Trump

[wufan]

I can see the possible ties.

I think there are always going to be swamps in D.C. - only way to get rid of them or make them smaller is make the Government smaller and reduce their power.

Yes! I don't want the gov to solve every problem. I want them to provide the neccessities so we can solve our own problems.

[Aargh]

I can see the possible ties.

I think there are always going to be swamps in D.C. - only way to get rid of them or make them smaller is make the Government smaller and reduce their power.

To do that, the people benefiting from the bloated government and who have the power would have to vote to limit their influence and power. How likely is that?

Something I've learned to ask is - smaller government for who? Eliminating the rule against dumping coal tailings in rivers is smaller government. Who benefits? Owners of the mining rights benefit. A few coal miners might get jobs. Who loses? EVERYBODY downstream from the coal mine. Coal mining tailings in water supplies is a step in the direction of giving more people the same water quality as that in Flint.

[wufan]

To do that, the people benefiting from the bloated government and who have the power would have to vote to limit their influence and power. How likely is that?

Something I've learned to ask is - smaller government for who? Eliminating the rule against dumping coal tailings in rivers is smaller government. Who benefits? Owners of the mining rights benefit. A few coal miners might get jobs. Who loses? EVERYBODY downstream from the coal mine. Coal mining tailings in water supplies is a step in the direction of giving more people the same water quality as that in Flint.

I'm all about being a good steward of the environment. The gov should enforce that. They have far overstepped the pollution regs and need to get back to that.

[WuDrWu]

Some of you have to stop saying things like "benefiting".

Look, if you and I both pay $1000 in taxes, and my brother makes a special rule where I pay only $500, I'll grant you that's a benefit.

When you're talking about a group of people that amount to less than 1% of the population but paying close to 50% of the taxes, that group cutting a % of their taxes really isn't benefiting. It's more like getting a little extra squirt of lube.

You sound like crazy Bernie last night, howling about how a tax cut for the 1% is "costing" the government zillions. It's not "costing" the government anything. It's not the government's money. That's where so many of you have flawed thinking.

[RoyalShock]

Regarding school vouchers, you can't suddenly take those kinds of funds out of the public schools. Whether it's the $9000+ per student that goes to a public school in Kansas or the $4000 (or whatever) for a typical private school, it will be very painful for every single public school. And probably painful enough that a lot of teachers will leave the field.

Unless, of course, you want your local property or income taxes raised to cover the shortfall. And that will hit everyone's bank account.

I used to be in support of vouchers, but I don't see how it can work, unless the amounts given out are far, far less than what it costs to educate one student.

[BOBB]

Some of you have to stop saying things like "benefiting".

Look, if you and I both pay $1000 in taxes, and my brother makes a special rule where I pay only $500, I'll grant you that's a benefit.

When you're talking about a group of people that amount to less than 1% of the population but paying close to 50% of the taxes, that group cutting a % of their taxes really isn't benefiting. It's more like getting a little extra squirt of lube.

You sound like crazy Bernie last night, howling about how a tax cut for the 1% is "costing" the government zillions. It's not "costing" the government anything. It's not the government's money. That's where so many of you have flawed thinking.

Well, you are sort of right. Once we determine the size of the government, we have a responsibility to fund it. The current president has no plan to shrink the government beyond getting rid of the ACA. He does, allegedly, have a plan to cut taxes. I am all for lower taxes, but until the government shrinks, the bills must be paid. What services am I willing to cut? Social Security, Medicare, Army? The rest is chump change.

[ShockingButTrue]

[jdshock]

Some of you have to stop saying things like "benefiting".

Look, if you and I both pay $1000 in taxes, and my brother makes a special rule where I pay only $500, I'll grant you that's a benefit.

When you're talking about a group of people that amount to less than 1% of the population but paying close to 50% of the taxes, that group cutting a % of their taxes really isn't benefiting. It's more like getting a little extra squirt of lube.

