Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[sardis]

Not only did we lose great soldiers, but also great citizens...

<http://www.wjla.com/pictures/2011/08/ph ... 7-451.html>

[Toemeesleather]

Drew Westen in the NYT...welcome to reality, belated as you are.

The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

[AlabamAlum]

VATs aren't regressive if you exempt food and clothes. Poor people shouldnt be buying anything else.

Also, do not tax scotch (it's a vital staple) and La Flor Dominicana DL700 cigars (also, a vital staple).

[Owlman]

VATs aren't regressive if you exempt food and clothes. Poor people shouldnt be buying anything else.


fans, air conditioners, cars, detergent (you do want them to wash their clothes I hope?)

[AlabamAlum]

No to electric fans and air conditioners. Even rich people didn't have those a century or so ago.

No to cars. They can walk or take the bus. Walking is good for your health and riding the bus is good for the environment.

No to detergent. They can beat their clothes on a rock or something.

[Owlman]

LOL. Then no need for soap. Let them use lye. block of ice instead of refrigerators.

[Owlman]

By the way, the electric fan was invented in the late 1800's.

[Owlman]

And I just looked it up. Carrier invented the air conditioner more than a century ago.

[aTm]

Invention does not equal widespread adoption, particularly among the lower classes.

[Owlman]

But that's the opposite of his point, which was that the rich didn't have fans or air conditioners a century ago, which isn't necessarily a true statement.

[Professor Tiger]

Income is just an imaginary fucking accounting trick. Income doesnt mean anything, saying "nobody said dey shud tax wealth!" is just stupid, because the alternative was that someone did say they should tax income and there was a reason behind it. The "reason" of course being that it was too hard to do it right and tax wealth, but much easier to just shortcut onto "income" which also had the advantage that you could define it anyway you wanted.

All income is just a derivative of wealth and wealth creation. The entire purpose of government as stated by the founding fathers were to protect life, liberty, and property.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Every citizen has one life, and the government is charged to provide defense, keep the peace, enforce justice to preserve it. Every person has their own liberty and freedom that the government is charged to ensure. Then there's property. The government is tasked with the defense, preservation, protection of the property of the US and all its citizens. Now heres the issue, this the first item where not all men are equal. The US has a lot more to do to protect John Hancock, rich asshole, than John the wharf rat running around the docks at Boston Harbor. The rich should pay in proportion to the property that they own. Using "income" is just a cheap shortcut to simulate the ideal scenario, "income" or "earnings" weren;t used because "thats what's right!" or anything idiotic like that.

Here's another problem with the "wealth tax" idea - you would quickly force nearly every family farm into bankruptcy. A relatively small family farm may appear to be worth a lot of money in land and equipment. But the family living on that farm may only clear $25-35K a year. They would never be able to afford a wealth tax.

Why do you hate small, struggling farmers, aTm?

[aTm]

Its a moot point arguing this, because a direct tax is unconstitutional, but in general each class of property is valued based on its characteristics, and agricultural land is usually assessed (where property taxes exist on the state or local level) based on its capacity to produce. Basically the value of the land is based on the capitalized income of that the land would produce, so in your example, farmer has land that produces a yearly income of $25k divided by a cap rate of 10% tells us that the land is worth $250k, and you can adjust for the effects of taxes by either adjusting the capitalization rate or its effect on the income (meaning if the tax rate is higher, the value of the farm would be worth less because it cant produce as much income). Its basically the same as assessing the value of a hotel or an apartment complex. Those types of properties are worth what they can produce in income capitalized to present value. Its not that hard to take agricultural land into account, and in Texas for example, Agricultural land is typically assessed far below what similar land not engaged in agriculture would be assessed at because of its special valuation.

[aTm]

Part of the reason I think property taxes are better in general, is that income taxes fail to take some pretty extreme differences between investment income and wages into account. For a farmer, for example, their income is basically a profit calculation, whereas for a workin' man, its a revenue calculation. A man who works a 40 hour job and gets paid a wage essentially gets taxes on every dime of his revenue while the farmer doesnt get taxed on their revenue friom selling their crops, instead they get to take out expenses, depreciation, etc etc. Its just a weird system. Technically a guy who works a wage job, barely makes ends meet to survive, and doesnt own his house, has a net worth of $0. He doesnt really have any income, he has to expense everything to survive. But he gets taxed the income tax just the same. It just seems inconsistent to me. I would prefer an excise tax or a VAT (with certain stipulations to ease the regressiveness as regards necessities of life) as a much truer method of taxation.

[AlabamAlum]

Spacer,

I said a "century or so" - which denotes a range of time, not exactly 100 years. I phrased it that way on purpose because I did not want to look up the exact invention date of the electric fan or the air conditioner and to take the steam out of the pedants who might counter with, "But the electric fan was invented X years ago!"

[Big Orange Junky]

Well played AA

[aTm]

Everything invented more than 75 years ago will be considered a necessity. No VAT on yachts, cars, or rifles...

[Hacksaw]

Spacer,

I said a "century or so" - which denotes a range of time, not exactly 100 years. I phrased it that way on purpose because I did not want to look up the exact invention date of the electric fan or the air conditioner and to take the steam out of the pedants who might counter with, "But the electric fan was invented X years ago!"

That was good. Permission to laugh, sir?

[AlabamAlum]

Sure, it was funny. No need to explain that.

One thing is certain: you squeal like a scalded dog when whipped.

[Owlman]

Spacer,

I said a "century or so" - which denotes a range of time, not exactly 100 years. I phrased it that way on purpose because I did not want to look up the exact invention date of the electric fan or the air conditioner and to take the steam out of the pedants who might counter with, "But the electric fan was invented X years ago!"

Ah, but the point was that 100 years or so, the rich didn't have this. The fact is they might have as it was available to them but it was not available to the poor. No phones, communication, roads, and no buses. As I see your standard, if it's good enough for the Amish, it's good enough for the poor.

[AlabamAlum]

No, they would not have had it, spacer. The "or so" extended the timeframe back before it was available to them.