Simple-minded.
How many know the difference between progressive and regressive taxes?
The principle has been recognized for many centuries.
Wikipedia says "The earliest known application of progressive taxation took place in Great Britain in the 14th century.
In the United States, the first progressive income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln."
However, the idea is older yet. The Roman historian Livy described with approval the early Roman monarch Servius Tullius' attempt to impose a progressive tax system in the levying of armies.

Posted by: Coralie

March 11, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jeff: "Today about 53% actually pay income tax and 47% pay nothing or get back more than they pay in.">>

That's completely false. Read my very thorough unpacking of this most favorite rightwing canard here: "Refuting the "50% don't pay taxes" Canard"

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

For those with a short attention span the main argument can be summarized in one sentence:

"81.9% of the population pays federal taxes based upon income or payroll, and of the remaining 18.1% that do not, 95% of these are elderly or very poor."

Jeff: "...the combined highest federal and state income tax rates in the US are approaching 62%.">>

Carefully worded and purposefully and profoundly misleading. Let's just look at the wealthiest top 400 people to see how irrelevant your reference to "rates" is:

"The 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income paid income taxes at an actual, or “effective,” rate of just under 17 percent in 2007, down from almost 30 percent in 1995, according to the Internal Revenue Service. The effective rate for the 1.4 million people in the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped to 23 percent in percent the year before. That means the top 400 pay a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its April 11 issue."
http://money.msn.com/taxes/latest.asp...

Also:
"Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports." http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/t...

And:
"Looking... at the average income tax rate based on the median income for a family of four from 1955 through 2010.
The average income tax rate under Reagan in 1983 was 11.06 percent. Under Clinton in 1992, it was 9.18 percent. And under Obama in 2010, it was 4.68 percent.
The verdict: For most Americans, taxes were lowered through the stimulus package passed in 2009 and extended to 2010, and they were also lowered in the tax compromise between Obama and Republicans. Current rates are at historic lows compared with ones from 1955 — when the numbers started being tracked — through 2007." http://tinyurl.com/3fcn885

For some reason there are few people more proundly misinformed about taxes than those who constantly like to complain about them.

See quote from Bush's speech writer below...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 11, 2013 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

The largest employer in America is the US Government. I wonder if one were to add to that all the outsourcing done by contractors to the government, much of which goes overseas to other countires, it is not the largest single employer in the world?

Wal-Mart is the second largest employer in America. The difference between the US Government and Wal-Mart is that one provides valuable services and generates wealth worldwide while the other is largely an unneccessary expense. I wonder which is which?

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 11, 2013 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Nothing posted up until the question I'll answer is relevant or meaningful. That is normal for one of the posters here that simply mines contraditions trolling the internet so we will ignore him. The answer to the key question reveals the root of the problem with government, spending, budgets, debt, and collecting taxes to pay for it.

Question: "Why is it that when Walmart provides low-paying jobs, it is "generating wealth", but when the government provides decent jobs, it is not "generating wealth"?

The answer is simple. Government is an expense. Goverment doesn't create the wealth it spreads around. Government has no money it doesn't take from someone else other than the money it prints out of thin air to cover it's deficits. What government pays it's employees is part of that expense. What government pays it's employees does not qualify as the production of wealth, it is merely redistribution of it.

Further, because government is inapable of doing anything efficiently it's use of wealth is often harmful. There are more reasons and examples of that than I have the time to write here but just for a small start but think of all the money sqandered on failed "stimulus" projects in the last several years.

When compared to the what the same wealth can do in the hands of private citizens, the performance of government "investment" is as dismal and wasteful as the inefficiencies in the way it collects it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 11, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Nothing posted up until the question I'll answer is relevant or meaningful."
Because it contradicts with actual relevant facts the unsupported assertions you made? Show how my information is not relevant, then let's see the facts that support your assertions.

RE "The answer is simple. Government is an expense."
Based on every business tax form submitted to the IRS, every business is an expense. Next!

RE "Government has no money it doesn't take from someone else..."
Every business takes money from others, and would go out of business without that money. Next!

RE "...other than the money it prints out of thin air to cover it's deficits."
Which is analogous to start-up funding that every business needs. It even carries the same obligation to honor the debt created-- except that, unlike most businesses, the government won't go bankrupt and destroy wealth in the process. Next!