You sound like crazy Bernie last night, howling about how a tax cut for the 1% is "costing" the government zillions. It's not "costing" the government anything. It's not the government's money. That's where so many of you have flawed thinking.

I get where you're coming from, but it's representative of your viewpoint, not the actual law.

If we have a tax system that was implemented by our democratically elected officials, and that tax system lays out the different percentages for different tax brackets, it absolutely benefits the top bracket if you lower their percentage.

Maybe it is closer to what you think should happen, but you're making a strange argument. This is just the definition of the word benefit.

[wufan]

Well, you are sort of right. Once we determine the size of the government, we have a responsibility to fund it. The current president has no plan to shrink the government beyond getting rid of the ACA. He does, allegedly, have a plan to cut taxes. I am all for lower taxes, but until the government shrinks, the bills must be paid. What services am I willing to cut? Social Security, Medicare, Army? The rest is chump change.

The Conservative idea is that government gets out of the way so everyone can make a little bit more and pay a little bit more in taxes. Even if the % is less. This should create jobs by creating more prosperity. The Progressive idea is that if you've earned a lot of money, then you owe something back to take care of those less fortunate. The % is determined by the needs of the people. This should create more jobs by creating more services.

A service I could use less of is regulation.

[WuDrWu]

I get where you're coming from, but it's representative of your viewpoint, not the actual law.

If we have a tax system that was implemented by our democratically elected officials, and that tax system lays out the different percentages for different tax brackets, it absolutely benefits the top bracket if you lower their percentage.

Maybe it is closer to what you think should happen, but you're making a strange argument. This is just the definition of the word benefit.

It's really not representative of my viewpoint. It's really more fact, but even more the point I was really trying to make is that liberals and the media are framing the argument in a skewed manner. Phrases like "costing the government", "benefiting the 1%"..... In other words, if I give you $5 that is a benefit. If I rob you, and take $5 and leave a $10 bill in your wallet, I doubt you would claim that was a benefit. Right?

Government, the media especially, but liberals too (conservatives are guilty too, but since we're generally paying the bills....) have created this language to fool the masses and it's just now accepted as truths. There are MASSES out there that hear things like the 1%ers are benefiting to the tune of $20 billion next year and they think those folks are taking money from someone else. That is most certainly NOT the case, except in fraud cases. It's not "costing" the government. My point is let's be up front about what it is that we really are doing here.

And right now we're not.

[jdshock]

It's really not representative of my viewpoint. It's really more fact

Your point is completely dependent on your belief that the government is not entitled to a certain percentage of an individual's income. Under current law, basically everything over $~415,000 is taxed at close to 40%. The government is legally entitled to that money. Reducing the owed taxes, "benefits" someone who currently owes that money.

but even more the point I was really trying to make is that liberals and the media are framing the argument in a skewed manner. Phrases like "costing the government", "benefiting the 1%"

"Costing" is the correct word when you're talking about tax breaks. It goes back what the government is legally entitled to. A tax break for some thing that reduces government revenue by $1 billion is the same for the government's budget as increasing spending by $1 billion. Surely you agree with that accounting, right? It's also the language that the government uses. The CBO lists "cost estimates" which include things like tax breaks.

In other words, if I give you $5 that is a benefit. If I rob you, and take $5 and leave a $10 bill in your wallet, I doubt you would claim that was a benefit. Right?

I don't really understand the analogy. The most basic definition of "benefit" is "an advantage or profit gained from something." In your scenario, I absolutely benefited from you "robbing" me, assuming you just picked up my wallet and pulled out a $5 bill and replaced it with a $10 bill. If you held me up at gun point to get the $5 bill, I did not benefit because you did more than $5 worth of damage to me.

This analogy highlights your belief that it is government "robbery," though. It couldn't be further from that scenario. You can dislike the current tax system, and that's fine, but it is lawful. The government taking 40% of income over 415k is lawful, so there is no robbery.

