State Of The Union Address

[Dan Filetti]

Tim,

I sense you and I are closer in thought than either of us are to the polar extremes.  Anyway, I appreciate the critical thinking.  As I have said, this is fun for me.  

So I started this response yesterday, but did not finish, so I will now.

"YOU CAN TRUST PEOPLE NOT TO REACH FOR A BETTER PLACE IN LIFE"- don't you agree that most people want a better place in life?

Again, 'can't trust people' rubs me the wrong way..  However, sure! We agree.  Hell, I want a better place in life.  I want my own jet, I want a heirum, and several hundred million dollars in the bank, but the reality is that I will likely never have any of these.  Nice goals, but unattainable.  Like home ownership was for some, that is until the dems (in classic redistribution of wealth mentality) tried to 'fix' that problem.  Despite what the dems will have you believe, "What I want" does-not-equal "what I get".   Your insistence that somehow it's the banks' fault that they risked loaning $$ to poor people is maddening, seriously.  

Now, to be fair, I am for balance here.  I think/ thought that banks that took the same risk that people did, should not have been bailed out -that is every bit as maddening. They should have been/ needed to be, allowed to fail, too big to fail? -Bah!

The whole thing pisses me off, NO ONE complained when the money was plentiful, all you had to do was sign on the dotted line...  Now people, who should have READ what they signed, or at least understood the implications and taken pause, are all pissed off because some 'predator bank' 'forced them' into bad loans -it just so ridiculous!!  

To your point, were there idiots that were taken advantage of?  Short answer: yes.  Surely, these were the same idiots that would have otherwise have bought snake oils from shysters elsewhere.  Whereas I lament their story, you would seemingly bring the power of the US federal government in to try and save these idiots from themselves.  

The truth is, there is just no saving people from themselves.  Most of us have seen the drug addict/ alcoholic spiral down to oblivion, you can try to help them, but if they do not want help, there is nothing anyone can do.  People that take on too much debt are similar.  The KNEW it was risky/ bad for them, but they gave into their impulsivity time and time again.  No way they would have listened to anyone telling them to reign it in, I know this from personal experience. Worse in fact, they would have been the very first ones to bitch when the 'free money' spigot was turned off by the feds.

I'll argue your point: the banks were like drug dealers, 'pushing' easy-money to all comers -even (and especially the 'adicts').  The difference here is that the banks put up the $$ in the first place, they took risk, they were not guaranteed their investment would pay off. Then Bush and Obama stepped in to try to subsidize the banks -to keep them loaning (crazy, plan that that was).  Had the banks been allowed to fail there would have been balance -yes we would have had liquidity issues, but guess what, we had them anyway.        

So wait, then the flip side is if you are zoning in on we cant trust an individual where do you stand with the banks?  Do you trust the banks?    HA!

As above, the banks should simply have been allowed to fail, they took too much risk they should have been allowed to fail. Many of them did by the way, and many bankers did indeed lose their jobs and livelihood etc.  The big ones being bailed out was, as I've said several times now, maddeningly wrong headed.

Everyone knows that people can be weak and are fail-able. That does not mean we should allow the banks to fraudulently market loans to people they knew would not qualify....  WTF?

I do not know this, nor would I want to try and legislate for the fact that people can be impulsive idiots.  You just can't fix (or legislate for) stupid.  I know you and the dems are well meaning, but again, some people just can't be saved from themselves, and will perhaps, learn the hard way or not at all and suffer.  

Plus, the housing bubble was still expanding and the banks preyed on that most vulnerable part of the American psyche.... GREED.  

This line of thinking is irrational.  Extrapolating, this leads to criticizing advertisers for "preying upon" consumers by using sexy images and innuendo etc. Sex sells precisely because it's also 'a vulnerable part of the American [human] psyche'.   Further, the 'predator food industry', foisting all of this fattening food on the American people because, let's face it, hunger is an even more elemental 'vulnerable part of the American [human] psyche'.  I hope you see my point.  People need to eat, reproduce, consume resources, have shelter.  Unless you intend to dispel with capitalism entirely, there will always be people that will try to sell you these things in quantities you cannot afford: always. It is ONLY the individual that can regulate this.  

