This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Republican Budget Would Slash Taxes, Establish Two-Bracket Tax System And Scrap AMT

Tyler Durden's picture




 

While it has no chance of passage, the GOP 2013 budget, details of which have been leaked by the WSJ, proposes slashing corporate and individual tax rates, collapsing the current six tax bracket system into just two tiers (10% and 25%), lowering top corporate tax rate to 25% and scrapping the anachronism that is the AMT, or Alternative Minimum Tax. Finally, the proposed plan would nearly eliminate U.S. taxes on American corporations' earnings from overseas operations: something which companies with foreign cash would be rather happy to hear. Needless to say, Democrats will promptly dead end this budget in the Senate: "The proposal, to be offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who has become the Republicans' leading figure on budget issues, has little chance of becoming law soon. While likely to be welcomed by House GOP rank-and-file members, it would be rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate."

Among the more contentious issues is the elimination of some top individual tax brackets...

The current tax system has six individual tax brackets, with a top marginal rate of 35%. The proposal to replace it with just two brackets, with rates of 10% and 25%, echoes proposals by some GOP presidential contenders. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum would reduce rates to 10% and 28%; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would cut current rates by one-fifth; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul support some form of flat tax.

...As well as the elimination of repatriation taxation, allowing companies like Apple to bring back their foreign cash horde tax free:

The new budget also would lower the top corporate tax rate to 25% from 35% and plunge into a fierce debate about how to tax companies' overseas operations. Currently, U.S. companies pay the tax rate of the country where the outpost is located and then, if they bring those profits home, often pay some U.S. taxes as well. Under the Ryan-Camp proposal, companies essentially would pay just the tax rate of the country where the profits are earned.

So why is the GOP proposing this?

"We don't expect to make law this year, but we expect to give the country an alternative choice for the future," Mr. Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee, said in an interview. "We're going into this election with a specific plan and showing how we could realize it and get it done."

 

The document was drafted with input from Rep. David Camp (R., Mich.), who heads the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee and has long pushed for a tax overhaul. "We think it's very important to have a clear message on jobs and the economy," Mr. Camp said. "The code is too costly, too burdensome, and it's hurting job creation, so we think we should take action."

Democrats see the tax issue as a smokescreen:

Democrats see the tax proposal as an attempt to deflect attention from the more controversial parts of Mr. Ryan's budget, such as a Medicare overhaul and a decision to set 2013 spending levels at a lower figure than that agreed to in the debt-limit deal last August.

 

"Republicans are on a maddening push once again to end Medicare and raise health-care costs for seniors, while giving more special tax breaks to big oil companies and millionaires," said Rep. Steve Israel (D., N.Y.), who coordinates the House Democrats' campaigns.

 

Mr. Ryan caused a furor last year by proposing to change Medicare from a program in which the government pays directly for health care into a "premium support" program for those currently 55 or younger. Medicare would subsidize beneficiaries' premiums as they bought private insurance.

In other words, it is a given that none of the proposed by the GOP will happen.

Instead, the Democrats favor the Buffett rule, which seeks to further widen the class divide by making the wealthy pay progressively more, in the process funding even greater bailouts of TBTF financial institutions, and the even greater encroachment of the insolvent welfare state.

So while the political theatrics continue, the US still has to decide what expenditures it will cut as part of last summer's debt ceiling deal. That this will not happen is also a given.

Which makes us wonder: why even pretend with taxation? As we have shown, the US is progressively more reliant on debt issuance as a funding source for all deficit. At last check debt issuance served to fund 54% of all government expenditures, as tax revenues net of refunds now account for less than half. In fact as of today, in Fiscal 2012 the US has issued $115 billion more in debt ($776 billion) than it has collected in net tax revenues ($661 billion).

So why pretend America will ever repay its debt? Why engage in meaningless political theatrics and senseless optics, and collect taxes at all, as sooner or later virtually all US deficits will be funded through debt issuance, and thus Fed monetization? Why not just cut all marginal tax rates to 0%, and get consumers to truly enjoy a few months of unbridled spending euphoria before the hyperinflation hits?

Alas, we won't find many answers here or anywhere.

For the interested, here is the personal message from Paul Ryan in the form of a rhetorical question. It too will not be answered: after all America (and everyone else, everywhere) has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that taking pain in the short-term, in order to avoid a complete catastrophe in the longer-term, is not only unacceptable, it is inconceivable. Especially when there are iTrinkets to be distracted with.

The Path to Prosperity Budget: Your Country. Your Future. Your Choice.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:32 | 2271477 Cdad
Cdad's picture

Good grief.  Nice Hail Mary, thrown from their own one yardline on 4th down with zero time on the clock, thrown by The Other Democrats in the House of Representatives. 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:38 | 2271487 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

In the 50's the tax rate for the wealthiest was 90%.  And what a nightmare those years were, right?  One working parent to a home, lifetime employment, social mobility for the poor and middle class, american manufacturing and auto supremacy.  What a bunch of socialists we were. 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:41 | 2271505 balz
balz's picture

EPIC COMMENT.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:54 | 2271551 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Lower taxes for the largest corporations, lower taxes for the wealthiest individuals, and propose no real spending cuts and certainly no cuts in military spending.  Because it's worked so well for the last 40 years and left the country stronger and healthier financially, right?  What could go wrong?

Grover Norquist called it "starve the beast."  The idea was to run up huge deficits while cutting taxes.  The end-game is the complete end of all social programs once the public figures out we "cant' afford them," and the ushering in of a grand new era of serfdom for most of the population who are left without pensions, social security, health care, etc.  Work until you die and buy at the company store and like it.  You've gotta hand it to Grover -- it's working brilliantly and lots of seemingly intelligent people are begging for more.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:09 | 2271598 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Any income tax on natural humans above 0% is the functional equivalent of slavery. This is an inarguable fact. Republicans just want the chains of slavery to ride a little lighter-- you're still a slave under their system.

Corporations, on the other hand, are legitimate targets for an income tax. Since they are creatures of the State, they are beholden to the state.

The federal government was funded solely by excise taxes for the first 120 years of its existence, and the country was much better off as a result. Ever since the citizenry was enslaved in 1913, the entire economy has been deteriorating-- gradually at first, and now, suddenly.

Recalling, of course, the old joke, "how did you go bankrupt, sir?" " two ways-- gradually, and then suddenly."

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:15 | 2271629 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

I am all about reducing the taxes on individuals. Are they going to reduce spending? Hell no! Let the ponzi march on till insolvency.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:28 | 2271664 caconhma
caconhma's picture

Welcome to the Martial Law in the USA. Please see below:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 16, 2012 Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:25 | 2271839 MobBarley
MobBarley's picture

Seems ZeroHedge isn't covering this topic due to the hi volume of ell leveraged HISC (head in sand) Index Spider PDA.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:32 | 2272051 superflyguy
superflyguy's picture

this was covered earlier when it was hot of the presses, have you been watching dancing with the stars? :)

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:42 | 2272089 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

I would still rather have Ron Paul's elimination of the income tax and trillion dollar in budget cuts.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:36 | 2271860 oldman
oldman's picture

@caconhma

Dude,

We've been under martial law since Capt. John Smith-----indentured servants, slavery, witches burned at the stake, genocide of native americans, back to slavery under the auspices of the "State Labor Codes', war, war,war, death and destruction where ever we choose. Now, the bill comes due and all the 'haves' leave the table to 'go to the bathroom'----can't you see the irony, humor, poetry in all of this?

