Conservatives Trying to Ruin More American Jobs (aka Listen to Craig234 lecture)

[Tomorrow]

The lengths that the ideologues go to to ignore the facts are appalling.

Hey, we finally agree on something! (L o n g, heavily verbaged lengths.)

 

[Craig234]

rr2465

I've been reading this thread for a few days now - I love this forum - so many interesting topics and posts...

Good to hear.

I have a hard time blaming fiscal responsibility on democrats or republicans.

There's governmental fiscal responsibility and individual fiscal responsibility.

I think you're discussing the latter. I do hold the republicans responsible for governmental fiscal irresponsibility.

The issue of personal is complicated, with a variety of factors. I think the government has a limited impact on people's belief systems on debt.

My point was simpler, that seeing the vast majority of Americans own a smaller and smaller portion of the nation's wealth has an effect; that they get squeezed, and their borrowing more, saving less, to try tomaintain their lifestyle is a symptom of the worsening economic situation for them. About the only thing keeping their head above water has been the real estate boom, and like all booms, it's going to cool down.

You're right about our society being a consumer society, much of the economy is driven by that, but that's long been the case.

In fact, the role of the citizen primarily as 'producer and spender' was the reason for the analogy to the typical citizen as 'farm animal' in an earlier thread, be quiet, produce your milk, and be glad you have a nice safe field with plenty of cud to chew. Those in real power will use the wealth from your productivity for their own ends, you have no real say.

It's just common sense that as most Americans are squeezed, their saving will decline, and that's what we've seen happen.

The data saying so is not presented as its own argumet, but rather as one piece of the picture, consistent with the overall explanation.

 

[craigsub]

Again the post I put up last night is missing.

Very short version: I said I was suspicious Craigsub's 'research' would consist of saying that the web sites disagreeing with him were wrong without a case.

That's what happened he picked one, not one of the many more thorough studies to choose from but rather one quote from a Congressman. He simply said in a word that the guy was wrong, and then presented his own view in comparison without any analysis or rebuttal of any substance.

We then had someone else make a post which is so shallow that he assumed that the charts which don't list the government sourcing in the graphic are not based on government data - and assumes they're wrong without any of his own info to support his claim whatsoever. It's just pathetic.

You can lead a horse to water, and hold its head underwater, and it can still whinny that it's not wet.

You can't make it drink though, when it's stuffed to the gills with the kool-aid.

There has yet to be any response of any substance to #51.

Just to look at what appears to be his least empty argument:



How can you sort through this sort of rat's nest? He ignores the context of the worsening condition of most Americans, and when one piece of the evidence shows that their savings rate has plummeted from the prosperous years under the democrats for decades, to become negative for the first time, what conclusion does he suggest? Why, not that they're less able to save because of declining economic conditions.

No, they're magically just less fiscally responsible. Nothing to see here in the right-wing ideology's flaws, just some bad behavior by the average American.

Oh, and it's "biased' to infer that the reduced savings might have anything to do with their declining economic condition making it cost more to stay even.

And then, going completely batty, he suggests that my argument is based on the constitution forcing Americans to save.

I mean, there are straw men, but this is just embarrassing to him.

I point out a broad variety of economic histories over several decades with a consistent explanation, and he comes up with that straw man, that if I can't show the cosntitution tells Americans they have to save, then my point that their deteriorating economic condition affects their ability to save is affected? What nonsense! It's just too bizarre for comment, and too tedious to respond to point by point.

The lengths that the ideologues go to to ignore the facts are appalling.

Mr. 234 ... You asked me to Google for "National Sales Tax Regressive".

I Googled it. The site I used was one which the search found, and from an actual Congressman, and I used his exact quotes.

I then used the exact math from FairTax.org against IRS Tax Tables for the real numbers.

I did precisely what you asked, and still, you are not satisfied.

It is your turn ... feel free to use real numbers, and show why the NST won't work. No more links to a website ... use real numbers, and see what you find.

I look forward to reading what, if anything, you post which is factual.

 

[mulester7]

.....Craigsub, sparky and about four families that run this country love you, Sir....forgive the intrusion....how much could you help me if I drove up to get a new car?....not kidding.....

 

[Craig234]

Craigsub

Craigsub, the research meant reading enough to familiarize yourself with the issue and the arguments - not grabbing one quote, and saying 'it's bogus'.