"Just go ahead and buy the house, if the payment becomes a problem next year you can sell it and make up to $250k tax free since its your primary residence,,,"  "sign here".  

We agree on this.  If this, and statements like this were ever actually used -where a buyer was effectively 'guaranteed' their real-estate would appreciate, then this was indeed miss-leading and fraudulent.  I suspect you will have trouble tracking down specific evidence to that effect - Rather, I think that if you look into it, you will see that 99.99% of the mortgage documents include a statement that says essentially 'your real-estate may depreciate -you will still owe us this $$ we're lending you'.   Again, caveat emptor -READ WHAT YOU SIGN...  

They did not give a rats ass that the person that just got them a fat commission check just put themselves in a very vulnerable position....  man that is a crime.

On this, we disagree, It's not a crime to not care about the person you are loaning $$ to, nor is it a crime to get a big fat commission check from that sale.  Again, per my previous post, Carter and Clinton had legislated, and urged banks and Freddie and Fanny to do exactly this: make more loans to lower income folks.  Further they vigorously fought cases against banks that 'discriminated against minorities' by NOT making loans to them -maddening.  All of this created an environment where, and it's easy to see in retrospect, the banks and Fannie and Freddy should not have taken on so much risk.  

I seriously doubt I will convince you otherwise, but less government intrusion would, in my mind ultimately make for a better society.  People would be forced, by the reality of the situation, to make do with what they have.  If that's not a lot, then it would be all the more motivation to work harder, to MAKE (as opposed to be GIVEN) a better life for themselves.  As nice as it would be to have it, better life is just not gaurenteed. This is a philosophical difference between you and me.  But ask yourself, what are the things in your life you are most proud of?  Then ask yourself; of those things, how many of them did you work hard to achieve vs. how many of them were simply handed to you?  See where I'm going?

Before I'm acused of being heartless, I will say that I do believe there must be safety nets, for the truly indigent. The debate really comes down to dissagreement as to how high, and how much ground those nets are to cover.

Ok the first two signals you gave that you were signing off I bought....  last comment? My guess is no...

Guilty as charged.  This is entertaining.  I appreciate a good political debate.

Cheers,

Dan

[Dan Filetti]

Arrghhh, I am cutting you loose as you clearly have absolutely no genuine understanding of macroeconomics and the tax base of our country.

I have no problem with being cut loose, feel free, we're all busy.  But you  make the above statement without any statement of fact.  We disagree that 15 trillion dollars of debt is a problem -amazingly, but to say I have no understanding is disingenuous, and intellectually weak.  

I'm guessing your point centers around debt as a percentage of GDP, which many like to use to defray the magnitude of the number.  But as I have said the number is the number, the debt is the debt. It is an absolute concrete thing. If shit went down, (AKA another terrorist attack etc.) and GDP plummeted as can and HAS happened, the debt would still be the debt.

Or perhaps you think tax revenues can be increased by taxing the 'bastard rich pricks with all the $$ anyway'.  You studied economics, tell me what a nominal tax rate is, go back and look at the research as to what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased.  Answer: it goes down.    

Perhaps it's just a lack of understand as to just how big a number a Trillion is.

I offer this, it really puts it into perspective for me:

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

We owe 15 of these to foreign countries [edit, not just foreign countries -bond holders everywhere].  I fail to see how that's not a problem.

Good day,

Ride well.

Dan  

[Pat Conlon]

"....I believe Barack will win...."

I agree with Frank. All this discussion of Mit vs. Newt vs whomever is moot. 

Barack was assured the reelection the precise moment the double tap struck Osama bin Laden.

[terryk]

Arrghhh, I am cutting you loose as you clearly have absolutely no genuine understanding of macroeconomics and the tax base of our country.

I have no problem with being cut loose, feel free, we're all busy.  But you  make the above statement without any statement of fact.  We disagree that 15 trillion dollars of debt is a problem -amazingly, but to say I have no understanding is disingenuous, and intellectually weak.  

