Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why does someone need to stand up for the R nut jobs?

If Obama posted on this board he would recruit well-read crazy right wingers to post here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I disaree. This may be about that for some people. I am disgusted by the overwhelming arrogance of the asshole. Almost half the country and he says "Fuck 'em, they aren't even in the club." I am also criticizing him because he and his business associates have benefited so much in the last few years from government largesse that I keep waiting for God's Iron Fist to strike him down every time he calls someone else a parasite or moocher.

I'm with you on carried interest. That loophole is logically unjustifiable.

But Romney was not painting with as broad a brush as his critics disingenuously argue. You and I are both smart enough to recognize the weakness of this argument: "The GOP lies when it says half of America pays no taxes! They pay all sorts of other taxes."

That's true. But examine that talking point a bit...

1. The other half also pays all those "other taxes." In addition to the income tax you and I pay, we also pay property taxes, sales taxes, school taxes, payroll taxes (or self employment). In other words, all the taxes the half who do not pay income tax pay.*

2. The payroll taxes fund SS and Medicare, from which most of the 47% who pay no income tax will receive benefits at some point - in many instances (certainly in regard to Medicare) multiples of what they put in, even inflation-adjusting present day dollars to those of years down the road in which use occurs.** The income tax funds government operations. In this regard, you and I are funding the infrastructure, and all other activities of govt, while the 47% are not. (Granted, to the extent we've borrowed from SS to fund other stuff, one can argue the 47% indirectly fund govt operations. But it's not much of an argument, because the other 53% do so as well, in addition to providing direct funding via income taxes.)
_______
* The state taxes the half who pay no income tax pay are deductible on a 1040 EZ, no?

** I'm no expert on the Earned Income Tax Credit, but don't a fair number of the 47% who pay no income tax also receive a refund of a portion of the payroll tax they pay via the EITC? Or does the EITC only refund/offset taxes above SS/Medicare taxes?

NOTE: Please do not argue that 47% is inaccurate. I don't know the exact percentage of Americans who pay no income tax, but stats tend to show it's around that number, and for purposes of an exercise like this, I'm assuming it's within a 5% margin of error. (And unless it had a 25% margin of error, the point we're discussing is unchanged. That anything over 25% of the country pays no income tax is an issue we should address.)

NOTE 2: I am assuming the 47% includes wealthy individuals employing tax structures to avoid all income tax. I don't know where Romney got his number from, but those I've seen citing similar percentages do so based on blind review of tax revenues, including both those who earn too little to pay, and those who earn enough to hire accountants and lawyers to avoid paying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

So is everyone who drives. So is everyone who doesn't drive. So is everyone who enters into contracts and wants the ability to enforce them. So is every lawyer. Also every doctor. Also every person who goes to public school, or went to public school, or hires people who went to school. Ditto re private schools (with their tax advantages, grants, etc.)

To put it differently -- all that infrastructure you rely on? The environment you need to create a successful business? You didn't build that.

There is a difference between subsidizing activities and paying for the essentials of govt. We blurred the distinction long ago. Police, fire, road building? These are essential govt activities.

Our white collar welfare defense industry, with a 700bil budget 300 of which we'll never use and is utter waste - justified only with, "Yeah, but cutting defense would eliminate a lot of jobs" - is a grotesque subsidy. Medicare Part D? Do I even need to explain what an unnecessary subsidy this is for big pharma? The generous mortgage interest deduction? That one was fucking brilliant, no? "Let's find a way to rape the environment and create a bubble!" Medicare? Excellent. "Let's take a captured consumer, serviced by a professional paid based on unit production, and whose work is so nuanced one can never tell if it's necessary or overkill, and remove the direct purchaser model, replacing it with a government-run third party payer structure. This will surely get costs under control." How about health insurance? "Let's tie medical insurance to employment by allowing employees to receive it from employers tax free. This won't complicate anything. It's much better than something as confusing as people buying insurance themselves. ...Much more preferable than compelling Americans to purchase a product on their own, which would require them to learn about how it works and become informed, savvy, bargain conscious consumers."