And, now, you want us to rise up and overthrow the tyranny? Get real, please----come to your senses

we have a history as shit-eaters and we are happy eating shit---we always have from newegland to florida, atlantic to pacific, canada to mexico, and all along the west coast------we're good people and we do what we are told.

Suck it up, brother---take a deep breath-----it is just you and I left at the table and-----oh, excuse me please, buty I have to go to the bathroom.

Wish it were other         om

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 05:25 | 2272499 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

the pretty golden tassles on our flag indicate martial law...ask every politician what they mean and only 2 will know the answer the rest may know but will never answer...

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 13:34 | 2273906 Goner
Goner's picture

I cant find any credible source for this, would you mind sharing if you have one. There are dozens of sites that parrot this but they dont provide any evidence. I am not saying our courts and goverment have not been hi-jacked, just that that I dont think a flag with gold tassles is the best indication.

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/faq.htm

Gold fringe can be found on ceremonial flags used indoors and for outdoor ceremonies. The fringe is considered completely within the guidelines of proper flag etiquette. There is nothing in the Flag Code about the fringe being for federal government flags only. The Internet contains many sites that claim that the fringe indicates martial law or that the Constitution does not apply in that area. These are entirely unfounded (usually citing Executive Order 10834 and inventing text that is not part of the order) and should be dismissed as urban legends. Others ascribe meanings of spiritual authority. Gold fringes on flags goes back long before the United States. Flags in ancient India had gold fringe, as did those in France, England, and throughout Europe.

Thu, 03/22/2012 - 15:08 | 2281363 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

look at admirality court...see if that helps

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:05 | 2274987 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Pathetic, caconhma.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:19 | 2271646 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

Any income tax on natural humans above 0% is the functional equivalent of slavery.

Congrats on the Ron Paul fanboy award.  It was a close one.  The problem is, you rely on government mandated clean water to come from your sink, government mandated police department to keep bad people away, USDA approved meat, and thousands of other little protections offered to you. 

Ever since the citizenry was enslaved in 1913

I agree 100% that the FED is an abomination.  And the fact that our income taxes go to pay for the interest on that debt is even worse.  But we live in the real world, which hasn't changed much since Roman times.  Pay the military from the public coffers or other countries take your shit.  Provide for the public or they revolt.  Tax is as old as civiliation and there's a good reason for that.  It's the lifeblood of it.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:23 | 2271653 redpill
redpill's picture

At the very least the form of taxation should be on consumption, not earnings.  That change alone would revolutionize the way our economy operates.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:53 | 2271734 SystemsGuy
SystemsGuy's picture

Red Pill,

Yup. A consumption tax would be inflationary, but it would also simplify the tax code dramatically. It would be harder to game. It places the burden of accounting on the business, which is already managing that anyway, rather than on the employer or the employee. It's reasonably progressive, especially if businesses end up paying this tax as well as individuals, and it would eliminate the constant fairness argument. It would reward savings and thrift, and would encourage the shift to a more efficient economy. Similarly tax financial transactions - it would reduce speculation in the market and perhaps make the market more honest in the process.

Unfortunately, all of these reasons are why it won't happen. The wealthy may argue about the burden of taxes, but they know that they have the best of all possible worlds right now, and so long as it is advantageous to those people, they will fight tooth and nail to keep the existing tax system in place, only make it even more regressive.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:19 | 2271819 Cursive
Cursive's picture

@SystemsGuy

A consumption tax would be inflationary, but it would also simplify the tax code dramatically.

Not really.  A revenue neutral switch, albeit extremely difficult to execute, to a national sales tax would not create any new money.  Inflation is only created by money printing and/or fractional reserve banking, not increased or decreased demand.  A consumption or national sales tax would make the final price for goods more, but it would only discourage consumption and envigorate black markets.  That can actually be very deflationary.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:59 | 2272227 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

A consumption tax would be inflationary, but it would also simplify the tax code dramatically.

No, a consumption tax (sales tax) wouldn't be inflationary.   Inflation comes from money printing, not sales tax.

Inflation itself is a tax by the way.  A hidden tax.   A large hidden tax now.  Since 2007 40% MORE of your purchasing power is being taxed away by inflation on top of all other taxes. If you're in a 25% tax bracket, add 40% to that.

Now you know why the economy is collapsing.  So much of people's purchasing power is being taxed away by regular taxes plus inflation there's just not much left to pay bills and have any spending money.

And the inflation tax is "collected" by the Fed, not by the government.  Whatever portion of your purhasing power is taxed away by inflation, that wealth goes right to the Fed.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 02:26 | 2272365 Orly
Orly's picture

There can be no sustainable systemic inflation without wage pressures from below.  Single monetary or fiscal policies by themselves do nothing to inflation.

:D

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 06:37 | 2272536 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

  Sustainable Systemic Inflation? The ultimate oxymoron!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:06 | 2272567 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture

 

Inflation comes when a bangin babe walks up and I look her in the eye and smile and she smiles back.

Deflation is when she says do you have money for gas and to go shopping.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 09:28 | 2272864 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

There can be no sustainable systemic inflation without wage pressures from below.

Nonsense.

Inflation happens when the money supply expands faster than GDP.   That's the textbook definition of inflation.

What happens to wages is a downstream effect of inflation.   What happens to prices is a downstream effect of inflation.

An no, wages aren't rising like you presume.   Since 2007 USD has lost 40% of it's value (purchasing power). Wages would have to rise 67% to make up for it.

But wages haven't risen at all hardly.  In fact wages are stagnant or even dropping in some cases as more people compete for fewer jobs, allowing employers to reduce wages.

People must stop viewing inflation as a price event.  It has nothing to do with prices. 

It's a money supply event causing the currency to devalue (devalue, debase, depreciate, lose purchasing power, buy less, whatever). 

How prices and wages respond to inflation is a separate matter.   But it's not inflation.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:05 | 2272564 Bobbyrib
Bobbyrib's picture

A consumption tax would also be Regressive, not Progressive.

 

I would make it a point to buy less to not pay more than I currently do in taxes. Also buying a small farm wouldn't be the worst idea if a consumption tax came about. When people like myself buy less and less, the government would be forced to raise the consumption tax rate to make up for the shortfall of revenue.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:35 | 2271867 thefedisscam
thefedisscam's picture

For that to happen, at least it needs to exempt the first 10K or 15K from taxing. otherwise, poor people will pay much higher percent of their income as tax, than the rich people

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 08:05 | 2272633 Convervative Co...
Convervative Connection's picture

No, you just need to not tax "necessities"... which is the same thing we do now at the state level.

