Fuck its silent in here.......

[Wheezer]

since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?

Oh, dear.

[morpheus]

a bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.



I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

[morpheus]

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

"Consumption tax".  Is that the same as a sales tax?  If not, how does it differ?  If it is the same or similar, is that an answer for what you call a "highly progressive" tax code?  My office is about a block from a marina, where a yacht sale is going on.  Rounding up a little, the sales tax around here is about 9%.  That means more real dollars go to taxes than for the sale of a can of tennis balls.  Does a "consumption tax" take into account that the item being purchased is a yacht, and not a can of tennis balls?  Is there a way of making rich people (however the government decides how to define who is rich) pay more to buy a can of  tennis balls, since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?

Yes it's a sales tax. I think "highly progressive" is this:


The U.S. has the most progressive tax system of any developed country. That's not just my opinion.

Anyway, there's a ton of information about consumption taxes out there. Start with http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate perhaps.  Or maybe http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/06/04/a-progressive-consumption-tax/ . It can be done.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

"Consumption tax".  Is that the same as a sales tax?  If not, how does it differ?  If it is the same or similar, is that an answer for what you call a "highly progressive" tax code?  My office is about a block from a marina, where a yacht sale is going on.  Rounding up a little, the sales tax around here is about 9%.  That means more real dollars go to taxes than for the sale of a can of tennis balls.  Does a "consumption tax" take into account that the item being purchased is a yacht, and not a can of tennis balls?  Is there a way of making rich people (however the government decides how to define who is rich) pay more to buy a can of  tennis balls, since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?

I think "highly progressive" is this:

"Highly progressive tax code" and "Highly progressive income tax code" are two entirely different things.  How progressive is it once ALL federal taxes are included?  Payroll, gasoline, etc.  I don't know, but I'd wager far less than by just the income tax (which is highly progressive).

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Yes it's a sales tax. I think "highly progressive" is this:

Except that graphic on its own doesn't really speak to progressivity as such.

It's depicting total taxes paid rather than rates, and it offers no context in terms of relative share of income and/or wealth for each group.

(It's also not clear which taxes it refers to.)

"Highly progressive tax code" and "Highly progressive income tax code" are two entirely different things.  How progressive is it once ALL federal taxes are included?  Payroll, gasoline, etc.  I don't know, but I'd wager far less than by just the income tax (which is highly progressive).

The info at Morph's link does include payroll taxes.

But, yeah, federal payroll and excise taxes are indeed regressive:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505



More regressive still are state and local taxes.

Individual states range from extremely regressive (Illinois is in the top ten in regressivity) to a handful that are nearly flat. But no states have entirely progressive tax systems.

And the nationwide average is regressive, primarily due to the extreme regressivity of sales taxes:

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf



Putting these other taxes together with our highly progressive federal income tax, we find an overall system that is moderately progressive, more so at the bottom and flattening out as it reaches the top ten percent, and actually making a slight turn towards the regressive at the top one percent:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf



I couldn't say how this compares directly to the effective overall tax burdens in other OECD nations. All comparisons I can find limit themselves, like Morph's link above, to federal income and payroll taxes. (I could imagine apples-to-apples comparisons on this count getting tricky.)

[R-V]

a bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.



I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

The upslope at the end of your graph consists of projections, not actual data. The most recent 3 years of actuals that I was referring to are:

2009       15.1% of GDP
2010       15.1%
2011       15.4%

The later year projections are to some extent based on guesses and estimates. Based on your earlier comments I didn't think these were relevant because everyone has their own sets of guesses and estimates so what can you do?

[morpheus]

a bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.



I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

The upslope at the end of your graph consists of projections, not actual data. The most recent 3 years of actuals that I was referring to are:

2009       15.1% of GDP
2010       15.1%
2011       15.4%

The later year projections are to some extent based on guesses and estimates. Based on your earlier comments I didn't think these were relevant because everyone has their own sets of guesses and estimates so what can you do?

You're right, they probably are a bit on the low side.

[R-V]

a bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.



I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

The upslope at the end of your graph consists of projections, not actual data. The most recent 3 years of actuals that I was referring to are:

2009       15.1% of GDP
2010       15.1%
2011       15.4%

The later year projections are to some extent based on guesses and estimates. Based on your earlier comments I didn't think these were relevant because everyone has their own sets of guesses and estimates so what can you do?

You're right, they probably are a bit on the low side.

Heh. Well played.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week "ramrodded their way" into the group's Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

"We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations," Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. "It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors."

He added: "The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall."

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.

[BH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week "ramrodded their way" into the group's Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

"We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations," Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. "It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors."

He added: "The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall."

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.

Why aren't you talking about the economy? You are so out of touch.

[Quality Start Machine]

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.

[Internet Apex]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week "ramrodded their way" into the group's Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

"We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations," Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. "It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors."

He added: "The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall."

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.

It's not rare at all. Or were you green-fonting?

[Internet Apex]

I mean... when has this shit NOT happened?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Video.

[Tonker]

Video.

My favourite comment on that video:

"Fap difficulty level: 8/10"