Re: The Sarah Palin corner of the Sandbox!

**tau_neutrino** · 10-29-2008, 03:25 AM

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPE6_jGBlDc[/media]

**deathknight** · 10-29-2008, 01:56 PM

I see the arguement about fairness as two different threads. One is of course everyone should pay a flat tax as that is fair. The other is that we should have a graduated tax so that the wealthy pay more.

Scenario 1:
Flat Tax:
Advantages: Everyone pays same amount. People who make more money are not penalized for making more money.
Disadvantages: Tax has to be higher so that government can still generate the same revenue which negatively impacts the poorer tax payers. 10% of 1 million is 100K which is alot of money but that person still has 900K to live off. 10% of 20K is 2K which is 50x less but still alot more important to the person making 20K.
Opinion: this model is still unfair to the extent that wealthier people will still pay more money in taxes during to having more taxable income (100K versus 2K)

Scenario 2:
Progressive/Graduated Tax:
Benefits: lower taxes on the poor to help ease their burden
Disadvantages: Higher taxes on the wealthy
Opinion: This is IMO the most fair way to do the taxing especially since the only income taxed at the higher rate is the amount that goes over the threshold. For instance if the boundary of the tax bracket is 70K and the amount below 70K is taxed at 30% and the amount over is 50%, then someone making 75K will pay 30% on 70K and 35% on 5K. Also, once can argue that a flat tax is still unfair due to the wealthier tax payer paying more money (total not percentage) in taxes. This could only be remedied by each person paying a flat rate which would make it much harder for the government to raise enough tax revenue to finance the services it provides.

I feel that the wealthy should pay slightly more in tax due to the fact they can and in doing so they can help out others who need it. To me, that is what being American is all about, helping out others who cannot help themselves but are not in need due to being lazy or some other flaw. Our country's business leader have filled their pockets time and again through bad decisions and still reap the benefits by covering up their losses with layoffs and outsourcing. I think it is only time that they should pay their share.

**Kerostasis** · 10-29-2008, 03:18 PM

Interesting comments.

--My view is that, so long as the burden of taxes is heavy and onerous, the rich should pay a greater share of that burden simply because the poor would collapse under it if they were subjected to the same rate. (FOR PROGRESSIVE TAXES)
--However, our goal in such a situation should not be to figure out how to most fairly extract that heavy burden from the rich, but how to reduce the burden, so it is lighter on all taxpayers. (FOR TAX CUTS)
--Further, as the burden of taxes becomes lighter, it is only fair that the rich who have been paying the greatest share of those taxes should recieve the greatest benefits of the tax cuts. (FOR TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH)
--As the total tax burden shrinks, the rates can safely become less progressive. A totally flat tax would be perfectly acceptable as long as that tax rate was suitably low. (FOR FLAT TAX -- HYPOTHETICALLY)

How's that for a comprehensive tax plan?

**AMosely** · 10-29-2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

1) My view is that, so long as the burden of taxes is heavy and onerous, the rich should pay a greater share of that burden simply because the poor would collapse under it if they were subjected to the same rate. (FOR PROGRESSIVE TAXES)
2) However, our goal in such a situation should not be to figure out how to most fairly extract that heavy burden from the rich, but how to reduce the burden, so it is lighter on all taxpayers. (FOR TAX CUTS)
3) Further, as the burden of taxes becomes lighter, it is only fair that the rich who have been paying the greatest share of those taxes should recieve the greatest benefits of the tax cuts. (FOR TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH)
4) As the total tax burden shrinks, the rates can safely become less progressive. A totally flat tax would be perfectly acceptable as long as that tax rate was suitably low. (FOR FLAT TAX -- HYPOTHETICALLY)

How's that for a comprehensive tax plan?

If you were to itemize these by phases in a progressive tax system, America is still waffling between phase 2 and 3. We won't get to phase four until phase 2 is reconciled. It still hasn't been. Wages are stagnating if not falling - if you were poor in 2000 you're even poorer now. Can't go to phase 3 with that going on.

I think I heard Palin say that if you were doing well in 2000, you're doing better now. Speaking for myself and those I know, that's simply not true. Thanks to the problems in the markets, I don't think that's true for most Americans.

**sordavie** · 10-29-2008, 03:46 PM

How about just a flat tax on whatever you make above some determined (by location and other factors?) basic standard of living amount.

This is in effect a progressive tax on your total salary, since the more you make, the higher the percentage of your total income goes to tax.

But it is a flat tax on the "disposable" part of your income.

For those who think progressive taxes are unfair because they "penalize the wealthy," the flat tax notion here might make you feel better.

For those who think flat taxes are unfair because they place "undue burden on the poor," the progressive part, or at least the part that protects the basic standard of living amount might, make you feel better.

Here's an illustration:

Suppose the basic standard of living for three people is considered to be $20,000 a year, and the flat tax rate on your "disposable" income is 20%.

Suppose A makes $25,000, B makes $50,000, and C makes $1,000,000.

A pays $1,000 to taxes, which is 4% of her gross income.

B pays $6,000 to taxes, which is 12% of her gross income.

C pays $196,000 to taxes, which is 19.6% of her gross income.

But on the other hand, this is a flat tax. So there's a sense in which it doesn't penalize the wealthy any more than the poor, given the assumption that there is a basic standard of living.

There are some problems though. It the percentage of one's total income that goes to tax is asymptotic as income approaches infinity. So, there are big percentage-of-total-income differences with small differences in income at the low range but there are very small percentage-of-total-income differences with even very large differences in income at the very high range. But, maybe this isn't much of a problem, since it's smooth all the way up. There aren't any brackets at which the percentage-of-total-income makes a large jump with a very small difference.