That's not analysis, that's not argument, that's not dicussion - it's lame and pointless, and a waste of time. It's not what I suggested.

Here's a simple question for you. What percent of people's income is spent by each income bracket, up to and including the top 1%?

That'll give an idea of how much of people's incomes they'll spend on the national income tax.

Of course, any tax can be made to look one way or another by tweaking the numbers, such as with a large 'exemption' amount.

Once the tax is in place, will the exemption remain? What guarantee is there?

Regardless of the exemption, the ultra wealthy, as I said, spend most of their money not on taxable purchases, but on acquiring yet more wealth.

And you have yet to answer the simple question, if as you argue, most pay less, a few pay the same and no one pays more, how is it revenue neutral?

I may post something later that you skipped over, one of the studies on it being a regressive tax, but you have plenty to respond to here.

 

[craigsub]

.....Craigsub, sparky and about four families that run this country love you, Sir....forgive the intrusion....how much could you help me if I drove up to get a new car?....not kidding.....

This may shock you, but President Bush does not even know who I am. Call him and ask, if you don't believe me ...

What kind of car do you want ? As you are not kidding - I doubt I could save you enough $$$$ to make a trip worth it economically, but I can get you what pricing, rebates, and any dealer rebates are on almost any vehicle.

We always disclose unadvertised dealer rebates, but not all dealers do. I know ... shocking.

 

[Craig234]

Craigsub

From the item immediately following the quote you used, here's a link to some interesting info on the NST, from a New York Times op-ed.

Remember I said that any tax can be made to look good if you play with the numbers?

Suppose a bunch of rich people want to promote a national sales tax to replace the Federal income tax. How do they try to persuade the public to support such a plan? Simple: play with the arithmetic.

...the sales tax rate would have to climb to an astronomical 56 percent to break even.

Apparently, the millions of dollars that Americans for Fair Taxation says it has spent on focus groups and polling have taught it an important lesson: giving people the real facts about a national sales tax is politically disastrous for its proponents. So the group is trying the only other available route: cooking the numbers.

http://www.ctj.org/html/nytsales.htm

 

[craigsub]

Craigsub, the research meant reading enough to familiarize yourself with the issue and the arguments - not grabbing one quote, and saying 'it's bogus'.

That's not analysis, that's not argument, that's not dicussion - it's lame and pointless, and a waste of time. It's not what I suggested.

Here's a simple question for you. What percent of people's income is spent by each income bracket, up to and including the top 1%?

That'll give an idea of how much of people's incomes they'll spend on the national income tax.

Of course, any tax can be made to look one way or another by tweaking the numbers, such as with a large 'exemption' amount.

Once the tax is in place, will the exemption remain? What guarantee is there?

Regardless of the exemption, the ultra wealthy, as I said, spend most of their money not on taxable purchases, but on acquiring yet more wealth.

And you have yet to answer the simple question, if as you argue, most pay less, a few pay the same and no one pays more, how is it revenue neutral?

I may post something later that you skipped over, one of the studies on it being a regressive tax, but you have plenty to respond to here.

How is the NST TAX NEUTRAL ?

In today's tax climate, the vast majority of the "rich" pay a low tax burden due to things like tax free muni bonds. By rich, I mean the truly rich ... people with $100 million portfolios. These portfolios are not taxed. The truly rich can earn $5 - $6 or $7 million per year, totally tax free.

The IRS estimate Tax free Bonds pay appx. $150 Billion per year ... This $150 Billion is being spent today ... and generates no taxes. Under the NST, there would be a windfall of $34.5 Billion per year.

NEXT, let us look at the Underground Economy. Illegal immigrants, Drug dealers, Teachers working summer cash jobs, carpenters, mechanics, bartenders, waitstaff ... the list goes on and on ... They earn money and pay NO tax on these earnings. Barons had an article last year regarding this ... and today, the underground economy is costing the IRS appx. $400 billion per year .. and growing.

COST OT THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY: ...In the process, the underground economy is undermining the effectiveness of the Internal Revenue Service, which is highly dependent on employees' withholding taxes. If the IRS could collect all the taxes it says that it is owed from the underground economy in a given year, then the current budget deficit would disappear overnight. And if the IRS could collect these taxes every year, then the nation would have surpluses as far as the eye can see.