I'm guessing your point centers around debt as a percentage of GDP, which many like to use to defray the magnitude of the number.  But as I have said the number is the number, the debt is the debt. It is an absolute concrete thing. If shit went down, (AKA another terrorist attack etc.) and GDP plummeted as can and HAS happened, the debt would still be the debt.

Or perhaps you think tax revenues can be increased by taxing the 'bastard rich pricks with all the $$ anyway'.  You studied economics, tell me what a nominal tax rate is, go back and look at the research as to what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased.  Answer: it goes down.    

Perhaps it's just a lack of understand as to just how big a number a Trillion is.

I offer this, it really puts it into perspective for me:

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

We owe 15 of these to foreign countries [edit, not just foreign countries -bond holders everywhere].  I fail to see how that's not a problem.

Good day,

Ride well.

Dan  

This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased

We live in a republic with a tradition in the most recent stage of our nation  of tax collected in income taxes, tarrif on imports and taxing corporate profits. We have reduced tarrif to a minor role, have taken realized corporate taxes to record lows as a percentage of revenue with corporate welfare at record highs and have reuced taxes on the wealthy to laughable levels compared to other democratic rates and our traditional progressive tax strategy and national values.

Hmmm, wonder what happens, taxes are shifted to the middle class and the deficit and borrowing expands.

You seem to think that the progressive tax system is not relevant somehow. That the relevant number is the dollar not the percentage of wealth given back to our great country. As if the rich should have a limit on their taxes, a celing on taxes paid. I think this situational thinking is a result of greed on a monumental level. And, you excuse this and that is wrong minded. You benefit you pay, you benefit more than average you pay more. Pay up rich friends, it is your role in the repulblic. Pay up corporations, you need to pay your fair share too.

The books can be balanced if we continue to reduce costs and tax to build revenue.

Nominal tax rates are not effected by reasonable marginal tax rates, say 35% - 45% on all income over $500,000. Close the loop holes, inplement morality into the system again, and power out. If the taxes are too high for your liking, move to a place where you like it better, har, har.

Or, flush the whole system startng with the middle class.

[Dan Filetti]

"....I believe Barack will win...."

I agree with Frank. All this discussion of Mit vs. Newt vs whomever is moot. 

Barack was assured the reelection the precise moment the double tap struck Osama bin Laden.

Reelection is a distinct possibility.  The incumbent is generally hard to beat, -the devil you know and all that.  Mitt is too stiff as well.  Although I'd like to See Newt (on his game) vs. Obama in a debate, it does not look like that's going to happen.

So, if it is Mitt Vs Obama, it will be difficult for Mitt.  Ultimately, it will depend on events between now and the election.  $5.00 gas prices -as predicted, would not do well for Obama, nor would continued economic woes -have you been watching Europe?  A lot can happen to make the devil you know, not quite as attractive.  To be clear, I do not hope for these things, but lots can and will happen between now and November.  It will be these events, or lack of them, that will in my mind, decide the election.   We will see.

Frank, I will take you up on that beer.  What the hell.

[Dan Filetti]

This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased

Let me come at this another way.  I believe we can agree that at a tax rate of 0%, total tax revenue would, of course, be $0. And I hope we can agree that at a tax rate of 100%, it would also be $0, since such a tax would kill all incentive for people to engage in the taxed activity.  That is unless you believe that people will work merely for the benefit of society.  Therefore, it is a clear deduction that tax revenues would not keep rising with increasing tax rates. At some point, increasing tax rates would reduce total tax revenue—and diminishing tax rates would increase it.

I believe the above logic illustrates that the idea that nominal rates will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, eventually drop as marginal rates continue to rise.  It is decidedly not a canard.  However, I will state that clearly, you think that point is higher, I think it's lower, neither of us can prove it. 

Dan


PS. For anyone that would like to read more about the so-called Laffer Curve, the idea I expressed above, I found the following inrteresting, if dry:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

[terryk]

This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased

Let me come at this another way.  I believe we can agree that at a tax rate of 0%, total tax revenue would, of course, be $0. And I hope we can agree that at a tax rate of 100%, it would also be $0, since such a tax would kill all incentive for people to engage in the taxed activity.  That is unless you believe that people will work merely for the benefit of society.  Therefore, it is a clear deduction that tax revenues would not keep rising with increasing tax rates. At some point, increasing tax rates would reduce total tax revenue—and diminishing tax rates would increase it.

