1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

CNN:Clark outlines his economic plan

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rockbox, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. Maynard

    Maynard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    0

    http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/read...4A603AA3CCDEF53C85256810006E4969?OpenDocument


    "Historically, policymakers have attempted to justify progressive taxation in terms of three theories of equity:

    Equity in terms of benefit

    Equity in terms of sacrifice

    Equity in terms of distribution"

    ...
    "Equity in terms of benefit" is predicated upon a normative conception of citizen and state. This conception is based on the belief that each citizen should bear the tax burden according to the degree of benefits that he or she derives from the state. These benefits increase with income and property. Thus, the rich derive a greater degree of benefits than the less rich. Because of this result, as well as the duty to pay taxes according to degree of benefits received, the rich should pay more in taxes. /5/

    One of the first proponents of the "benefit theory" was the contract theorist Thomas Hobbes"

    ....

    "Equity in terms of sacrifice" is individualistic in orientation. It focuses on the degree to which individual needs, wants, and preferences should be sacrificed to shoulder the tax burden. These needs, wants, and preferences are satisfied through the medium of money. Thus, money supplies the essential link between subjective desire and its objective fulfillment.

    Just as the provision of money results in satisfaction -- or at least the potential for satisfaction -- depriving an individual of money results in sacrifice. Taxation deprives an individual of money. Therefore, taxation results in sacrifice. Within this scheme of subjective yearning, the duty of the state becomes to bring about an objective order of justice. This is achieved by allocating the tax burden in such a way as to foster the greatest good for the greatest number, or the least sacrifice for all citizens. "Equity in terms of sacrifice" thus connotes "justice" in a holistic sense. The allocation of the tax burden is deemed "just" when it results in the least sacrifice for society as a whole.

    "Equity in terms of sacrifice" is associated with the utilitarian philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Mill derived the notion of equity from the political principle of "equality."

    ...

    To get from least sacrifice to progressive taxation, one must introduce the concept of the "diminishing utility of money."

    ...

    Tax theorists have expressed "relative sacrifice" in different ways. The Dutch economist Cohen-Stuart expressed it in terms of "proportional sacrifice." According to Cohen-Stuart, equity is achieved when the proportion of sacrifice to total income utility is the same for all individuals.

    ...

    Carried to a logical extreme, the "progressive" utilitarian's prescription for allocating the tax burden becomes this: tax all individuals to the extent that their proportional sacrifices are "equalized." Tax to the extent that the marginal utility of the last dollar appropriated from every individual is the same

    ...
     
  2. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,860
    Likes Received:
    41,374
    Yes, because of autonomous consumption and the fact that sales/consumption taxes, etc fall more heavily on the lower classes to effectively raise their tax burden. The debate over taxes should not be confined to income taxe.

    Equally important, the rich have benefitted the most from having an orderly society, which is the government's primary role, in any event. They played the game well, have gotten rich, and should pay to have the rules of the game remain in place. You want to see a pure laissez faire environment with no gov't interference? Move to Baghdad.

    You anti tax crusaders focus on small scale expenditures like welfare; well what about roads, police, defense, traffic lights, and various other items that we can't live without? Who pays for that? No, you guys just pick one item, invent a myth about "welfare queens" like Reagan did, and do battle with a fictional enemy. Please.
     
  3. F.D. Khan

    F.D. Khan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    11
    I'm sorry but I look at things in a very simple nature.


    Individual works and provides a service or labor and is compensated for it. That compensation is used to pay for his food, living and savings. A portion is taken out to pay for roads, govt, defense of the nation and other limited government activities.

    Very direct and very basic. If the individual loses a job and he must either search for another job if he is frictionally unemployed or change professions and learn a new skill if he is structurally unemployed. If he gets sick, he goes and pays for it. If he needs food he goes and pays for it. He saves part of his income for when he retires.

    Of course, in this ever-socialist society everyone expects free healthcare from the government and medicare and medicaid if they're poor or elderly. They expect social security when they get old and they expect welfare if they lose their job.

    Why should someone get a free ride, when others have to work to support them? That is complete and udder bullsh*t.
     
  4. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    Exactly..... Give someone an inch and you make them a ruler. We have evolved to the point where the top one percent pay most of the income taxes. Why is it that a majority can make a claim on the property of others just because they, for whatever reason, and then can it fair? Folks, life ain't fair. And as for the specious "roads and infrastructure argument," we could spend more on needed roads if we didn't have these little enviro-nuts suing every damned time someone wants to build another road. As a result, the amount of road construction shrunk drastically over the past ten years while the number of road miles traveled have expanded.
     
  5. GreenVegan76

    GreenVegan76 Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,336
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, basically, "Your parents were poor. I got mine. Screw you."

    Lemme know if I missed any nuance.
     
  6. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Khan,

    I will challenge you to respond to the Krugman numbers which showed that the tax bill (as a percentage of income) for the wealthy has been reduced dramatically over the past 50 years while the tax bill for the middle and lower classes has stayed flat.