So, unprepared food and basic clothing: no tax.

iPads, big screen TVs, cell phones: tax

See how that works? Things that a person NEEDS are untaxed. Things that a person WANTS are.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:02 | 2272560 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture

 

You mean a system of voluntary contracts and property rights?  It would never work.  

How would you fleece the muppets and make riskless profits without pointing a gun at someone?

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:29 | 2271670 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I didn't see where you mentioned the fact that he asked to work extra hard to provide for not only his family but also for the slug next store in the wife beaters t shirt living off of welfare sitting on the front porch drinking pabst blue ribbon or for the woman who can't keep her legs apart.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:33 | 2271676 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Lloyd Blankfein does not live next door and I'm pretty sure he doesn't like PBR.  

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:32 | 2271856 tmosley
tmosley's picture

His cousin, Cletus Blankfein does though.

Just because a parasite is small doesn't change the fact that he is a parasite.  The proper remedy removes them all at once.  Or you can be an idiot and try to get rid of them by scratching where they want you to scratch while continuing to miss the fact that the irritation you create to get rid of them only draws more and more of their brothers to the feast.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:34 | 2271685 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

offer him a job and see if he says no

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:40 | 2271699 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

You are so out of touch it isn't funny. If you think the system isn't loaded with people who don't enjoy the free ride then you need to get out more and associate with some of them. I can tell you personally that they don't want a job and if they do want something it has to pay under the table so it doesn't mess with their "benefits".

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:45 | 2271714 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

I think it's you who is out of touch.  There are many freeloaders but most people want to work and succeed, it's human nature. I have hired plenty of people who were very happy to get off the public teet, but you don't let go of one rope without a firm grip on another.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:48 | 2271725 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

It's really pointless to argue with 9th graders.  They have no experience in the real world, so their fantasies seem very real to them.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:58 | 2271758 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Do yu ever have anything intelligent to say? No? I didn't think so.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:07 | 2271785 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Yes, I simply point out that YOU never have anything intelligent to say.  Jeez, what a maroon.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:56 | 2271750 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I have news for you pal. I have employed hundreds of people in my life. I've had some very hard workers and I have had a large share of people like I described. I treated them all well and made sure compensation was above what the current market was paying. My belief has always been that its best in the long run to compensate well and to keep turnover low. So I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:00 | 2271764 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Sociopaths always think they are generous to the help.    It's in their nature.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:08 | 2271787 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Sociopath, curious term for a person who advocates digging in another persons pockets to pay for programs and wars that person doesn't agree with. I'll bet you look for every tax loop hole you can find rand. Hypocrite like all the rest of the takers.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:35 | 2271866 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Let them Eat Rand is a notorious socialist troll, unfortunately he won't go back to HuffPuff or whatever communist hellhole he emerged from.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:21 | 2272208 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Probably got banned. Perhaps ignoring them, will cause them to lose interest, and they will simply go away.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:36 | 2271872 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Wrong again.  Sociopaths don't care at all.

And in any event, it isn't their place to to be "generous".  If the "help" can find greater pay or better working conditions elsewhere, they can leave.  Cruel bosses create high turnover, which is expensive and time-consuming.

The only time a sociopath gains power, beyond simple acts of assault that they could perpetrate on ANYONE who drops their guard, is when society allows them to seize that power and FORCE others to serve them.  By this I mean with literal force (gun to the head type force), or threat of force.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:04 | 2272157 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Sounds like the gubbamint!!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:10 | 2272571 Bobbyrib
Bobbyrib's picture

Please re-read your nineteenth century US history. When non-business owners have to work to live, business owners can and will lower compensation and increase their workloads to increase productivity and profit margins when times are bad (like right now).

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:08 | 2271788 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Oh, bullshit.  If you ever employed more that your right hand, you wouldn't be wasting time here. 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:17 | 2271816 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Call bullshit all you want. You are nobody to me. How many homeless shelters have you volunteered in hypocrite? How many times have you worked in soup kitchens passing out food? How many nursing homes have you gone to visit ? I can tell your kind. You sit back and like to tell people how government should spend their money but you won't lift a finger yourself to make a difference.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 01:01 | 2272269 oldman
oldman's picture

@ Dr. Engali

Doctorcito,

Sorry, Doc.

You are a little out of touch on this one

anyway. 'asi es' as we say in this part of America

And, let us say that you are in the extreme in being 'out of touch'

Why not just accept 'asi es' as the 'is' of our times

and go along with the crowd?

After all we are all in the same boat

So even if you are the only one with water

Please don'y make us take it from you

There is enough for all the bankers so

there HAS to be enough for all

Gracias, Doctorcito                             om

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:43 | 2271708 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

It's the disparity in it.

 

If Jeff Immelt gives up 15% of his coin, I'll be happy with doing my part.

 

P.S. That's a lot of clean water, and paved roads.

 

 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:33 | 2271859 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"The problem is, you rely on government mandated clean water to come from your sink, government mandated police department to keep bad people away, USDA approved meat, and thousands of other little protections offered to you."

You suffer from a lack of imagination and/or Praise the Savior State disorder aka Hobbesianism. The above statements are not true in their assertions - the water is not clear, the police do not prevent crime, to the contrary they constantly commit it, and they punish a small fraction of all crimes committed, all at immense cost to you, the meat is disgusting, factory farming, rBGH and other hormones, antibiotics, corn and animal feed, and fillers are just some of the things the USDA has approved. Thousands of other little protections? No, thousands of other incursions, usurpations, predations, encroachments, tramplings, assaults, extortions, and so on.

The problem with your asinine assumption is that it would mean that all previous states, as the US government is the largest that has ever existed, were necessarily worse, and that the US has gotten better in direct proportion to the size of its government. If some government is good, more must be better ... How's that working out for you?

The Fed is how your beloved Savior State funds your oppression "services". Without a fiat currency, such incredibly massive wastes of money would not be possible as demonstrated by the history of central banking in this country. The world hasn't changed much since Roman times? Perhaps if you are a Bedouin sheep herder in the Jordanian deserts. How is this even relevant? Rome destroyed itself, as all states eventually do. Pay the military to keep your subjects in order, defend your rule, and assault/plunder other nations. There's a reason this country was not intended to maintain a standing army. Throughout history, the use of a military use to defend the homeland is absolutely paled by its use to make war abroad and maintain control at home. Providing for the public means redistribute, by force, the wealth of your subjects. Without the state, there is no public and there is no state-entity against which to revolt. The state is what necessitates and makes possible revolt by the polity.

Yes, tax is as old as civilization and there is a good reason, but yours isn't it. Taxation is not the lifeblood of civilization - untruer words have seldom been uttered - it is (because the state is at base) nothing but a wealth redistribution - from those who produce to those who do not - mechanism. A state can hardly function without taxation, civilization however can and, in fact, flourishes in inverse proportion to the magnitude of the state.