I believe the above logic illustrates that the idea that nominal rates will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, eventually drop as marginal rates continue to rise.  It is decidedly not a canard.  However, I will state that clearly, you think that point is higher, I think it's lower, neither of us can prove it. 

Dan


PS. For anyone that would like to read more about the so-called Laffer Curve, the idea I expressed above, I found the following inrteresting, if dry:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.

The empirical evidence is that lowering tax rates on the wealthy results in investment, wealth creation for the wealthy and not much more. Lowering the rich mans taxes is acid for the economic cloth in total and a expansion of greedy self interest. We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay. Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reson or justification for this unjust situation at all.

[terryk]

This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased

Let me come at this another way.  I believe we can agree that at a tax rate of 0%, total tax revenue would, of course, be $0. And I hope we can agree that at a tax rate of 100%, it would also be $0, since such a tax would kill all incentive for people to engage in the taxed activity.  That is unless you believe that people will work merely for the benefit of society.  Therefore, it is a clear deduction that tax revenues would not keep rising with increasing tax rates. At some point, increasing tax rates would reduce total tax revenue—and diminishing tax rates would increase it.

I believe the above logic illustrates that the idea that nominal rates will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, eventually drop as marginal rates continue to rise.  It is decidedly not a canard.  However, I will state that clearly, you think that point is higher, I think it's lower, neither of us can prove it. 

Dan


PS. For anyone that would like to read more about the so-called Laffer Curve, the idea I expressed above, I found the following inrteresting, if dry:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.

The empirical evidence is that lowering tax rates on the wealthy results in investment, wealth creation for the wealthy and not much more. Lowering the rich mans taxes is acid for the economic cloth in total and a expansion of greedy self interest. We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay. Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reson or justification for this unjust situation at all.

ooops - all income ABOVE $500,0000 not just all  income.

[Dan Filetti]

Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.

Yikes, you are died-in-the-wool....  At this point we are wasting each others time. 

The Laffer curve is a canard?  I am shocked that you think people will actually work at 100% tax rate, or 99%, or 98% or 97% or even 70% or will work as hard for 50% etc. I sure as hell would not it is positively Orwellian. For those rates, I'd feel inclined to suckle up to the warm tit of the government.   

You said it yourself Terry:

Nominal tax rates are not effected by reasonable marginal tax rates, say 35% - 45% on all income over $500,000.

And again in this thread

We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay.

Why just "35% - 45%?"  Why did you not go for the jugular at that 90+%??  Because maybe, just maybe even you see it would be BAD FOR THE COUNTRY?   Or perhaps you know it will not work?

The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% for the rich is not too far off, the unfortunate thing is the wealthy will likely have to shoulder even more of the burden than they currently do.  What pisses me off is that I just see so very much class-envy-inspired glee in the liberals' demeanor when it gets talked about -yours included.   

Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reason or justification for this unjust situation at all.

Less?  LESS??!  Maybe you paid 3 million in tax last year, but I sure as hell did not.  This is only "less" in the warped mind of the liberal. 

The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.

The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.

It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more. 

[terryk]

Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.

Yikes, you are died-in-the-wool....  At this point we are wasting each others time. 

The Laffer curve is a canard?  I am shocked that you think people will actually work at 100% tax rate, or 99%, or 98% or 97% or even 70% or will work as hard for 50% etc. I sure as hell would not it is positively Orwellian. For those rates, I'd feel inclined to suckle up to the warm tit of the government.   

You said it yourself Terry:

Nominal tax rates are not effected by reasonable marginal tax rates, say 35% - 45% on all income over $500,000.

And again in this thread

We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay.

Why just "35% - 45%?"  Why did you not go for the jugular at that 90+%??  Because maybe, just maybe even you see it would be BAD FOR THE COUNTRY?   Or perhaps you know it will not work?