And let's not forget the mother of all subsidies we are about to see blow up in our faces: Student Loans. That one's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to start. But here it is in a nutshell:

"Here's an idea. Let's back billions of loans for people to go to college."

"How can we assess risk to set rates?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, a guy getting an engineering degree from Penn State might be better off then a guy getting a degree in modern dance at Dennison, no?"

"No. We'll just back all the loans the same."

"But no lender would ever do that. From an underwriting perspective, it's madness. And surely, we have to cap the amount lent. Otherwise, providers-- I mean, schools, will see a pool of money and raise costs perniciously."

"No. We won't do that. We'll lend liberally as we can, to meet the tuition increases."

"This will create millions of debt serfs who'll have to file bankruptcy."

"We'll see how that works. If too many do so, we'll block them from discharge by law."

"What happens if the value of a college education falls someday? This will be the mother of all bubbles."

"Madness. Two things that will never decrease in value - a college degree and housing."

"I assume you've gleaned this from business experience in those markets."

"I have worked on policy here in DC for twenty years. We know more than any business person could ever hope to understand about the operation of markets."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. The other half also pays all those "other taxes." In addition to the income tax you and I pay, we also pay property taxes, sales taxes, school taxes, payroll taxes (or self employment). In other words, all the taxes the half who do not pay income tax pay.*

They do, but payroll taxes phase out. Also, all those other taxes make up a much bigger portion of those people's income. The fact that the federal income tax is progressive is a feature, not a bug, and is in part specifically intended to offset the regressivity of all of those other taxes.

NOTE 2: I am assuming the 47% includes wealthy individuals employing tax structures to avoid all income tax. I don't know where Romney got his number from, but those I've seen citing similar percentages do so based on blind review of tax revenues, including both those who earn too little to pay, and those who earn enough to hire accountants and lawyers to avoid paying.

It probably does, but they aren't numerous enough to really count.

The 47% are mostly young people in school, old people who's income is primarily SS, and the truly poor.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Our white collar welfare defense industry, with a 700bil budget 300 of which we'll never use and is utter waste - justified only with, "Yeah, but cutting defense would eliminate a lot of jobs" - is a grotesque subsidy.

If only that was the only justification. Instead we tend to also justify it by getting into wars we don't need to get into.

The generous mortgage interest deduction? That one was fucking brilliant, no? "Let's find a way to rape the environment and create a bubble!"

I hear you, but I'm not sure MID can really be blamed for the bubble, as it's significantly predates it.

Medicare? Excellent. "Let's take a captured consumer, serviced by a professional paid based on unit production, and whose work is so nuanced one can never tell if it's necessary or overkill, and remove the direct purchaser model, replacing it with a government-run third party payer structure. This will surely get costs under control."

You left out the important part: don't let it use it's purchasing power to negotiate lower prices or alternative pricing structures (the latter of which is remedied by Obamacare, btw).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is a difference between subsidizing activities and paying for the essentials of govt. We blurred the distinction long ago. Police, fire, road building? These are essential govt activities.

Our white collar welfare defense industry, with a 700bil budget 300 of which we'll never use and is utter waste - justified only with, "Yeah, but cutting defense would eliminate a lot of jobs" - is a grotesque subsidy. Medicare Part D? Do I even need to explain what an unnecessary subsidy this is for big pharma? The generous mortgage interest deduction? That one was fucking brilliant, no? "Let's find a way to rape the environment and create a bubble!" Medicare? Excellent. "Let's take a captured consumer, serviced by a professional paid based on unit production, and whose work is so nuanced one can never tell if it's necessary or overkill, and remove the direct purchaser model, replacing it with a government-run third party payer structure. This will surely get costs under control." How about health insurance? "Let's tie medical insurance to employment by allowing employees to receive it from employers tax free. This won't complicate anything. It's much better than something as confusing as people buying insurance themselves. ...Much more preferable than compelling Americans to purchase a product on their own, which would require them to learn about how it works and become informed, savvy, bargain conscious consumers."

And let's not forget the mother of all subsidies we are about to see blow up in our faces: Student Loans. That one's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to start. But here it is in a nutshell:

"Here's an idea. Let's back billions of loans for people to go to college."