Hobbesians like yourself are the reason the state continues to exist - you have convinced yourselves through fear and lack of imagination that the state does more harm than good. You take credit for both. The state cannot create wealth or resources, it can only redistribute them by force, all good it does is a result of this redistribution and thus involves an opposite act of evil, but the state can also destroy, and so the good is zero-sum while the evil is nearly infinite.

You should bow down and worship the Fed every day of your life, it is after all the sine qua non of your Savior State. Your claim that the Fed is an abomination is in direct and total contradiction to your Hobbesian partialities.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:11 | 2271964 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

well finally a smert feller. 

the meat is disgusting, factory farming, rBGH and other hormones, antibiotics, corn and animal feed, and fillers

You're saying the failure of an agency in any way invalidates all it's efforts. FAIL

your asinine assumption is that... the US has gotten better in direct proportion to the size of its government

I never referred to or implied the size of government. FAIL

The Fed is how your beloved Savior State funds your oppression "services"

No.  I disagree with the FED's existence, and it is not needed to maintain human services. FAIL

nothing but a wealth redistribution - from those who produce to those who do not

I benefit from roads and other services and I also pay taxes. FAIL

 

Fuck, I thought the readership here could do better.  You wouldn't know Hobbes from Calvin sir.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:48 | 2272116 Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas's picture

What parts are you supporting again?

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:12 | 2272176 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

"You're saying the failure of an agency in any way invalidates all it's efforts. FAIL"

Forest-Trees. As if any of the rest of the alphabet soup of government agency fucktards, are doing any better than the USDA.

You presume that without government, none of these dangers would be mitigated, nor would infrastructure exist. You also presume that such dangers are being mitigated with government at the helm. They aren't...and government still has all the fucking guns.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:12 | 2272573 Bobbyrib
Bobbyrib's picture

You assume the 19th century never took place.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 04:31 | 2272462 Leraconteur
Leraconteur's picture

The portion of the Federal budget that has to do with regulation and consumer safety, is small. Less than 10% of the current budget.

The numbers are:

Medicare and Medicaid 793
Social Security OASI & DI 701
DOD 689
Discretionary 660
Other Mandatory (pensions) 416
Net Interest 197
Total: 3456

Discretionary includes lots of stuff, and much of it is NOT FDA, etc.

The US Government could shrink by a factor of 5, -80%, to 20% of its current size and the food water and roads would remain unchanged, in the same poor condition they are now.

Also, some people have wells. No government made that water clean. Some people have a septic tank. Same. Some people have gravel roads paid for by the local government and a very small tax burden. Some roads are dirt. No taxes.

You argue, poorly, in favor of more gov't and more taxes.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:37 | 2271875 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"tax is the lifeblood of civilization"?????

Holy. Fucking. Shit. You have to be fucking kidding me. That is the all-time stupidest thing ever written at this website.

Taxes KILL civilizations, fuckwit.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:19 | 2272203 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Like too much of anything they can, but to imply that they always do is universally stupid.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 02:23 | 2272361 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Ratchet Theory of Government

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is FORCE"
George Washington

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 13:59 | 2274006 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

And the facts are that sociopaths/psychopaths need to be coerced/forced to behave, all your pet theories aside.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:56 | 2271927 Race Car Driver
Race Car Driver's picture

> "The problem is, you rely on government mandated clean water to come from your sink, government mandated police department to keep bad people away, USDA approved meat, and thousands of other little protections offered to you."

The problem is - this is all bullshit.

Tap water is filthy and laden with toxic chemicals and psychotropic pharma drugs. The cops aren't there to protect anyone but to earn income for the state and pump the prison industrial complex... and the USDA wouldn't know a quality piece of meat if it slapped them in the head (see: Pink Slime and Meat Glue).

I junked ya for your sheer ignorance and trying to pass this bullshit off as something real and of quality.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:21 | 2272209 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

I junked you for being unable to see past your own screen door.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:04 | 2271941 duncangraper
duncangraper's picture

Shocking how the Romans could eat for so long without USDA approved meat

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:14 | 2272182 ToddANON
ToddANON's picture

I'll take another helping of pink slime please!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 14:06 | 2272219 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You're saying that the Romans didn't have any food safety regulations/inspectors? Pull the other one.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:05 | 2271942 Libertarian777
Libertarian777's picture

Aaah yes...

so we rely on government water with hydroflouric acid in it, USDA approved pink slime and police who violate the 1st and 4th amendment with impunity

Yes yes, absolutely, where would we be without the federal government?

I'm not against taxes, I'm against INCOME taxes. Taxes on consumption to pay for the cost of what you consume is how a FREE market would use the pricing mechanism to determine supply and demand, instead of using subsidies from one group to pay for another.

Gas taxes, if they were actually used for roads, are the closest form of the correct implementation of a tax. Unfortunately gas taxes go into the general fund and are squandered, and our roads fall into disrepair.

Income taxes and the draft are the one and the same. Income taxes state what you earn belongs to the state and they will let you keep some of it. The draft states your LIFE belongs to the state for them to dispose of as they please. It is no different than King George III's claimed powers over the colonists.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:16 | 2272193 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

You sir, in one small paragraph have hit the fucking nail on the head!!!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:09 | 2275000 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

So I guess your idea is that maybe you'd only pay for the police after you got robbed?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:28 | 2275238 Matt
Matt's picture

Oh, do the police arrive at your place BEFORE the robbery?

I'm assuming most libertarians would rather simply use deadly force to not get robbed in the first place.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:11 | 2276840 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Chicken vs. egg. Can a serial burglar break into your house from prison? You implying police have never caught anyone in the act?

And I doubt bd is suggesting that you can't combine self defence with a publicly funded police force monitored by civil oversight and subject to you the sovereign

"...Billy Joe shot a man while robbing his castle, Bobbie Sue took the money and run... Billy Mack is a detective down in Texas. You know he knows just exactly what the fact is. He ain't gonna let those two escape justice. He makes his livin' off other people's taxes..." -Steve Miller Band

And yeah,  in my experience that's the rule and not the exception, at least in the case of violent blue collar crime.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:11 | 2271965 atomicwasted
atomicwasted's picture

Thank you for the reminder, Elizabeth Warren.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 02:07 | 2272341 Malachi Constant
Malachi Constant's picture

Tax is as old as civiliation and there's a good reason for that. It's the lifeblood of it.

  1. You are confusing civilization with evolution. As 2012 shows, they are mutually exclusive.
  2. People smarter and better than you were robbed so you be taught to tell one from the other. You failed them.
  3. Don't stop, keep talking! Keep joining discussions! More people need to realize just what kind of creatures the state shields from Natural Selection at their expense.
Tue, 03/20/2012 - 02:13 | 2272346 Malachi Constant
Malachi Constant's picture

How do you delete comments??!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 06:56 | 2272552 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

Government clean water? The water from the tap that they give an EPA "exemption" to the water companies to dump the industrial waste fluroide into? With a government like that, who needs ememies?