    If we were to go to an absolutely flat tax with no deductions, exceptions, or write offs, it would be a different situation, but with the tax code as it is, the wealthy get away with paying a very small percentage of their actual income in taxes. Warren Buffett wrote an editorial a while back in which he stated flat out that his total tax bill was around 4% because he was able to take advantage of the loopholes. Corporations get away with even more by incorporating overseas.

    Personally, I would do away with the entire Bush tax cut in order to get our fiscal house in order and to provide the services that Clark mentioned. I believe that tax credits for businesses that create jobs are a much better tax cut than the one we have now. I also think that the money SHOULD be going to Homeland Security rather than the coffers of the wealthy as well as the states that are cutting things like education and CHIP because of the budget crunch.
     
  7. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    In a simplistic fashion, yes.

    We saw how well that worked before the income tax came in. The elderly were chronically impoverished and homeless and the poor and middle classes couldn't get even basic health care.

    They expect to get what they paid into social security and medicare over the course of their lives. You can rail all you want against these things, but we decided after the Great Depression that we didn't want streets filled with sick, homeless, elderly folks and now you seem to want to go back to the "good old days" before the income tax.

    Those few who are terribly disabled (mentally or physically) are the only ones who get anywhere near a "free ride." What would you do, kick all of the disabled to the curb and tell them to fend for themselves?
     
  8. Maynard

    Maynard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    0
    very well said

    I just dont understand how people have become so selfish

    there is no sense of community anymore

    everyman for himself attitude like Khan and bigtexxx have is sickening to me

    they are the ones that are supposed to be the Christians here, with their 'Jesus Loves' bumberstickers

    but me, the atheist is the one standing up for morals and a sense common good..



    :(
     
  9. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    There are times when I almost hope that Karma's reading this BBS.
     
  10. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    101,066
    Likes Received:
    103,499
    So true, it really makes me sad to see. Social responsibility and fiscal solvency (which we're moving away from at mach speed, under...ahem...gop controlled executive & legislative branches) are NOT mutually exclusive.

    RM95...amen, it's funny how things can come full circle.
     
  11. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Actually, if you had looked at the Krugman article, you would have seen that this was even more pronounced when the income tax was initially implemented.

    Our society gave those people the opportunity to become wealthy and those people are obligated to pay their fair share to see that those opportunities are available for other people to take advantage of.

    Talk about a specious argument. We would have a lot fewer lawsuits if the people building the roads made an actual effort to reduce the impact on the environment and paid fair prices for the land they confiscate for the roads. See, I can give a meaningless rebuttal, too.

    Road construction has shrunk at nearly the same rate that the tax rate for the taxpayers in the highest bracket have gone down.

    I truly am sorry that y'all can't seem to get your minds out of the anti-tax garbage spewed by the Republicans, but Clark's proposal gives money for Homeland Security, the states, and for tax credits based on jobs created. Instead of coming up with meaningful debate on whether those things should be funded, you just spout forth all this crap about how overtaxed the rich are.

    Hogwash.
     
  12. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,231
    It looks excellent to me. I really like the fact that a great deal of it is helping the states. This plan would help Texas a lot, and Texas needs all the help it can get.

    Don't have time now to praise other parts of it, but I really like the direction of it and what I read from the CNN interview.

    Thanks for the post, rockbox.
     
  13. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    First of all, the only one I responded to when called Andrew was my grandmother and unless you have a crystal ball or have taken up channelling, I will ignore you if you call me Andrew.

    And how many times does it have to be repeated that the rich have seen their taxes (as a %age of income) reduced dramatically over the past 50 years while everyone else has had no tax reduction at all?

    I am glad that you finally admit that you think only the rich can have tax reduction, though.
     
  14. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    I'm sure that idea is taking it too far, but honestly do you think its fair to have to pay a higer percentage based on making more money??


    Of course, when you add in income taxes in the form of SS, the rich don't actually pay higher rates than the middle class.

    Details, details.
     
  15. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,860
    Likes Received:
    41,374
    Federal taxes, I was just reading up, are slightly higher for the rich even if you factor in payroll taxes, but not nearly as inequitable as certain demagogues would have you believe.
    They usually skew the debate to only encompass income taxes in order to make their cause look stronger.

    But that difference between share of income and share of tax burden on the federal level is usually made up for by state taxes, which are generally regressive in nature. ( e.g. California,)
     
  16. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    Our society gave me all the opportunities so we OWE it? What a bunch of collectivist balderdash. I don't owe society a damned penny for my success. Did society pass my tests....NO! Did society interview for me at jobs..NO! Did society make sure my kids have enough to eat....NO! You through the police powers of govt have no claim on my property to fund services that you consider "rights" like health care and the like. And Andy, do you realize that the individualist spirit was one of the founding virtues of our country? It wasn't about the state, but about the individual and his ability to achieve, grow and enjoy the fruits of his labor.I guess you and your idelogical bed buddies Adolf Hitler, Nikita Krushev, Stalin and Lenin all agree about eliminating the individual spirit.