You might also think that the middle class gets screwed here. Since they pay a substantially larger percentage of their total income to tax than the lower class but not a substantially smaller percentage of their total income to tax than the super wealthy. But, of course the middle class gets screwed with any kind of taxation plan where the focus on fairness is at the extremes, between trying to get a balance of allowing the lower class to survive and not penalizing the wealthy. So while the middle class may get screwed here, they don't get screwed in any particularly worse way than with other plans. And I think there are ways to change the function so that it's less bad for the middle class, i.e. raising the basic standard of living amount while raising the flat tax percentage on "disposable income."

**aesop rock** · 10-29-2008, 05:56 PM

“There was a political party in this country called the Know-Nothings,” he continued. “And we’re getting on the fringe of that, with these one-issue voters—pro-choice or pro-life. Important issue, I know that. But, my goodness. The world is blowing up everywhere, and I just don’t think that is a responsible way to see the world, on that one issue. And, interestingly enough, that is one issue that stopped John McCain from picking one of the people he really wanted, Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge.”

**DeePsix** · 10-31-2008, 12:32 PM

Sarah Palin actually does spread the wealth around

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...BWguAD9454PNG0

In Alaska, residents pay no income tax or state sales tax. They receive a yearly dividend check from a $30 billion state investment account built largely from royalties on its oil. When home fuel and gas costs soared last year, Palin raised taxes on big oil and used some of the money to boost residents' checks by $1,200. Thus every eligible man, woman and child got a record $3,269 this fall.

"And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." - Sarah Palin

SOCIALISM

**Kerostasis** · 10-31-2008, 01:09 PM

I don't quite follow... are you suggesting that if Alaska did it, it must be good?

**Greflin** · 10-31-2008, 01:11 PM

Commies...sharing like that.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-31-2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I don't quite follow... are you suggesting that if Alaska did it, it must be good?

I think he is pointing out that Palin's "Obama the wealth spreader" line is just a tiny bit disingenuous.

I also think that this, and the fact many so called "Republican" states receive more federal spending than they pay in federal taxes and that spending rose during a Republican reign, goes to show that there isn't much conservative about the Republicans.

Many that vote Republican really don't want traditional fiscally conservative rules enforced or enacted. And, besides the core evangelicals, I don't think that many really want the socially conservative stuff put out by the Republicans either.

**AMosely** · 10-31-2008, 01:31 PM

Growing Doubts on Palin take a toll, according to a NYTimes/CBS poll.

Before you scream 'bias,' can anyone tell me what she's actually brought to the table in terms of tangible ideas? 'Shaking up Washington' isn't one.

I think she sunk McCain's battleship. His campaign wanted her to appear as mainstream, but she's not, and without enough (yes she certainly has some) political intelligence at the national level, not enough people (at least according to polls) are willing to go with it. If McCain does lose this election, history may very well chalk it up to this bad decision combined with Obama's overwhelming popularity and financial power.

**Kerostasis** · 10-31-2008, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I think he is pointing out that Palin's "Obama the wealth spreader" line is just a tiny bit disingenuous.

To be disingenuous, it would have to be false. Pointing out historically-derived state ownership of land resources in Alaska does not inherently justify current day wealth-redistribution plans on working Americans' salaries.

I also think that this, and the fact many so called "Republican" states receive more federal spending than they pay in federal taxes and that spending rose during a Republican reign, goes to show that there isn't much conservative about the Republicans.

Sadly, there are a significant number of Republican politicians that are not fiscally conservative. There are also a significant number of Republican politicians that ARE fiscally conservative, and these should be cherished and promoted instead of tarnished by association.

I have heard rumors that there are a few Democratic politicians who are fiscally conservative as well, and I would vote for one of those over a big-spending Republican in a heartbeat. But they aren't very common -- I haven't found any in my State yet, and they certainly don't represent the mainstream goals of the Democratic party. You see them most frequently in congressional districts that are slightly more Republican than Democratic, because by running a fiscally conservative Democrat you can snap up all those voters disillusioned by non-conservative Republican candidates and flip the district (this was a big thing in 2006 especially). Of course, then they get to help name Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house so she can run one of the most liberal congresses ever, but such are the pitfalls of a two-party system.

My point being that in the end, I think there are a lot more conservative voters than most politicians want to admit.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-31-2008, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

My point being that in the end, I think there are a lot more conservative voters than most politicians want to admit.

Right. They vote conservative (republican) even though many of their demands for their representatives are not, in fact, conservative.

I think it is being proven.

Even though McCain has ran a poor campaign and even though he is fighting against the dislike of the incumbent president he is not that far behind in the overall polls. Not as far behind as I would have expected.

I find it amazing, even though I kinda understand the reason for this.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-31-2008, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

To be disingenuous, it would have to be false. Pointing out historically-derived state ownership of land resources in Alaska does not inherently justify current day wealth-redistribution plans on working Americans' salaries.

I think support of historically-derived state ownership by way of increasing the distribution amounts makes it disingenuous.

But in case I did use the wrong word I think you still understand what I am getting at. No?

Maybe hypocritical is a better word? And if she does realize she is being hypocritical there is more to her actions. Maybe not lying directly but close enough for government work.

**E-Male** · 10-31-2008, 02:12 PM

It is indisputable that the rich place place a greater burden on public resources -- they own more homes and larger homes, use more energy, water, oil, and so forth, and contribute more garbage to 'landfills' and other post-consumption issues.

So any talk of the rich being subjected to the same tax rate as the middle or lower classes is rather suspect.

Thread Tools

Display