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:21 | 2271651 Bill D. Cat
Bill D. Cat's picture

The first sentence would make a fine bumpersticker .

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 04:34 | 2272465 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Any income tax on natural humans above 0% is the functional equivalent of slavery. This is an inarguable fact.

_________________________________________________

Unarguable fact, US citizenism...Yeah, yeah, it is the way it is.

Any income tax on natural humans (forget sub humans and non humans) beneath 0pc is the functional equivalent of emancipation. This is an inarguable fact.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:55 | 2272620 Mitzibitzi
Mitzibitzi's picture

Having spent 40-some weeks reading your posts, my friend, I'd like to offer some constructive criticism:

Will you PLEASE go away and take courses in English (focussing on sentence structure, paragraph construction and grammar - and yes, I fully realise that English is probably not your first language. The same is true of many here. Most of whom do a far better job than you do), Logic, History and Sociology (well, if you could find an unbiased course, which you probably couldn't even in a Western country) before you post anything else?

Don't get me wrong, in some cases I agree with your opinion of some Americans, though not most of the ones who post here. They quite often do have a somewhat annoying belief that they're better than everyone else, I know. But they also have some extremely redeeming features, as a culture.They do, in the main, believe in personal freedom, personal property and personal rights. And they are not afraid to kick up a fuss when external action by a government, individual or corporation infringes on the rights they hold so dear.

And they're the ones you seem to rail against. Or am I incorrect? Correct the ones I've got wrong here;

1) You are totally against the belief that no relatively intelligent human being needs someone else to run his / her life.

2) You think government can do / organise / allocate resources to / manage things better than individuals or cooperating groups in all cases.

3) You think it's totally correct that those at the top should use force to stay there. Ideally while denying the use of counterforce to their 'inferiors'.

4) You believe it's not right, moral or permissible for the oppressed masses to decide they've had enough, rise up and string the politicians, bankers, corporates and willing running dogs of the oppressive status quo they are so desperate to protect up from the nearest lamp-post.

5) You are of the opinion that Americans are too stupid, prideful or conditioned by their capitalist upbringing to concede that there are times when they need the help of a larger group to achieve a given end. And that they are incapable of forming such a group, permanently or temporarily to achieve that end.

 

Have I missed any?

 

And for all the other paid government shills and those too stupid to see ALL governments for what they are - please consider this;

If individual sovereignty was universal, we'd all have to be VERY polite to our neighbours and associates. We'd ALL have to carry our fair share of the load. There would be very little room for the lazy, stupid or incompetent. Everyone who wanted to grow high enough to see over the porch rail would have to be a master of their own life in many, many different ways. Since approximately 80% of the human race (admittedly based only upon my own experience) seems incapable of meeting this standard, though it's not an especially lofty standard of behaviour and competence to expect a supposedly sentient species to manage, it's fair to assume that the human race would be considerably smaller than it currently is. And also fair to assume that it would shrink pretty quickly to this size if we were all suddenly granted individual sovereignty.

With what we have now, it's only a matter of time before some combination of the Four Horsemen, whether through natural means or human intervention, evens up the glaring discrepancy between the humans who are useful and those who are lazy, stupid, ignorant and think they're entitled to a free ride (I'm not going to sugar coat this, 2 of my 4 children probably fall somewhat into the latter category. Hopefully, I can educate them in time). I'm inclined to think it's going to be the human race that causes the diminution of the human race, but Mother Nature might still beat us to it, you never know. Seems to be a race between increasingly expensive oil (whether we're at or past Peak, or not, we've used all the cheap, easy stuff, it's quite clear), environmental degradation (I'm sceptical about the claimed contribution to climate change humans supposedly have, but I am fully aware of landfill, waste dumps, decreasing green spaces and smog. See all of the above at least once a week), religion, war and the directives of unelected UN officials to see which of them can start to kill off the excess population first and quickest. 

Make no mistake, depopulation is coming, through whatever means. The only question is; will those remaining be a race of men, noble in form and swift of wit, or a race of slaves beholden to those who would be king, and aspire to be God?

 

 

 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:36 | 2271637 Manthong
Manthong's picture

“Our plan takes power away from Washington and gives it back to the individual.” (@ 02:30)

Hey, Representative Ryan, I hate to rain on your parade (or the funeral march for the Constitution) , but none of your work or any of your plans are worth a Capitol Hill of beans if any of the provisions of Presidential Executive Order (better termed "Imperial Decree") of March 16, 2012 are ever implemented.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:57 | 2271753 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

The Rethugs are presenting this plan because they know it won't pass. It's part of the game. they could have passed all kinds of Rethuglican Utopian budgets that fixed everything (in their minds) from 2000 - 2006 when the Dunce was Prez and they controlled all of Congress. But they didn't. This is all part of the theater for the sheople. One party, two faces.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 01:30 | 2272306 smb12321
smb12321's picture

You sould like a walking sound byte.  "Everyone but me is dumb.  Folks are sheeple.  All politicians wanna hurt the country.  It's all a game, blah blah"  LOTS of folks complained about spending & debt under Bush.  Many were democrats who whined that a $300 billion deficit would destroy us but haven't said a peep about year after year $1 trillion deficits. 

Ryan's plan would be fantastic except for one thing - it doesn't redefine the role of government nor does it cut government spending.  When the idea arose to "starve the government" nobody conceived that the powers that wannabe would simply borrow 42 cents of every dollar and continue spending like maniacs.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 06:57 | 2272553 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

Ryan voted for TARP. You really don't need to know anything else about that RINO. He is a leading Statist Party Member.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:10 | 2271795 oldman
oldman's picture

LetThem,

Im sure that half of us here ay good ol' ZH----'seemingly intelligent people are begging for more' are drooling over this trick                         om

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:18 | 2271821 Pizza man
Pizza man's picture
  • Moron, gov programs are a ponzi. No return, no investment, but subject to the ravages of political theivery and inflation.

Let the people have jobs and keep what they make in accounts with their OWN NAME ON THEM.

Marxists marching off the cliff. Is that what this bolg is all about?

 

82,000 pages of tax code and 1.75 t in regs and you complain about reform. MORON!

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:49 | 2272118 fearsomepirate
fearsomepirate's picture

We should go back to the 1950s, when Medicare and Medicaid were fully funded by taxes, and old people retired and lived comfortably on Social Security for 15 years before dying.

Oh wait.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:14 | 2272183 Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

Demographics is a bitch.  We are going to need higher levels of savings to support longer life and all the economic costs associated with it.  The government is preventing real savings by usurping it with immediate consumption.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 01:20 | 2272289 smb12321
smb12321's picture

You unfortunately hit the nail on the head.  Most posters ignore the root of our problem that every advanced nation (particularly Europe, Japan and soon China) faces. 