    What's the point of ambition if we owe everything to society, thus in your eyes achieving NOTHING on our own? Every human being has different talents and abilities, born in different circumstances, etc. There is no way to make things perfectly equitable, it is a fool's errand. So in your eyes no one is responsible for success except for their circumstances. In my eyes, it is one big damned excuse.

    If the enviro-whackoes had their way, there would be no roads and we'd walk everywhere we went....Maybe not, because all those people walking would be a threat to the grass or the rare purple people eater that if it was extinct, the whole ecosystem would fall like a house of cards. There is always some excuse to restrict and r****d development, some convenient way to hold back economic development by supposedly saving our pristine environment. No one is for senseless, purposeful destruction of our environment, but to the whackoes, there is no middle road treading between being good stewards of the environment and commercial success.

    So Andy, if you don't feel you're paying your fair share, write a big fat check back to Washington and Austin marked "my fair share."
    But don't you dare tell me and other Americans that we are not paying our fair share, because who the heck are you to determine that!
     
  17. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Federal taxes, I was just reading up, are slightly higher for the rich even if you factor in payroll taxes, but not nearly as inequitable as certain demagogues would have you believe.


    The middle class federal tax rate is 27%. In addition to that, there's a 12.4% Social Security tax (half "paid" by the employer but actually filtered down to the employee), totalling 39.4%.

    The uppermost tax bracket is 38.6% plus a 0% SS tax, meaning that the middle class rate ($27k-$67k) is actually the highest income bracket for federal taxes.

    (for 2002 rates)
     
  18. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,860
    Likes Received:
    41,374
    I meant share of the overall tax burden relative to share of overall income, I should have been more specific.

    I got my info from here:
    http://www.cbpp.org/9-23-03tax.htm
     
  19. Maynard

    Maynard Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    0

    you are using extreme examples of Hilter (RIGHT-wing extreme) or Stalin (LEFT-wing extreme) and comparing it to America and what American liberals see as the right course for America and Americans and there are no comparrisons, all totally different and seperate societies and idiological views

    and that is wack-o cuz no one here is advocating such extreme positions nor elimiating individual spirit, I have no clue where you got that from

    my point being that in our modern society, as humans with compassion and empathy, we owe it to our poor, ill and elderly to help them out...I agree with you that there should be a limit to the help and its scope..but to be so selfish as you appear to be is just plain MORALLY wrong


    from you posts, I am not sure if you realize this or not, but there are a lot of poor people out there that work 10x harder than you do and can't get out of the poverty. It isnt about being lazy or wanting to sit on their arse and collect hand outs..BAD things happen to good people..and good people are poor and work their tail off just to stand still, forget bout moving forward..

    I see nothing wrong with the federal govt providing social servies that benefit society as a whole

    you see those benefits as just money out of your pocket and into someone else's..

    but those services reduce crime, reduce poverty, reduce hungar, and thus improve EVERYONE's quality of life

    social programs arent just for the poor, they are for you too bs..
     
  20. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Yes, absolutely.

    How far would you have gotten from where you began if you had grown up in Columbia, Peru, Syria, or Yemen? If you come from money and privilege, then that explains a lot about your opinions and in that case your answer would be yes. If you came from parents in the middle or lower classes then you DO owe your society a good percentage of your success.

    Did society put public schools and universities in place to make sure that you had the chance at an education? YES!

    Did society give you an economy that has a relative abundance of jobs? YES!

    Did society inspect, label, and certify that the food your children eat is safe? YES!

    I have not argued for universal health care, you must be pulling that out of your a$$ to try to have a leg to stand on.

    Yes, and after the Great Depression, Americans decided that we didn't want to have a huge class of people who were elderly, impoverished, and infirm. If you want to take back the progress we have made and kick the elderly out in the street again, why don't you just say so?

    I guess you can't talk about this without resorting to hyperbole and attacks. If you are comparing MY ideas with those of these guys, then you have an incredibly skewed perception.

    I never said we owe EVERYTHING to society, but you seem to think we owe NOTHING at all.

    I would never claim that it is our duty to see that everything is "perfectly equitable." Of course you are responsible for your success, but our society has a large part in that success, too. I know that communism (the system you describe and seem to be railing against) does not work in the real world for a variety of reasons. This does not take away from the fact that we should do what is fiscally responsible to make sure that all of the people in this country have opportunity and the ability to maintain a basic standard of living.

    I believe there is middle ground between the "whackos" and the polluters. It is our responsibility to make sure that the air we breathe and the water we drink is safe. If you disagree with that then you are as "whacko" as the environmentalists you despise.

    I am a voting, taxpaying member of our society and as such have just as much right as you do.

    After all of the tax loopholes, shelters, depreciations, deductions and write offs, the rich do NOT pay their fair share and the tax cuts that Bush has pushed through are reckless dividends to the wealthy people that put him in office. I am solidly in the middle class and got exactly $0. Tax cut for all Americans. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page