The IRS has estimated that its tax gap -- the estimated amount of taxes owed minus the amount collected -- is around $311 billion in any given year. The agency will produce a new estimate in 2005, and it could be as high as $400 billion, says former IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander. Now a lawyer in Washington, he cites a rise in private contracting and the opportunities it affords for not reporting income.

The gap number measures only a portion of the underground economy. Because the number is extrapolated from audited returns, it makes no allowances for criminal enterprises that report no income, and it even fails to capture some garden varieties of non-reporting. The unreported wages of illegal immigrants alone could be costing the government another $50 billion a year, says Justich.

Adding the 2 together, and you realize a gain of $434 Billion per year from the NST ... which reduces the burden on all those reading this who DON"T get to make money tax free. The NST does not discriminate .. anyone who spends money here will be paying taxes.

You ask what guarantees there are that the exemptions will remain as they are. What guarantee do you have that congress won't pass a law making ANY changes in tax law ? You don't.

However, the tax, as proposed, gives generous rebates to make sure the poor and middle class are not hurt by its passage. Changing the rebate would be politically difficult, as millions would know what it was, and the first person to suggest that we get rid of the $6072 for the family of four might as well resign from congress. This rebate means the first $26,400 the family of four earns is totally tax free, assuming a worst case, in which they spent all their income on new products.

Getting back to the top 1% ... so much of their income is in the form of lower tax items .... Tax Free Funds, Capital Gains ... etc ... that it is a pretty complicated task to calculate.

Think on this, though. Most super rich live pretty well. Under tax law over the past 50 years, a $1 million dollar yacht was a write off. In the NST, it is a tax producer. The Rolls ? Another tax revenue enhancement.

For my personal end ... I would lose the ability to write off business travel ... which is about $60,000 per year, which saves me $21,000. Instead, I would be paying $13,800 on my business travel .. a "swing" of $34,800.

The NST takes a lot of deduction activity for those over, say, $200K per year, and turns it into a tax revenue.

 

[ForMiseri]

Totally agree!

The bottom line is that this is not about Republicans or Democrats. Both parties stink. The problem lies in the far right and far left ideologies as well as the American people. There is no room left for open and free discussion to SOLVE problems facing our nation. We all remain rooted in the belief that I'm right and your wrong ideology. I wonder how many of us follow our family belief systems when it comes to politics. Because mom and dad were from a certain party affiliation then that can be the only right party affiliation. It is why politics and religion are touchy subjects. Anyone can find statistics to support their views. One thing I did learn over the years is that statistics are in fact useless given all of our biasis even in the set-up of the test device to the answers that are plugged in. If you listen to even the youngest of children argue, one of the forst qualifiers is "My mommy or Daddy said it's true!" The same holds true for "adults" who sit around and staunchly defend something that may be wrong. We follow our assigned political leaders as if they were our parents, blindly believing in their divine "rightness." If we as a nation hope to survive, we all need to stop acting like big babies spouting assinine retorts mixed with dubious adult like statistics. It is nothing more than children bickering over who ate the last cookie

 

[mulester7]

This may shock you, but President Bush does not even know who I am. Call him and ask, if you don't believe me ...

.....sparky varified that to me over his cell 10 minutes ago, Craig....he then asked me if I could give him any advice....I said, "well, George, it will be time for supper when the big hand is on 12, and the little hand is on 6....he said, "yeah, that's always been the tough one"..........

 

[craigsub]

From the item immediately following the quote you used, here's a link to some interesting info on the NST, from a New York Times op-ed.

Remember I said that any tax can be made to look good if you play with the numbers?

http://www.ctj.org/html/nytsales.htm

Interesting op-ed. I suppose If I disagree with it, you will again say I called it bogus ?

In 2005, Total Retail sales in the US were appx. $4.4 trillion.
In 2005, Total New Housing Sales were $3.8 trillion.

Revenue from just these 2 sources would yield $1.89 trillion under the NST.

This does not include, Air travel, Hotels, Restaurant expenditures, and a host of other resources in our $13 TRILLION GDP economy.

 

[mulester7]

I doubt I could save you enough $$$$ to make a trip worth it economically, but I can get you what pricing, rebates, and any dealer rebates are on almost any vehicle.

