KID HATING BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2011 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moosep on 8/1/2011 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2011 3:39:00 PM (view original):
If you can't afford to have kids, don't ******* have them.    Just like buying a Lexus.   If you can't afford to pay the 30k in taxes, buy a goddam Yugo.

Don't give me "they're already made".   This is America.  Figure out your situation since you created it.

What is your solution for a child already here that the parents cannot afford to feed and clothe?

Wards of the state.     As I said, you created your situation, you figure it out.   if you can't, give up the kids and figure out your fucked up life. 

I don't have any children living in my house. However, you know the government is not going to take these children away from their parents. Wouldn;t you need a bigger govt this way if were making them caretakers of poor children? I thought that was against your strictest rules?

So those applying for minimum wage jobs in the future will have to sign a form to agree to sterilization? Of course those without a job will be weeded out sooner! Is that about it?

I'm 48 years old.  I've had lots of sex over the years with numerous women.   I've been gainfully employed, worked for minimum wage and been unemployed.   I've managed not to have kids I couldn't afford.   Does sex always = children in your world?

What's a "fair share"?  Still waiting....I've seen a couple of people try to address this in the myriad of class warfare posts.  You can't realisitically talk about taxes and call for people to "pay their fair share" without a reference point.......

What percentage of the burden should the top 10% of earners pay?
What percentage of the burden should the top 25% of earners pay?
What percentage of the burden should the top 50% of earners pay?

Should there be a limit on what government spends? 


One thing I don't do is this:

1.  Decide on a mortgage payment
2.  Decide on car lease payments
3.  Decide how much money I want in a credit line
4.  Decide how many times I'll go to Ruth's Chris every month
5.  Decide what foods I am going to buy every week
5.  Decide on upgrading my basement the way I want
6.  Create a beautifully landscaped yard
7.  Help a whole bunch of people who need it with X dollars
8.  Buy some guns for protection


and.

then.

Coerce those who pay my salary to cover 80% of these things while I borrow the rest.


I can't for the life of me figure out why we let the government do that.

I referred to the idea in the original post:

If tax rate = 0%, then revenue = $0.
If tax rate = 100%, then revenue = $0.
There is a peak in between by definition - there has to be.

Somebody pointed out the Laffer curve concept.  His is one interpretation of it.  His may or may not be the most correct.  I could care less within the broad concept of the point I'm trying to make.  The point is that there has to be a peak of revenue.  It must follow that you can go two directions from the peak.  If you are on one side, raising taxes raises revenue.  If you are on the other, raising taxes lower revenue.  But....  If the government is spending more than the peak, with spending rising by a greater amount than the GDP increases, there is absolutely no way this won't collapse on itself no matter how much or how little you tax the rich.

It does not matter what you do with taxes.  Unless spending is brought below the peak of the curve, none of these "debt ceiling negotiations" matter one bit.

So I continue to ask:  "What is a fair share"?  For those that want the rich to "pay their fair share", what is the ultimate goal?  Is it to penalize the rich more?  Is it to maximize revenues to the government?

Seriously, sales tax.   Those with more will pay more because they'll spend more.   If you want to store your money away and spend little, good for you.  But, sooner or later, it has to be spent.   Then the government gets their share.

Posted by jiml60 on 8/1/2011 6:19:00 PM (view original):

Quote post by swamphawk22 on 8/1/2011 1:31:00 PM:
The Government did steal it to support its giving tax breaks to the rich. We need a Federal Government that does what it was supposed to do.
It is so easy for a politician to get elected promising tax breaks that the middle class will pay for.

What you meant to say.

For the final time...

THE BUSH TAX CUTS INCREASED REVENUE!

The CBO looks at things in a static way. If 5% raised $5 than 57% will raise $57. They are not experts at the economy, they only add up the numbers they are given.

LET ME REPEAT....THE BUSH TAX CUTS INCREASED REVENUE!!

And the entire war in Iraq cost about as much as the Obama Stimulus. And at least it accomplished something!

It found weapons of mass destruction?

padna, I dispute that there must be one set of taxation rates that produces a peak revenue level. There are just too many other variables in the equation for it to be that simple.

I agree it's not that simple, and you have a valid point.  My position, based almost purely on speculation, is that you are looking a moving target because of the number of variables.  I don't think it's a solvable problem to figure out where that point is.  You would have to estimate it based on contexts and expected behavior.  Expected aggregate behavior based on individuals' reaction to whatever the rates do.

However, by reducing the concept itself to a simple illustration, it still holds that a peak (or two or more) must exist.  I don't know whether the (real) Laffer Curve is parabolic, a bell curve, or rectangular.  It's only somewhat relavant to the point I'm trying to make.  What the simple illustration does do is:
 
1.  Show that revenues will not necessarily coincide or correlate with rates.  Historically they have not at all times - especially during the four major rate cuts over the past century.  (BTW I do not believe tax cuts for anyone are a panacea and I do believe that existing loopholes that allow GE and other hand-picked government favorites to pay no taxes should be eliminated, and yes I am obviously a staunch conservative - not a lock-step party hack).
2.  Show that there exists at any given time a maximum revenue that can be obtained.
3.  Infer that if spending stays above that maximum, then there is no solution to paying off the debt no matter what you do with tax rates.

Without solving that fundamental crisis, the system as we know it must crash.  The longer we kick the can down the road on entitlements (including my SS, which I'm not counting on and coming up faster than I want it to), the harder the crash will be and the more dire things will be for my own children.  The programs, as they exist now cannot possibly be sustained.  Either we go back to square 1 by our choice, or we have that choice made for us by those who hold the notes on the debt.

Here's a question for people:  do Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Bush, and Matt Damon deserve Social Security and Medicare?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  (Note:  assuming they reach the age, they are, of course, entitled to it). 

The reason why the "rich" need to pay a "fair share" is because "they" are "job creators" and are not hiring.  There are two ways to increase revenue, increase rates or grow the amount of people contributing.  As long as "they" continue to hoard money, which is illustrated by the continually growing wealth gap, instead of investing in human capital there will be a revenue shortage.  And there is a revenue shortage.  In 2000 with a $10T GDP the government brought in more revenue than 2010 with a $16T GDP.

It is a jobs problem at the heart of the deficit problem.  Hiring people takes the unemployment benefit cost from $150B back to around $50B, and you increase the taxpayer base to jack up revenue.  Maybe Apple takes some of their $78B cash on hand and moves some production back to the US, as one example.  It's not the whole problem, but it's a start.

Other things, stop paying contractors three times the rate it would cost a soldier to do.  Heck, you could just end the wars.  You've got to cut defense, especially during a time when you have no real rivals.  Means testing social security and medicare makes sense, raising the contribution limit (not excessively) would also help.

Or we could just go with Julius Caesar method.  Kill the rich and take their money to fill the treasury as it gets low.

Good ole Julius you say, hmmmmmmm? What's good enough for Julius, is good enough for me!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/2/2011 8:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm 48 years old.  I've had lots of sex over the years with numerous women.   I've been gainfully employed, worked for minimum wage and been unemployed.   I've managed not to have kids I couldn't afford.   Does sex always = children in your world?

I am well aware of birth control methods along with just pulling it out! I am older than 48 but I have gone to Mike t"s fountain of youth and I feel like 18!!