The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% for the rich is not too far off, the unfortunate thing is the wealthy will likely have to shoulder even more of the burden than they currently do.  What pisses me off is that I just see so very much class-envy-inspired glee in the liberals' demeanor when it gets talked about -yours included.   

Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reason or justification for this unjust situation at all.

Less?  LESS??!  Maybe you paid 3 million in tax last year, but I sure as hell did not.  This is only "less" in the warped mind of the liberal. 

The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.

The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.

It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more. 

The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% on everything over $500,00 for the rich is not too far off. - Good we are getting somehwere. So you now agree that Mitt should pay 35%-45% on a good portion of his income not 13.9%.

No one is arguing here for more than that. The nation has a progressive tax system which is the reason the top 10% pay so much more than the bottom 90%. It is just the way things work, those who benefit the most pay the most. The only thing needing adjustment is their paying a reasonable amount of their income as had been the tradition and the law of the land before we all were raped. Now, how about we fix that and stop putting up canards and protests about the rich paying too much today, give me a break. BTW - I personally apy a large amount in taxes every year, glad to do so as I earn a fair bit. I am disappointed by the greed of those who only care about paying less and screw the country. This is not a conservative versus liberal thing. It is about a few super greedy thinking they are better than the rest of us and rigging the system. 13.9% my foot, what a crook.

[rktmanfj]

The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% on everything over $500,00 for the rich is not too far off. - Good we are getting somehwere. So you now agree that Mitt should pay 35%-45% on a good portion of his income not 13.9%.

If it were wages he was earning, you'd be close.., but it's not, it's capital gains, and he's paying the same rate any of the rest of us would be paying, fair and square.

[Dan Filetti]

The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% on everything over $500,00 for the rich is not too far off. - Good we are getting somehwere. So you now agree that Mitt should pay 35%-45% on a good portion of his income not 13.9%.

If it were wages he was earning, you'd be close.., but it's not, it's capital gains, and he's paying the same rate any of the rest of us would be paying, fair and square.

You beat me to it...

[axiom-r]

Your insistence that somehow it's the banks' fault that they risked loaning $$ to poor people is maddening, seriously.  

The whole thing pisses me off, NO ONE complained when the money was plentiful, all you had to do was sign on the dotted line...  Now people, who should have READ what they signed, or at least understood the implications and taken pause, are all pissed off because some 'predator bank' 'forced them' into bad loans -it just so ridiculous!!   

I'll argue your point: the banks were like drug dealers, 'pushing' easy-money to all comers -even (and especially the 'adicts').  The difference here is that the banks put up the $$ in the first place, they took risk, they were not guaranteed their investment would pay off. Then Bush and Obama stepped in to try to subsidize the banks -to keep them loaning (crazy, plan that that was).  Had the banks been allowed to fail there would have been balance -yes we would have had liquidity issues, but guess what, we had them anyway.

On this, we disagree, It's not a crime to not care about the person you are loaning $$ to, nor is it a crime to get a big fat commission check from that sale.

I seriously doubt I will convince you otherwise, but less government intrusion would, in my mind ultimately make for a better society.  People would be forced, by the reality of the situation, to make do with what they have.  If that's not a lot, then it would be all the more motivation to work harder, to MAKE (as opposed to be GIVEN) a better life for themselves.  As nice as it would be to have it, better life is just not gaurenteed. This is a philosophical difference between you and me.  But ask yourself, what are the things in your life you are most proud of?  Then ask yourself; of those things, how many of them did you work hard to achieve vs. how many of them were simply handed to you?  See where I'm going?

Dan - good stuff.  I feel the need to repeat that I am registered Independent.  Depending on the issue at hand, I could be called a "liberal" or a "conservative".  I was raised in a family that understands the value of an earned dollar.  I have a house and I worked hard to buy it without support from the government or family.  So the idea that we are apart in regards to the idea that "there is no guarantee in life" and that "you have to work to succeed" is not correct.  We agree on those things.  I am not for an entitlement society but as I stated a few posts ago, the pendulum has swung so hard and so far to one side that it needs to come back the other way to level some things out.  I want my mom on Medicare and I don't ever want to see privatization in entitlement programs. Some rich bastard will end up cheating her out of her benefits etc etc...