....Craig, you ain't comin' off that window sticker about a third?....what are ya'?, a republican?.....Rush said he knew ya'....he's the one that told me sparky loves ya', and they both want you to post some more diversion stats while they're busy countin' money with a dumptruck outside half-loaded.....

.....it must be these walls makin' me go nuts, I don't know....one of 'em tried to get a conversation going with my dog, but the poodle only speaks French....I don't know....a pair of jump-cables walks into a bar and orders a double bourbon....the bartender says, "ok, I'll serve you, but don't start nothin'.......

 

[Craig234]

A couple of points

How is the NST TAX NEUTRAL ?

In today's tax climate, the vast majority of the "rich" pay a low tax burden due to things like tax free muni bonds. By rich, I mean the truly rich ... people with $100 million portfolios. These portfolios are not taxed. The truly rich can earn $5 - $6 or $7 million per year, totally tax free.

The IRS estimate Tax free Bonds pay appx. $150 Billion per year ... This $150 Billion is being spent today ... and generates no taxes. Under the NST, there would be a windfall of $34.5 Billion per year.

Your comments are based on (among other things) a fundamental flaw, that people's behavior won't change when the tax law changes.

The tax free bonds - and note, I have no problem with the wealthy investing in them - provide a very valuable function to society in loaning governments money at low interest rates to fund things like school construction. That $150 paid may correspond to $75 in interest payments saved by the governments in dicounted interest. If that was gone, it would be a huge negative impacts to the local and state governments without the dicounted funds available.

One of the many impacts you give zero weight to in your comments.

You also posted comments that assumed the retail and home sales would continue just the same - when of course, that's not the case.

When you have the sales tax skyrocket, and as I showed it'd be well over 23%, probably more than double that (there are other sources saying so as well including Congress' own analysists, as I read it), it will have both some positive impact in some areas and very negative impacts in others.

The impacts take real analysis, not the figures you pull out of the air which don't account for obvious changes which would occur.

As for revenue neutral - yes, the proposal is that the total tax would remain the same - so when you argue that most would pay less, a few the same, and no one would pay more, how do you keep the total the same? If you are saying some would pay more, who and how much, and look at the big picture including how they would change their investments.

Hint: the very wealthy can still invest in owning resources which would not have taxes, even if tax-free instruments were removed.

 

[craigsub]

Your comments are based on (among other things) a fundamental flaw, that people's behavior won't change when the tax law changes.

The tax free bonds - and note, I have no problem with the wealthy investing in them - provide a very valuable function to society in loaning governments money at low interest rates to fund things like school construction. That $150 paid may correspond to $75 in interest payments saved by the governments in dicounted interest. If that was gone, it would be a huge negative impacts to the local and state governments without the dicounted funds available.

One of the many impacts you give zero weight to in your comments.

You also posted comments that assumed the retail and home sales would continue just the same - when of course, that's not the case.

When you have the sales tax skyrocket, and as I showed it'd be well over 23%, probably more than double that (there are other sources saying so as well including Congress' own analysists, as I read it), it will have both some positive impact in some areas and very negative impacts in others.

The impacts take real analysis, not the figures you pull out of the air which don't account for obvious changes which would occur.

As for revenue neutral - yes, the proposal is that the total tax would remain the same - so when you argue that most would pay less, a few the same, and no one would pay more, how do you keep the total the same? If you are saying some would pay more, who and how much, and look at the big picture including how they would change their investments.

Hint: the very wealthy can still invest in owning resources which would not have taxes, even if tax-free instruments were removed.

Hint ... you really have no clue how math works. Nor do your so called experts. It is a $13 trillion reported economy. There is another $2.5 trillion in the underground economy. We total $15.5 trillion.

If you cannot understand how 23% of that, equally distrubuted, with credits for the poor/middle class, can handle a $2.7 trillion government while making sure all income earners pay a fair share is sensible math, then go back to school. 23 % from a $15 trillion economy will easily pay for a $2.7 trillion budget.

The simple fact is ... it will work. You refuse to even try the math for yourself. Instead, you post a link to another employee of the current system which endorses the most feared agency in the US ... the IRS.

The 56% model is nothing short of hysterics. You don't need to take 56% of our economy to fund the govt.