Government, the media especially, but liberals too (conservatives are guilty too, but since we're generally paying the bills....) have created this language to fool the masses and it's just now accepted as truths. There are MASSES out there that hear things like the 1%ers are benefiting to the tune of $20 billion next year and they think those folks are taking money from someone else. That is most certainly NOT the case, except in fraud cases. It's not "costing" the government. My point is let's be up front about what it is that we really are doing here. And right now we're not.

If I have income of $1 million in a year, and I owe taxes on that amount, if I can reduce my tax liability by various means, I benefited from those code provisions. I just don't understand your argument. We can objectively know the definition of the word "benefit" and know that a tax cut can benefit someone. If you're shot in the knee you're worse off. If you then have surgery that gets you back to 90% of your original strength, you benefited from the surgery. The surgery made you better than you were prior to the surgery. All in all, you are still worse off than prior to being shot. But the surgery benefited you. The same thing is true of a tax cut. This is just objective truth.

[CBB_Fan]

Some of you have to stop saying things like "benefiting".

Look, if you and I both pay $1000 in taxes, and my brother makes a special rule where I pay only $500, I'll grant you that's a benefit.

When you're talking about a group of people that amount to less than 1% of the population but paying close to 50% of the taxes, that group cutting a % of their taxes really isn't benefiting. It's more like getting a little extra squirt of lube.

You sound like crazy Bernie last night, howling about how a tax cut for the 1% is "costing" the government zillions. It's not "costing" the government anything. It's not the government's money. That's where so many of you have flawed thinking.

The top 1% pay 43.6% of America's income taxes. They have 21.6% of our total income and pay 23.6% of total taxes. In comparison, here are those numbers for each quintile:

Quintile: Income % / Tax %
5th: 3.3% / 2.1%
4th: 6.8% / 5.5%
3rd: 11.1% / 9.9%
2nd: 18.6% / 18.5%
1st: 60.2% / 64.0%
Top 1%: 21.6% / 23.6%

This is taking account things like state taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, and sales taxes and is a far more accurate picture than income tax alone. While the real tax rate is still progressive, it is significantly flatter than most believe and possibly less progressive than marginal utility would have it be.

If you want to use the "taxation is theft," I'll refer to this rebuttal by libertarian Loren Lomansky:

Libertarians are wont to intone, “Taxation is theft!” It is a clever variation on Proudhon’s “Property is theft!” Cleverness is to be applauded, but not when it leads to outsmarting oneself. It is one thing to say that taxation is theft, another to believe it. Causal relations run between assertion and belief in both directions, and many libertarians who say it also believe it. They are mistaken. Moreover, they are mistaken in a way very difficult to achieve unless one is in the grip of an ideology. Taxation is not theft. It may resemble theft in important respects; it may be the case that some of the reasons that lead us to condemn theft will, if properly considered, lead us to condemn taxation; it may even be the case that taxation is as morally reprehensible as theft; nonetheless, and with apologies for the repetition, it is not theft.

The point is not semantic but rather phenomenological. The perceived reality of theft is notably distinct from that of taxation. When I return home from a libertarian scholars’ conference to find the lock on my door broken and my television set gone I am outraged. That which I expected to be secure from encroachment has been violated. The perpetrator of the theft has transgressed rules that both he and I recognize to be the de facto as well as de jure principles of cooperation that undergird a framework of civility from which all citizens can be expected to derive benefit. The moral ire I feel is, then, not some amorphous feeling that things are other than they ought to be. Rather, that animus is precisely localized: it is focused on this act by this individual. Moreover, I possess a justifiable confidence that my animus will be seconded by those among whom I live. What is primarily a violation of my rights is understood by them to be more than a private conflict of interest between me and the individual who coveted my television. Accordingly, I am able to avail myself of the formal apparatus of the legal system and the informal vindication afforded by a consensus among the members of the moral community that I have been violated and ought to be made whole. And if I am exceptionally lucky, this solidarity may even help me to recover the TV set.

