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the income tax was unconstitutional. In addition, some question remains as to the validity of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment by the States.