And you are right .. there will be a change in spending patterns. Un-chained from the current system which MANDATES people give up a large portion of their income, people will have far more disposable income. When this freedom is realized ... there will be an economic boom.

 

[craigsub]

Mr. 234 ... You have called your last name here. You have tossed out more insults in this thread than every other contributor combined.

All you can do is post links. You won't even try any math for yourself. The math is not complicated. If you think it requires a 56% tax on a $15 trillion dollar economy to raise $2.0 trillion, fine (edit, the total rvenues from Corporate, income, estate and payroll taxes in 2006 will be $2.0 Trillion, not $2.7 trillion). We can let that statement stand on its own merit.

The irony is, I have done over 200 examples on the NST, and guys like me would end up paying more in net taxes.

I am more than happy to keep the system, as it sits. It is my employees who would benefit. But, I guess trying to better their lives is not my concern.

So ... I am changing my position. I no longer will argue for the NST. Instead, I will change my support and go for the current system, and look forward to retiring on a substantial, tax free income.

 

[nibhaz]

We then had someone else make a post which is so shallow that he assumed that the charts which don't list the government sourcing in the graphic are not based on government data - and assumes they're wrong without any of his own info to support his claim whatsoever. It's just pathetic.

What was shallow? That fact that I pointed out you are posting information without citing the source and then stated that such information can not be deemed creditable in an academic discussion. The burden of proof is on you on you Craig234 not me. I guess the next time I turn in a report to my boss, I'll tell him it's his job verify my information for accuracy.

There has yet to be any response of any substance to #51.

That's because your post #51 has no scholarly substance worth responding to.

Just to look at what appears to be his least empty argument:

Nice chart. What's your point? Is your point that American's have grown less fiscally responsible? Okay, I'll agree with that, but your assertion that this is do to some vast conspiracy to make the wealthy more wealthy is again just your biased opinion. I was unaware that there was a constitutional provision for the federal government to determine what American's do with their own personal wealth. Could you please show me where this is?

How can you sort through this sort of rat's nest? He ignores the context of the worsening condition of most Americans, and when one piece of the evidence shows that their savings rate has plummeted from the prosperous years under the democrats for decades, to become negative for the first time, what conclusion does he suggest? Why, not that they're less able to save because of declining economic conditions.

Actually, I was not drawing a conclusion, but merely asking you what exactly you were trying to suggest with the use of this chart. Now I understand that you were trying to prove your position that when Democrats are in control of the federal government everything is economically better for Americans.

Perhaps you should have chosen a different chart to make your point. Because the largest decrease in personal saving according to your chart took place under Clinton’s watch 1993-2001.

No, they're magically just less fiscally responsible. Nothing to see here in the right-wing ideology's flaws, just some bad behavior by the average American.

So are you, or are you not saying that this is not actually related to who’s in charge of the federal government? Because if you are actually admitting that the rate at which Americans save is independent of who is in office then again I must ask: what is your point?

Oh, and it's "biased' to infer that the reduced savings might have anything to do with their declining economic condition making it cost more to stay even.

Yes it is “biased” because your entire argument is that conservative are bad for the economy and thus American’s save less. However you chose to ignore the fact that the rate of saving continued to drop during the economically good years under Clinton. So once again it’s obvious to even the casual observer that your logic and conclusions are flawed.

And then, going completely batty, he suggests that my argument is based on the constitution forcing Americans to save?

I was unaware that there was a constitutional provision for the federal government to determine what American's do with their own personal wealth. Could you please show me where this is?

Actually, I was asking you to explain how the federal government was responsible for the rate at which Americans save. I was pointing out how absurd your juxtapositions actually are.

I mean, there are straw men, but this is just embarrassing to him.

Actually, if anyone should be embarrassed, it should be you.

I point out a broad variety of economic histories over several decades with a consistent explanation, and he comes up with that straw man, that if I can't show the cosntitution tells Americans they have to save, then my point that their deteriorating economic condition affects their ability to save is affected? What nonsense! It's just too bizarre for comment, and too tedious to respond to point by point.

How convenient, when challenged with serious questions and request for solid credible evidence for your claims you say it’s too tedious.

The lengths that the ideologues go to to ignore the facts are appalling.

You were looking at a mirror when you typed that last line, weren’t you?