In nearly all relevant respects the perceived context of taxation is significantly different. I look at my pay stub and observe that a large slab of my salary has been excised before I ever had the opportunity to fondle it. This is an annoyance, perhaps an intense one. But it is not focused on the particular extraction. Rather, its object is some or all of the tens of thousands of pages of the tax code, the political order within which the power to tax is lodged, and the constitutional foundations on which that political order is erected. I wish some or all of it were otherwise; that, though is the inverse of a highly specific grievance. Moreover, I cannot count on the solidarity of my fellow citizens. That is both a descriptive and a normative statement. If I have adopted the cooperationist rather than the rejectionist attitude toward the society in which I live, then I am thereby committed to acknowledging that although my fellow citizens’ views concerning the ethics of taxation are, as I see it, mistaken, the perspective from which they adopt those views is not so unreasonable or uncivil as to disqualify them from moral respect. I am entitled, perhaps even obligated, to attempt to persuade them to think otherwise. However, prior to the dawning of that bright dar in which the veils are lifted and freedom reigns, I shall, if I am not a fanatic, concede the legitimacy (not, of course, the optimality) of the overall moral framework within which taxation takes place. It is, therefore, not only misleading but also an exercise in borderline incivility to equate taxation with theft, for if it is then taken in its straightforward sense, that pronouncement denies the legitimacy of the social order and announces that I regard myself as authorized unilaterally to override its dictates as I would the depredations of a thief. It says to my neighbors that I regard them as, if not themselves thieves, then confederates or willing accomplices to thievery. Is it pusillanimous to suggest that declaring war, even cold war, against the other 99 percent of the population is imprudent? I would therefore caution libertarians to shelve the “Taxation is theft!” slogan despite its sonorous ring, and if they cannot bring themselves to do that, then at least to cultivate a twinkle in the eye when they haul it forth.

[wu_shizzle]

Regarding school vouchers, you can't suddenly take those kinds of funds out of the public schools. Whether it's the $9000+ per student that goes to a public school in Kansas or the $4000 (or whatever) for a typical private school, it will be very painful for every single public school. And probably painful enough that a lot of teachers will leave the field.

Unless, of course, you want your local property or income taxes raised to cover the shortfall. And that will hit everyone's bank account.

I used to be in support of vouchers, but I don't see how it can work, unless the amounts given out are far, far less than what it costs to educate one student.

I'd be willing to start with the Base State Aid per Pupil.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

regarding @jdshock: and @WuDrWu:'s convo

Doc is a huge believer that it is all his money, not the governments. That's a perfectly reasonable belief system that I largely share. However, I think the problem is when people get so wrapped up in philosophy that they become nearly impossible to speak with. JD is correct that a tax cut for the 1% benefits the 1%. This shouldn't be controversial as a statement of truth, but somehow Doc is so stuck on philosophical stuff like "a thief leaving a couple bucks in your wallet isn't a benefit" that he can't just find common ground on a basic statement.

It doesn't matter whether you want lower taxes or higher taxes. Whether you believe government has a right to some of your money (JD) or no right at all (Doc). We have a system in place. Every time we tweak the system, some groups "benefit" from that change more than others. We can all disagree whether it is a good thing, but the simple statement "group X will benefit from policy change Y" should not cause so much strife.

We get nowhere in political discussions because we can't even agree to agree on the really simple, straightforward stuff like this. It's like we are stuck arguing if we are going to debate in Spanish or Chinese. The debate never really even gets off the ground.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The proper response is "yes, the 1% will benefit, and that is a good thing, and here is why".

not

"ITS NOT A BENEFIT ITS THEIR RIGHT WHY CAN'T YOU USE THE RIGHT WORDS LIBERALS ARE DUMB WHILE CONSERVATIVES ARE BUSY WORKING AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!1!"