Actually since Pabst might be getting involved the secret ingredient could be beer.

mmm... beer Twinkies.

Nobody noting the company CEO and executives gave themselves a 300% raise? It puts a whole lot holes in anything coming from the company side claiming poverty. Never trust a doctor that won't take his own medicine.

I hear Jerry Lee lewis didn't think much of the taxman.

A big bunch of them came to his door to take away his cars because he was a bit behind on his payments.

What he did was to lob a fistful of bullets at them whilst casually mentioning: "Get a good look at them boys, next time they'll be coming at ya a lot quicker..."

I have no problems with sales taxes carrying the bulk of the burden as long as they do not apply to essentials like food (actual food... not junk food), basic shelter (not mansions), medical care and medicine (and as a Canadian I believe those things should be provided for by government at least for the lower to middle income brackets because regular check ups and preventative medicine is far less expensive in the long run and more importantly it is the humane thing to do) and maybe stuff like lower cost clothing for kids and work wear. High ticket luxury items should have a very large tax and any imports should also be taxed at a high rate to keep companies invested at home. The poorest of the poor should receive 100% of these taxes returned to them or perhaps waived at the time of purchase with appropriate identification stating they qualify.

I haven't really studied the potential unseen negative consequences of this type of set up but it could help level the playing field a bit. The ultra rich however, and you are not gonna like this, should still have some type of benevolence tax to be paid to go towards building and maintaining infrastructures that allow them to operate but it should be a reasonable rate. The premise being that we can move forward as a species and be able to help those in need at home and to a lesser extent abroad.

The one thing I do agree with from the right's purported platform is cut spending wherever possible but my idea of what is necessary is a little different because I believe education is king. Social safety are imperative and basic medical care should be viewed as a right... not a commodity. 

Anyway, sorry for getting a little razzled and I'm glad you did not take offense. You're a smart guy and I enjoy your posts and musings on music and other topics. We just have different ideas on how things should be run... but in the end after discussing things instead of just flinging poo it seems we may not be all that different after all.

Now if only we could get the numbskull politicians to do the same.

Peace.

When you start giving stuff away... whether it's health care or food or clothes....

 
Wow! I can't beleive you even said that dude.

Guitarhacker

The problem with taxing the "ultra rich" is that... they simply do not have enough money to be more than a drop in the bucket of the overall national budget. It might run the country for a few days to a few weeks.... max. And that is by confiscating 100% of their total wealth. Same issue exists with major companies. We may look at a CEO's compensation as being excessive.... but... it's generally minuscule when compared to the company gross, that if he/she gave it up 100% it would not make a hill of beans to the company bottom line.  

I'm not going to get into what I personally think is right or wrong when it comes to taxes here, but this is faulty reasoning.

If you artificially create a subset of the whole and then argue that it's a "drop in the bucket", that argument can be used on any subgroup just by creating a small enough one.

For instance, drewfx1 should pay zero taxes because he makes so little that it only amounts to an infinitesimal fraction of a drop in the bucket that it just makes no sense to tax him. Makes perfect sense, right? Except it also makes sense for any other individual also. Hence it makes no sense to tax anyone, right?

Similarly a CEO's compensation may be "small" in comparison to a corporation's earnings, but I'd bet any individual union member's pension and healthcare contributions are at least a tiny bit smaller.

Why do the rich get to be in their own tiny group that's "too small to matter", whereas everyone else is arbitrarily grouped into a comparatively huge group?

Just for the record I never said food or clothing should be free... also that 50% tax rate on the rich is demonstrably false.

Oh arseticles... I'm not getting back into this.

Oh look... a guitar. I think I'll hurt it for a while.

I agree craigb, but then again I do hang to the right

Guitarhacker

You didn't.... but we do... food stamps, WIC, you name it... we got it for free for somebody....all compliments of the 50% who still pay tax.

Actually, if you want to get technical, a lot of the money to pay for it was borrowed from the SS Trust Fund, which is funded by the payroll taxes that you don't happen to count in the "50% who still pay tax".

Of course, since it's borrowed money we don't know who's really paying for it until it gets paid back. 

One idea is to increase taxes on the "50% who don't pay taxes" - that way we can have them pay off the money we borrowed from them (plus interest of course). 

Boy, public policy can certainly be amusing confusing if you bother to really think it through... 

Maybe the Mayan calendar predicted the end of Twinkies.  

SuperG


Drew - you are da Man!

You get it! 

What happens all too often coming from the right, is way too much rhetorical license without credit. In any discussion, whatever premises you adopt for your argument you must allow the other side. This is why, at least these days, it's like shooting fish in a barrel when countering conservative leaning arguments - because you're hanging them with their own petard.

(Shoot me later for bringing it up  - but the glaring lack of details about M.R.'s fiscal policies would be implemented was a tactical decision because it would have hanged him even more than he eventually wound up.)

Just to be clear - a questionable argument from either side should be called out. 

And to be fair regarding that point: I was just having some fun mentioning payroll taxes, but in theory money paid to the trust fund should be gotten back in benefits, which isn't quite the same thing as other taxes. But in theory those also should be benefits not paid for by the general tax base - and it's a big amount, so it isn't fair to count the cost of benefits as a handout either (at least until the trust fund runs out).

The overall point being that people need to keep how they want to account for things consistent when talking about this stuff. When dealing with complex issues it's easy to change the rules mid argument. And though I'm not naive, often times people actually don't even know they are doing it.

SuperG
A Russian conservative would be a communist, for example.

From the book, "History of; The Twilight Zone."  By Ifai Ledmyfinal