The welfare state was conceived just when technology had enabled more children to live but it contains the very seeds of its destruction. When it became apparent that fewer kids leads to a higher standard of living, birth rates decreased and now populations plummet. Federa coffers take a double loss - fewer workers and retiring workers - while payouts skyrocket as folks retire to grab what they can while they can.

In the end, all the evil banks, Wall Street hot shots, global conspiracies and neo-cons are secondary.  No economy based on a debased currency, debt and consumption can survive the soaring costs of social payments.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 04:37 | 2272469 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

When it became apparent that fewer kids leads to a higher standard of living, birth rates decreased and now populations plummet.

__________________________________________

Sure, sure, this is true even when it is false.

Ah, US citizens and their group obsession.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 13:16 | 2273834 smb12321
smb12321's picture

Not sure you're point unless you're saying it's not true that the idea that greater wealth can be attained by having 2 rather than 12 children is wrong.  There can be no better example of this than Europe where wealth (lol) is preferred over kids.  Or maybe every single demographer is wrong and are waiting for your guidance.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:04 | 2272563 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

Exactly. The current wing of the Statist Party now wants to sterilize women between 18 and 24 [college age] FREE OF CHARGE!

Why take that nasty pill, or have to have an abortion, when you can be sterilized for life and not ever have to worry about reproductive rights again! Ladies, you can be EXACTLY like a man without a penis.

So who is going to be paying for all the old age benefits for those sterilized women when they get old? Illegal alien apple pickers?

The demographics look like a telephone pole now, cut the birthrate a little more and it will become a mushroom.

The Progressives were always for sterilization before, but it was focused on the people they thought were subhuman. Now it is focused on the people they wanted to keep breeding. Weird. It is like a suicide cult in slow motion.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:17 | 2272195 jtg
jtg's picture

Grover Norquist is also a traitor. He used his influence to grease the skids for Muslims with Muslim Brotherhood connections to get access to the Bush White House and position of influence throughout the US government. He is a traitor. I don't understand why he isn't being chased by crowds trying to lynch him from one part of the country to the other.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:48 | 2271529 redpill
redpill's picture

And you attribute all that to the tax code?  That's some, uh, creative thinking.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:05 | 2271593 buckethead
buckethead's picture

Zero tax rate on earnings from overseas operations seems like it could provide further incentive to offshore jobs.

Some country with favorable tax rates and cheaper labor would be sure to com courting.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:09 | 2271611 r00t61
r00t61's picture

No kidding.

Could it be that the '50s were so great in America, because the rest of the industrialized world lay in shambles, attempting to recover from WWII, and gasoline was $0.18 a gallon ($1.61 in 2012 dollars)?

Someone needs to learn about the fallacy of correlation is not causation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation)

And in case this someone is still too dense to understand, here is the easily digestible Simpsons version:

[HOMER]: "Ah, not a bear in sight." [As the neighborhood Bear Patrol Helicopter and Stealth Fighter fly overhead]  "The Bear Patrol is working like a charm."

[LISA]: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."

[HOMER]: "Thank you, honey."

[LISA]: "By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."

[HOMER]: "Oh...how does it work?"

[LISA]: "It doesn't work!"

[HOMER]: "Uh-huh."

[LISA]: "It's just a stupid rock!"

[HOMER]: "uh-huh."

[LISA]: "But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?"

[HOMER]: [PULLS OUT HIS WALLET] "Lisa, I want to buy your rock!"

[LISA]: [WANTS TO REFUSE, BUT ULTIMATELY RELENTS, AND SELLS HER FATHER THE MAGICAL ROCK THAT KEEPS TIGERS AWAY]

Here's my own contribution to the fallacy: the 1950s in America were great because America was fighting in Korea.  Therefore, in order for America to become great again, it only needs to conduct some war in foreign nations...

Oh, wait.

 

 

 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:29 | 2271668 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

while you did manage to use up quite a bit of page space, this fails to accomplish its purpose of calling my argument falsely correlated.  Your argument, basically, is the gas price and lack of foreign competition (like we had NAFTA)? really?  

America was broke as fuck after WW2, and it patriotically taxed the shit of the super rich, many of whom profited greatly from the war, and rebuilt the country beautifully.  Getting 90% of the largest tax base's income was not the only factor, but by far the biggest.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:36 | 2271692 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

But, hey,...you're harshing the buzz of our conservatards.  Facts are an inconvenient truth. 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:43 | 2271712 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Hey libtard. Maybe you don't understand. That 90% tax rate was never paid because the rich don't live off of income.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:49 | 2271728 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Hey wingnut.  Tell that to Mittens.   Fucktard.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:11 | 2271765 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Again nothing intelligent to say. The "income "for the wealthy, the truly wealthy is just pocket change.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:49 | 2271729 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

the rich don't live off of income.

There is NO WAY you're a doctor.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:34 | 2271863 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

There is no way you can grasp the difference between income and wealth. Two totally different things.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:45 | 2271898 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You are arguing with a jackass. It's a waste of time. Fucking socialists know only one thing: I deserve to take, by force, what you earned. They are lazy thugs dressed up as intellectuals.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:20 | 2272206 Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

Yah and they are cowards who try to coerce others to steal for them.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:09 | 2272570 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

I guess you don't understand who the truly wealthy are. Most doctors are not "rich". They have more than you, that does not make them rich. The corner store owner has more than you, also. He is not rich. It just appears that way from the bottom.

A wino on skid row takes a look up and down the street, and everybody he sees that is not another wino is "rich" to him.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 15:00 | 2274282 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You're right, with wealth disparity being what it is these days it is just so damn difficult to draw any lines...

LOL

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:52 | 2271733 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You know you're talking to someone who lives in a fantasy land of unicorn farts for fuel and butterfly wings for food don't you? ;-)

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:02 | 2271771 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

someone who lives in a fantasy land

I live in Brooklyn.  Bitch.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:07 | 2271786 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Exactly...but I wasn't addressing you...my bitch ;-)

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:10 | 2271797 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

my man...

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:12 | 2271803 nmewn
nmewn's picture

;-)

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:48 | 2271908 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Holy shit boys! What we got here is an old fashioned, Noo York INTELLECTUWALL! Bow down before his superior socialist mind, his ethical purity is unmatched, his desire to appropriate your earnings and wealth is limitless, his knowledge of how to spend YOUR money is infinite!

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:34 | 2271864 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

My guess is that they have planned this for months.

Fade it.

But also catch the signal. This is what shall pass as Obama's campaign.

Deciet is all they have left (left?)

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 02:10 | 2272344 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Just wanted to say " Hello nmewn"  You were always good to me.  ThankYou.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 05:38 | 2272502 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The package has been delivered ;-)

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 06:51 | 2272546 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

All is in order.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:06 | 2271774 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

ding, ding. We have a winner.