"How can we assess risk to set rates?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, a guy getting an engineering degree from Penn State might be better off then a guy getting a degree in modern dance at Dennison, no?"

"No. We'll just back all the loans the same."

"But no lender would ever do that. From an underwriting perspective, it's madness. And surely, we have to cap the amount lent. Otherwise, providers-- I mean, schools, will see a pool of money and raise costs perniciously."

"No. We won't do that. We'll lend liberally as we can, to meet the tuition increases."

"This will create millions of debt serfs who'll have to file bankruptcy."

"We'll see how that works. If too many do so, we'll block them from discharge by law."

"What happens if the value of a college education falls someday? This will be the mother of all bubbles."

"Madness. Two things that will never decrease in value - a college degree and housing."

"I assume you've gleaned this from business experience in those markets."

"I have worked on policy here in DC for twenty years. We know more than any business person could ever hope to understand about the operation of markets."

You're missing the student loans that are questionable - the ones for students to learn how to be a veternary dentist assistant at the local for-profit mail-order school. Dance and engineering from those schools are both getting paid back.

As to the knowledge of business people on how to do shit, isn't Romney proving right now that being a private equity fund manager doesn't qualify you for much more than Dance at Dennison?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I hear you, but I'm not sure MID can really be blamed for the bubble, as it's significantly predates it.

True. But I think we can agree, without it (or with one that phased out a lot earlier), we could not have had a bubble as bad the one we did.

You left out the important part: don't let it use it's purchasing power to negotiate lower prices or alternative pricing structures (the latter of which is remedied by Obamacare, btw).

That facet of HCReform is one I can't laud enough. Medicare Part D's failure to do so exhibits the only form of compromise these parties can achieve: Agreeing universally, without no hint of dispute, to fuck taxpayers on behalf of donors.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You're missing the student loans that are questionable - the ones for students to learn how to be a veternary dentist assistant at the local for-profit mail-order school. Dance and engineering from those schools are both getting paid back.

As to the knowledge of business people on how to do shit, isn't Romney proving right now that being a private equity fund manager doesn't qualify you for much more than Dance at Dennison?

Engineering, yes. But dance at Dennison isn't getting paid back. If you're dumb enough to borrow that much money for that kind of degree, you're lucky to able to pay the rent.

I think Romney is proving that being a soulless numbers cruncher renders one a sad political figure: A man who'd probably be a really good President, but never will be, because to do so requires an emotional connection with voters he could never hope to forge.

We're emotional creatures. It holds us back terribly, but it'll never change. Most people allow emotion to remain paramount in their decision processes. They act on what they feel. I feel Romney is a fucking creep with whom I'd never want to spend any more time than I absolutely had to. I'll still vote for him if the race is close because it benefits me. But that only occurs because I choose to act entirely against my emotional reaction to the man. Most Americans won't do that. He's such a robot he thinks they will. Mitt somehow graduated from B school without taking Marketing 101.

ETA: Perhaps it's his squareness, his Mormonism, that does him in. He can flip flop with the best of them, but he's a terrible liar, and an even worse actor, both of which are essentials for political success. I can't help but think these disabilities derive from growing up in a culture of scarce irony.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

True. But I think we can agree, without it (or with one that phased out a lot earlier), we could not have had a bubble as bad the one we did.

I'm not so sure. The key was really the quickly increasing prices, which meant no one was defaulting, thus making credit easier to get.

At least in DC, no small amount of the inventory was being purchased by people seeking to invest/flip who were not benefiting from MID.

But of course it makes owning all the more appealing.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Romney is proving that being a soulless numbers cruncher renders one a sad political figure: A man who'd probably be a really good President, but never will be, because to do so requires an emotional connection with voters he could never hope to forge.

Actually, I used to agree with you but I think he's doing a lot to demonstrate that he would be a horrid president. Both the Libya and 47% comments really do a lot to undermine faith in his judgment.

I'll still vote for him if the race is close because it benefits me.

You mean you think it benefits you. And you can only think that by ignoring what he's actually said he'd do, which is put in place budget conditions that can only work if he raises your taxes.

Of course, he isn't going to do what he's said, but still.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Engineering, yes. But dance at Dennison isn't getting paid back. If you're dumb enough to borrow that much money for that kind of degree, you're lucky to able to pay the rent.