I get pissed though when I see power abused and that is what happened with this sub-prime mortgage crises.  They rich and powerful stacked the deck so they could take advantage.  I don't think you are recognizing the mechanism the banks used here.

It is not that they made loans without caring or created loan vehicles that were by their nature unfair to the debtor - they did do those things and they are bastards for it, but that is not illegal.  What makes them so red-handed guilty is that they took on the risks as you described, with very low standards for "qualifying" and then packaged these shitty, high-risk loans into MBS's (mortgage backed securities) which was only possible because regulations and oversight were removed by the gov.  Then - get this - they managed to label these securities as "AAA" through the credit ratings companies and they sold them for profit to others as "AAA investments" knowing they were much higher risk. They sold them to everyone: other countries, other investors, other banks, other private companies 401k funds etc etc etc.... people worldwide believed that American Mortgages were a good bet- and the banks perpetuated this belief while selling them a crap sandwich wrapped in a AAA marked package. They knew that the people attached to the MBS they sold at both ends (the home owner in over his head on one end and for example a pension fund for city employees on the other) were screwed.  IT WAS FRAUD.  What is crazy is that every time they sold an MBS they made money, so even the banks that knew what they were buying (a hot potato that they needed to repackage and sold ASAP) continued to buy and sell - the game was a secret and they were all cashing in on it.  They needed to keep filling the pipeline with new loans so the qualifying got easier and easier....  These are crimes Dan.

Not only should more of the banks been allowed to fail but they need to be prosecuted for what they did.   I do believe we will see that come to pass someday.

Your points about people taking on more than they can handle and how stupid that is are valid - but they were led down the primrose path (perhaps no laws were broken here but that should change) for sure it is a totally unscrupulous thing to do....

So in the end there are a few folks that worked the system and should not receive governmental assistance to keep their home - yes.  But the vast majority were taken advantage of all the way around.  The housing bubble was an artificial rising on the game the banks were playing - they created the bubble.  Most of the people should not end up screwed over because of that - that's why I think a judge should be able to look at an individual's situation and force a write down of the debt if they deem it to be warranted.

What a thread!  

tim

[Dan Filetti]

No one is arguing here for more than that. The nation has a progressive tax system which is the reason the top 10% pay so much more than the bottom 90%. It is just the way things work, those who benefit the most pay the most.

You did not answer the question Terry.  Why not 90% or 99% tax rate?  If you're all for this punish the rich nonsense, then why not?  Extrapolate out the the already heavily skewed progressive tax and this is what you get: a 99% tax rate for the so-called super rich. Especially if the Laffer curve is as nonsensical as you seem to think.  

Why are you not evangelizing the progressive tax out to it's natural 'fair' conclusion?  If the Laffer curve is such non-sense then there will be no loss in revenue -it's all upside for the good old US of A.

WHY NOT?

Due tell.

Dan

[terryk]

No one is arguing here for more than that. The nation has a progressive tax system which is the reason the top 10% pay so much more than the bottom 90%. It is just the way things work, those who benefit the most pay the most.

You did not answer the question Terry.  Why not 90% or 99% tax rate?  If you're all for this punish the rich nonsense, then why not?  Extrapolate out the the already heavily skewed progressive tax and this is what you get: a 99% tax rate for the so-called super rich. Especially if the Laffer curve is as nonsensical as you seem to think.  

Why are you not evangelizing the progressive tax out to it's natural 'fair' conclusion?  If the Laffer curve is such non-sense then there will be no loss in revenue -it's all upside for the good old US of A.

WHY NOT?

Due tell.

Dan

Because 90-99% is an idiotic idea and clearly an extreme position to try to prove a point on extreme liberalism that is a false choice really. It is not 0% or 99%.

It should be 35%-45% on anything over $500,000 in income, any income, simple.

I am not about punishing the rich just fairness in our system.

The Laffer curve is no longer a relevant theory.