Nobody with wealth or sufficiently high enough income ever paid the top nominal rate. Too many loopholes that upper middle class and borderline wealthy people were allowed to take advantage of have been legislated away in the last 50 years. Mr. BK may pay lip service to fightin' da Fed, but he completely overlooks the behind the scenes shenanigans that the really big'uns have been pulling in the cloakrooms of Das Kapital.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:10 | 2271796 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Then fine, why don't we have a 99% tax...Oh wait, because the 1% might accidentally have to pay close to their fair share. 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:20 | 2271825 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Great idea.

But who will ensure that they actually pay?

Certianly not the puppets ( or is that muppets? ) that have been bought and paid for?

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:47 | 2271903 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Oh not to worry you rebel you.

Volunteers shall abound.

Lot's of boy's and girl's decide to help.

I promise.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:53 | 2271919 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Heh.

Seen you around before too.

I'm raising a gaggle of 'em that that might not be above a little murder'n'mayhem meself.

Later.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:42 | 2271706 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

While I'm not unsympathetic to your views, there were all kinds of loopholes in the 90% rate.  A lot of non-wage compensation was also granted to corporate executives.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:29 | 2271835 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

the 'loopholes', 'fraud', 'collusion', or whatever the 'trickle downers' of the useful idiot variety want to call it don't detract from BK's point however, they certify it.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:35 | 2271868 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

That is actually pretty funny.

I happen to be one of the most un-useful idiots on the planet.
I can build, electrify, cleanse water, and treat waste... all while growing some of my own food, and defending my land.

Oh, I almost forgot... passing on all those skills to the younger generation improves my chances of living comfortably in my dotage, as opposed to DOLTAGE like some of your buddies on the "left" whatever that means.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:00 | 2271883 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Exactly: "whatever that means"

I applaud your ability to admit that you haven't the slightest idea.

<golf clap>

Oh, I almost forgot: as for the rest, SO CAN I.

Were you looking for a biscuit or something?

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:00 | 2271936 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Not an admission so much as a realization.

Any move to strengthen the power of a polity comes at the expense of the individuals within that polity. Be he R or D, or you or me, the one that proposes a law should have a noose around his neck.

I gotz my own bizkitz 'cuz I worked for 'em.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:28 | 2271987 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Yeah, 'laws' and' 'regulations' and such sure suck if your game is murder, theft and fraud.

Note: that ain't workin where I hail from biscuit boy. But I can see how someone who did that for a living would feel exactly the same way you do.

Price of living in a society is that you neighbour's dog shits on your lawn every once in awhile and you have to clean it up. Then again, you  probably have a dog too.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 08:38 | 2272047 Clay Hill
Clay Hill's picture

Unlike your assessment of me, I think you have seen half of the picture. Now if only you would open your eyes the rest of the way...

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:49 | 2271909 EINSILVERGUY
EINSILVERGUY's picture

Your wrong

America had pent up demand due to rationing during the war. American industry immedtately started hiring people not only to build inventory for domestic demand but also for export.  Case in point was GM.  Look up TQM by Deming.  GM owned the car industry and deming tried to get them to improve their quality. Their response was why do we need to improve when we own over 70% of the market. Deming went to Japan and help develop the most efficient automobile sector in history. The rest is history and GM is a microcosm of the US.  Mgmt can't say no to the unions and creates a shitty product and then  in the end closes down the factories and has to prositute itself to the guvmint to survive

Something else you are missing.  Look at government expenditures in the late 50's and now.  In 1960 we spent 50% on defense and 22% on entitlements. if you look at this years revenues of $2.2 trillion and add up just the cost of medicare, medicaid, social security and medicare part d, it eats up 100% of all revenues.

We do not have a revenue problem. we have a entitlement society and a bunch of spineless elected leaders who can't say no (Republicans) or have an outright strategy of staying ion power though creation of the government plantation (Democrats)

 

 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:38 | 2271946 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

speaking of 'entitlements' I notice that you glaringly omitted the 'defense' percentage in your dissemination of this year's expenditures. No reason? It must be too small of a fish to fry, on par with education? Priority set mb?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:30 | 2272224 Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

And what is rationing by another name? Savings.  The simple problem with the economy is the complete lack of savings and investment.  All we have is speculation, consumption, and inflation.  Forgoe the consumption, to save resources, to build the capital which produces more product.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:47 | 2272111 fearsomepirate
fearsomepirate's picture

In the 1950s, tax revenue averaged 15% of GDP, less than the average during the Bush administration.

I suggest you stop fighting this war on math.  Math can be an unforgiving adversary.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:48 | 2271532 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Could not agree more. The Aliens probably like the 501/3c's that fund calista and her brilliant military strategist called Newt.

Have you suctured a wound newt? Mr. Romney. I earn less than $56,000 a year because of the tax code, I'll bet you "earn" carnival money that way in a single day. And when it is all done we end up with Obama 2012. Lets stop all this bantering and create a tax code that makes Ron Paul roll in his grave. MSM approved. Kony lacked proper influences.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:55 | 2271559 cjbosk
cjbosk's picture

Ummmm, Rocket...the highest marginal bracket was 90%, not the effective tax rate of the "wealthiest" so you're propoganda is off just slightly.

One working parent at home.  Yes, this can be done today but problem is mom wants 4 trips with girlfriends to Vegas, both parents drive cars that cost as much as two homes in the 60's and forget about the home they're ready to default on, let's just say 5X earnings.

This is an entitlement problem.  Yes, you make a good analysis that we had our priorities aligned back then but today, the OWS/Entitlement/Jealous/Envious crowd can't wait to live like the "rich" and we're all paying for those sins now.  Don't take my word for it, let's watch the youth unemployment in this country skyrocket as the "youts" say no to jobs that pay 30, 40, 50K per year because they think they're worth more.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:02 | 2271580 ihedgemyhedges
ihedgemyhedges's picture

" Yes, this can be done today but problem is mom wants 4 trips with girlfriends to Vegas...."

Not to mention a pool boy....................

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:23 | 2271655 wisefool
wisefool's picture

get her done. But dont send a buck IRS agent to my hovel for this pool boy you call newt/romeny. I will give money to casinos when the fish is fresh.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:17 | 2271812 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

you're half right, but went off a cliff thinkng OWS wants more than just the fuckin bankers to stop riggin the rules and perhaps cast out an Infamous Decree or two

Napoleon issued an imperial decree in 1806 that suspended payment of debts owed to Jewish moneylenders for one year to warn against usury to the supposedly degenerate Jewish population

ok that last part was from me..  one can dream right?

 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 23:16 | 2271992 cjbosk
cjbosk's picture

Soros,

"Went off a cliff thinking OWS wants more than just the fukin bankers to stop riggin the rules and perhaps cast out an infamous decree or two.?"

Dude...who made the rules by which the "fukin bankers" play?....................enough time..congress.  So, how about we start with gooberment.  Gooberment was who ultimately made the banks lend more via alt-a, sub prime, NINJA, no-doc loans.  So though there was preditory lending, the buck stops with some dude that sold tacos for a living in LA thinking he could buy some home in East LA for 500K on 60K worth of green per year.  Yes, someone should have pointed this out but help me out here, didn't the government really cause the problem?  It started with the Community Reinvestment Act under the liberal sodomist, Barney Franks. 