I think Romney is proving that being a soulless numbers cruncher renders one a sad political figure: A man who'd probably be a really good President, but never will be, because to do so requires an emotional connection with voters he could never hope to forge.

We're emotional creatures. It holds us back terribly, but it'll never change. Most people allow emotion to remain paramount in their decision processes. They act on what they feel. I feel Romney is a fucking creep with whom I'd never want to spend any more time than I absolutely had to. I'll still vote for him if the race is close because it benefits me. But that only occurs because I choose to act entirely against my emotional reaction to the man. Most Americans won't do that. He's such a robot he thinks they will. Mitt somehow graduated from B school without taking Marketing 101.

ETA: Perhaps it's his squareness, his Mormonism, that does him in. He can flip flop with the best of them, but he's a terrible liar, and an even worse actor, both of which are essentials for political success. I can't help but think these disabilities derive from growing up in a culture of scarce irony.

Translation: I have bought into the Republican brand, and will happily buy rancid, botulism-inducing products that carry it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Translation: I have bought into the Republican brand, and will happily buy rancid, botulism-inducing products that carry it.

You can be astute. And you can be incredibly immature.

As one the same can be said of, you sound like a seventeen year old here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You mean you think it benefits you. And you can only think that by ignoring what he's actually said he'd do, which is put in place budget conditions that can only work if he raises your taxes.

Of course, he isn't going to do what he's said, but still.

He who stays the growth an agency that seeks to collect on behalf of the treasury gets the automatic vote. Particularly when his opponent seeks to expand the agency by thousands, and give it more teeth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If Obama posted on this board he would recruit well-read crazy right wingers to post here.

Well-read, 6' 6", 28-year-old, giant, well-read, crazy wingers who played professional ball overseas.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is a difference between subsidizing activities and paying for the essentials of govt. We blurred the distinction long ago. Police, fire, road building? These are essential govt activities.

Our white collar welfare defense industry, with a 700bil budget 300 of which we'll never use and is utter waste - justified only with, "Yeah, but cutting defense would eliminate a lot of jobs" - is a grotesque subsidy. Medicare Part D? Do I even need to explain what an unnecessary subsidy this is for big pharma? The generous mortgage interest deduction? That one was fucking brilliant, no? "Let's find a way to rape the environment and create a bubble!" Medicare? Excellent. "Let's take a captured consumer, serviced by a professional paid based on unit production, and whose work is so nuanced one can never tell if it's necessary or overkill, and remove the direct purchaser model, replacing it with a government-run third party payer structure. This will surely get costs under control." How about health insurance? "Let's tie medical insurance to employment by allowing employees to receive it from employers tax free. This won't complicate anything. It's much better than something as confusing as people buying insurance themselves. ...Much more preferable than compelling Americans to purchase a product on their own, which would require them to learn about how it works and become informed, savvy, bargain conscious consumers."

And let's not forget the mother of all subsidies we are about to see blow up in our faces: Student Loans. That one's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to start. But here it is in a nutshell:

"Here's an idea. Let's back billions of loans for people to go to college."

"How can we assess risk to set rates?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, a guy getting an engineering degree from Penn State might be better off then a guy getting a degree in modern dance at Dennison, no?"

"No. We'll just back all the loans the same."

"But no lender would ever do that. From an underwriting perspective, it's madness. And surely, we have to cap the amount lent. Otherwise, providers-- I mean, schools, will see a pool of money and raise costs perniciously."

"No. We won't do that. We'll lend liberally as we can, to meet the tuition increases."

"This will create millions of debt serfs who'll have to file bankruptcy."

"We'll see how that works. If too many do so, we'll block them from discharge by law."

"What happens if the value of a college education falls someday? This will be the mother of all bubbles."

"Madness. Two things that will never decrease in value - a college degree and housing."

"I assume you've gleaned this from business experience in those markets."

"I have worked on policy here in DC for twenty years. We know more than any business person could ever hope to understand about the operation of markets."

I am outside Philadelphia just now, and I like to think that everyone around me is engaging in these Sebby-like dialogues.