The spending and tax proposals of the Gang of 6

whynot_31 said:

I usually refer the people asking such age-old questions to philosophical concepts such as these:

That's what I thought. You're not interested in the ideas, you're interested in who can win the political game.

It's no wonder whenever I post all you see is "Democrat" "Democrat" "Democrat":

...now, let's return to the "Spending and Tax Proposals of the Gang of 6 in light of the Debt Ceiling".

Pro tip:

Spare me the ad hominem knocks, labels and simplifications and I will gladly discuss the issue at hand any time you want.

Cool The Kid said:

I get what you're saying, but from what I have been reading this is not thematic to the bulk of WN's posts... or even relevant really to much of the discussion on this page.

When you and he say things like, "you're a partisan Democrat", that is precisely what you guys are doing. He is preoccupied with identifying people who are too far left or right.

I am preoccupied with actual ideas.

You say the rich are not being taxed enough. I say "by what metric? here are some facts/reports that state otherwise". You say '???? this is just how I feel'

I'm not making this up... you regarding the estate tax:

Well, on the more simple side of things, the current rate is just too low. I guess that's just a personal preference.

But you didn't call me out on estate taxes. You took that ONE COMMENT and tried to apply to EVERYTHING I POST.

It was a really pathetic move and I suspect you're aware of it.

Estate tax rates are the same as income tax rates. I foolishly assumed you were speaking factually on your suggestions. Currently the estate tax is 35% over 5 million, and a pretty standard progressive curve on what they call "tentative tax" which I'm not sure is. In any case, your suggestions of a 15% tax rate above $50 million I think it was would be LOWER than what ACTUALLY IS.

I asked you to explain why you thought this:

No. Not beyond want they need. But I want taxes to go up exponentially when you start getting into the top 5% or 1% of wealth.

I also want extremely high taxes when this wealth is being transferred to another person.

And why you think the idea that the US problems being fixable without tax hikes is a "philosophical disagreement". Unless you think tax rates (for just one segment of the population) ARE the problem, to which I ask for the hundredth time, why?

Why do I think the rich aren't taxed enough? Have I really not addressed that question?

You need to stop confusing ideas you don't agree with and ideas that are invalid.

Look - you know more about specific tax rates than I do, no question about it.

Does that make my views invalid? NOPE

Do I educate myself when tax legislation changes, and what governing policies we choose?

YUP

And that, friends, is precisely an example of labeling the spectrum and deciding what is politically viable, not discussing actual opinion on taxes or cuts.

Thank you WN.

Boygabriel said:

Why do I think the rich aren't taxed enough? Have I really not addressed that question?

You need to stop confusing ideas you don't agree with and ideas that are invalid.

Look - you know more about specific tax rates than I do, no question about it.

Does that make my views invalid? NOPE

Do I educate myself when tax legislation changes, and what governing policies we choose?

YUP

You "felt" like estate taxes were too low, because you thought they were ~15%. Meanwhile in reality they are actually 35%, which is easy info to find.

You "feel" taxes on the rich are not enough, yet you admit that you know less about what actual tax rates are than other people in the discussion who suggest otherwise.

You don't see the fundamental problem in formulating viewpoints on things without actually knowing what the things are? You don't see how that could undermine your credibility in discussions about said things?

Cool The Kid said:

The bolded should not be the case if you "feel" that tax rates are not high enough.

You "felt" like estate taxes were too low, because you thought they were ~15%. Meanwhile in reality they are actually 35%, which is easy info to find.

You "feel" taxes on the rich are not enough, yet you admit that you know less about what actual tax rates are than other people in the discussion who suggest otherwise.

You don't see the fundamental problem in formulating viewpoints on things without actually knowing what the things are? You don't see how that could undermine your credibility in discussions about said things?

You're arguing that because I couldn't recall the specific number, I must clearly have not read anything on the subject.

Even more absurd is that you're STILL trying to take this point and somehow undermine my entire "credibility".

I'm not sure where my credibility even matters. I make arguments. Give my logic. Usually cite sources. You are free to agree or disagree. But once again, you are caught up with how I appear, not whether you agree or disagree.

If you can't see why it's not a constructive pattern to establish, let me know.

And now, back to debating actual topics...

CTK:

In the past decade, the estate tax has risen or fallen? What were the justifications?

Compared to the past 100 years, where do current income taxes on the rate? How about w/r/t the upper brackets?

What were the promises made for the Bush Tax cuts, and justify their continued existence.

Comment on the explosion of financial services wealth, and how it complicates fair taxation and commerce that actually contributes to society.

(these are all things we've discussed already - I gave you a list 20 items long about how one could value contributions to society besides income tax, I will make a separate post out of any one you choose.)

tateinbk said:

I see the Tea Party as being inherently dangerous to a number of issues, most specifically social issues. I think their fascination with items such as The Marriage Vow and DOMA has the power to hurt a lot of people. I also believe the intent to make family planning inaccessible to people below a certain poverty line and attacks on Planned Parenthoood and other title X recipients to be extremely offensive and worrying.

Whynot, they may have brought to light the debt issues the country is facing, but they also convinced a number of people it would be a fine idea to default. (Not the politians themselves I think, but they convinced an impressive number of constituents.) Their ability to convince large swaths of people to believe harmful ideas makes me think they will retain and gain more seats in the coming election. Regardless of how many cuts go through it will not be enough to satisfy the Tea Party. Their rhetoric will say that if there were more TP-ers in politics next time the rest of the Republicans wouldn't cave and they would get their way.

I also think of the large, looming presence of Evangelical Christians in this country. The very social issues that keep me up at night worrying are the same ones this group and the Tea Partiers both push.

You may want to use the Tea Party to bring awareness, but I am loath to give them any headway or respect.

They were also THE driving force behind opposing Obama's attempts to reform health care.

Socialism. Death panels. Keep the govt off my medicare. Etc.

Our inability to reform health care literally costs lives every year, not to even take into account how many people are bankrupted or have their lives ruined.

Their pathological hatred of the gov is standing in the way of health care progress.

I hope the two parties could resolve it quickly

whynot_31 said:

I'll be impressed if the parties can enact something that creates something that moves us toward balance, be it in the form of substantial spending cuts or substantial tax increases.

health care reform would be an awesome place to start.

so, how about NoBar on Nostrand? I hear they have beer.

works for me. haven't been yet & want to go.

Cool The Kid said:

No, see, you don't have specific numbers in mind when it comes to what things actually are (i.e. tax rates)

But you have very specific ideas of where we "need" to make taxes much more extreme (the top 5% bracket). You don't have any reasoning as to why beyond the "fact" that you feel the rich don't contribute enough. So to me it seems you just think some people are too rich and must forfeit what they make, regardless of how it's made. So what do you think would make for a good income cap? $100K a year? $200K? How much wealth should one be able to accumulate before it's too much? A million dollars? Thats a whole lotta money. Too much money for one person to keep to themselves.

Yeah, I'm not that interested in your condescension and mockery.

Thanks though.