 

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:25 | 2271838 SystemsGuy
SystemsGuy's picture

Entitlements, my ass.

Rents or mortgages for even remotely habitable places start at around $1600 a month and work their way up from there. Family of four means about another $1200 a month in food costs, gas at $4 a gallon and energy costs contribute another $500 or so to the pot. Kick in $1000 a month taken out for medical and auto insurance (that's pretty much the going rate right now). That's $4300 a month, or ~$50K a year, even before you add in taxes on top of that. Let's say you have one wage earner making $40K. They're not making ends meet. Second goes out and makes an additional $2.5K a month. $800 a month child care because both parents are now out of the house, tax at around $10,000 per annum. Even with two incomes that means you're looking at maybe clearing $600 a month, which isn't going to be buying a lot of trips to Vegas (in my household, it's likely going to buy clothes for growing kids, maybe one or two nice meals out to celebrate birthdays or similar events, replacing appliances and so forth).

The youth unemployment rate is skyrocketing because people in their sixties and seventies are now in a situation where they can't afford to live on their pensions, and so are taking all of the entry level jobs to make ends meet. Meanwhile, multibillionaires are complaining that their tax rates are ruinous, that they are having to scale back their standard of living to only three homes from six and having to fly commercial rather than private jets ... and poo-pooing all of the little people because those little people have a feeling of entitlement.

If you honestly believe that someone trying to raise a family of four on $40K a year is feeling entitled, you are either too out of touch with the day to day reality that most people face or you are an idiot. Probably both.

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 00:27 | 2272218 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

$1600 month for remotely habitable places?

Only if you are dumb enough to live in a rotting coastal metropolis packed to the top with the terminally useless and utterly brain dead. People who live in them have a terribly skewed view, the cost of living outside of New Russia England and Left Coast is dramatically less.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 01:22 | 2272292 malek
malek's picture

Maybe you want to give us a number for comparison?

I'd say you might find something for slightly below $1000 in areas away from big cities, yes. But all the other costs don't change, except fuel costs might go up because of greater distances driven.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:22 | 2272582 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

TV told them women need a career and it is intelligent to pay more for two cars than the house you live in.

They never had a family planning session. They take in from MTV CNBC Daily show, and then execute.

They deserve what they get for being lazy [non]thinkers.

What summed it all up for me is that in the 1960's finanicial planning advice was to not pay more than you earn in 1 year for a house. Fast forward, 2000, don't pay more than you earn in a year for an automobile. haha.

House? Sky is limit.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:12 | 2271620 nothing can go wrogn
nothing can go wrogn's picture

In the 50s, the United States was the #1 oil producer in the world. That's the main difference between now and then.

Now we're like a spent junkie, rock bottom and totally broke, ready to bomb any country that might have a few drops left.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:15 | 2271631 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Boy I wish that low brow people understood the difference between
Income and wealth. Do you really think that 90% tax rate meant anything ? If you don't have income 90% of nothing is still nothing.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:12 | 2271800 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Keep digging Mittens.  You're going down this fall.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:28 | 2271849 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Don't worry win or lose you will still get your welfare check.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:35 | 2271865 crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

why is weiner a large corp?  or energy company, bank?  THAT is where all the welfare goes.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:41 | 2271885 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I don't know what wiener is other than what his name suggests but to your broader point I couldn't agree more cut the corporate welfare crap. If they can't survive without daddy warbucks then they need to fold.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 22:42 | 2271889 SystemsGuy
SystemsGuy's picture

In the 1950s, the vast majority of the "wealthy" earned around 25 times the average income in this country, and most of that was salary, so that 90% tax rate did make a difference. There were also taxes on dividends and relatively high estate taxes. It was only in the 1990s that corporations got cagey with stock options, grants and other compensation, moving a lot of that money outside the income tax system altogether, but only for the senior executives. That was about the same time that the mantra that the only purpose of a corporation was to provide value to the shareholders became engrained, and that compensating the CEOs lavishly to encourage performance became the rule rather than the exception. Not surprisingly, in addition to creating an entire new class of nouveau rich, it also caused long term viability of companies to nosedive as the idea of creating quality product was replaced with borrowing junk bonds to acquire and gut company portfolios.

Personally, I think income tax is the wrong approach in general. Increase the capital gains tax, or (as previously noted in this thread) go to a general VAT or consumption tax. Right now there are two tiers in this society - the bottom tier who are taxed disproportionately to their marginal income, and the top tier who are dramatically undertaxed on their dividends and financial transactions, where they make the bulk of their income. For those in the lowest tax brackets, taxes are still being taken out of their paychecks every two weeks, even if they do see some of that back. For those at the top, such as Mittens, they work only because they want to, and the income they derive from salary is a pittance compared to the value margin of their investments.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 07:36 | 2272591 Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

That was a nice story in the first paragraph. Got any facts to back it up? You assert a lot. I am not buying it.

In 1950 a new house cost $8,450.00 and by 1959 was $12,400.00.

In 1950 the average income per year was $3,210.00 and by 1959 was $5,010.00

In 1950 a gallon of gas was 18 cents and by 1959 was 25 cents

In 1950 the average cost of new car was $1,510.00 and by 1959 was $2,200.00

So if you just take wages, 25 times the average wage in 1950 was $80,250. After 90% tax rate, the CEO took home $8,025? Bullshit. Then by 1959 25 times the average wage was $125,250. After 90% tax rate, the CEO took home $12,525. BULLSHIT.

I guess you have not grasped a fundamental fact about taxes, throughout history: They will be avoided, by everyone. The richer you are the more you will avoid them. You pay for the rules, you will make the rules in your favor.

This is a game the rulers are playing to keep us distracted. We are fighting with each other for crumbs while the steal the wealth of this nation. Stop with the class warfare. No income tax is good. Zero is best. That way the rich will pay what they are paying now, nada, and we don't have to pay any more. Let them continue the inflation tax, which in the end is a tax on people with money. Can't inflate what I don't have.

Mon, 03/19/2012 - 21:17 | 2271634 victor82
victor82's picture

And now you're going to regale us with all those stories about how that Nasty Mr. Eisenhower made Mitt Romney's dad, Nelson Rockefeller, the Fords, and of course, Prescott Bush (having got back all that money he loaned to Downfall Hitler so his nogoodnik grandson could piss it all away in Iraq...) pay a 90% tax rate, despite the fact that all those white shoe law firms on Wall Street existed to make sure they did no such thing.

The common complaint of the Middle Class and working people in those days was that the rich did not pay their taxes. And they were right; the 90% top rate was a complete illusion.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:20 | 2275024 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

   The common complaint of the Middle Class and working people in those days was that the rich did not pay their taxes.

Great, so nothing's changed.  One wonders why people get all pissy when tax-talk comes up.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!