RE "What government pays it's employees is part of that expense."
Just like in a business. Next!

RE "What government pays it's employees does not qualify as the production of wealth..."
Only in your arbitrary set of definitions. Question: in your twenty-odd years in the military, were you not able to save some money to invest? Next!

RE "...it is merely redistribution of it."
Are you somehow saying that the Walton family didn't become wealthy as a result of the redistribution of wealth? Of course, that redistribution was upward, so it's okay, I guess. Next!

RE "When compared to the what the same wealth can do in the hands of private citizens, the performance of government 'investment' is as dismal and wasteful as the inefficiencies in the way it collects it."
Remember when the stock market tanked in 2008 and 2009? That wasn't the government. All investment is risky, but the government's investment in infrastructure has turned out pretty well. Next!

RE "There are more reasons and examples of that than I have the time to write here..."
Oh, I'm sure. But you should have plenty of time, as you are no longer responsible for cleaning up George's toxic spills into the storm sewers. Next!

RE "...think of all the money sqandered on failed 'stimulus' projects in the last several years."
Certainly more stimulus funding could have gone to infrastructure and other disproofs of the notion that "government can't create jobs", but as it is, we have two automobile manufacturers still extant, and in all, stimulus spending created between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-... Next!

RE "Further, because government is inapable of doing anything efficiently it's use of wealth is often harmful."
And of course you will cite examples, even if that means you "simply mine contraditions trolling the internet". I promise you, though: you won't be ignored. Unlike you conservatives who are averse to and, apparently, offend by information, we liberals like to read. Next!

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 11, 2013 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COR: "I'll wait for Free to unpack the statement that "government is incapable of doing anything efficiently">>

Yes, let's give that one a kick again. Mycent tried that one a week or two ago. I'll just give six examples:

1) About 95% of fire stations are handled by municipal governments because it's cheaper to handle it in house rather than pay a for profit private company.

2) Same with sanitation.

3) Social Security operates with an expense of about 1%. That's incredibly efficient. Countries that have experimented with privatizing social security have found the expense goes up to as high as 20%-30%.

That's a really big difference.

4) The entirely government run VA medical system operates with better outcomes, higher satisfaction and far less cost than the private for profit sector. Extensive references upon request.

5) The IRS. "The employment of private tax collectors has been, for federal unions, a particularly egregious example of the misuse of contractors. In March, the Internal Revenue Service stopped using two private tax collection companies because, according to an agency statement, "IRS collection is more cost-effective than the contractors." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

6) The military. As of some time ago it cost about $1,000,000 per soldier, per year, to station them in Afghanistan. This absurd amount is no doubt largely because so many military services have been out-sourced to expensive profit driven private contractors. Note:

"Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Afghanistan"

"The White House Office of Management and Budget is directing federal agencies to take a series of actions designed to reduce the government's growing reliance on outside contractors..."
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/20...

"Frederick D. Barton, a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington,... questioned whether using contractors was cost effective, saying that no one really knew whether having a force made up mainly of contractors whose salaries were often triple or quadruple those of a corresponding soldier or Marine was cheaper or more expensive for the American taxpayer." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/wor...

Jeff: "...one of the posters here that simply mines contraditions(sic) trolling the internet...">>

Jeff can make some lame excuses for not being able to address rebuttals that flatten his clearly incorrect assertions, but they aren't likely to fool the adults. And besides, it doesn't matter either way.

D.
-----
"Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan"

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

http://www.politicususa.com/big-gover...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 11, 2013 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jeff: "Trying to prove a liberal argument with liberal references...">>

So we get a generic appeal to the genetic fallacy. But Jeff is too lazy to even bother to state which liberal source he has found to be an unacceptable reference, so he generously just smears them all.

Was my reference to GW Bush's adviser and speech writer a "liberal source?" Jeff has come to his extreme conservative beliefs in the usual way of basing them upon claims that are just factually incorrect. This is so easy to show that I can probably unpack them while just using conservative sources. I'll try to accommodate him on this, just for the challenge. But he will have to focus on something rather than being so squirrelly and constantly changing the subject while running from defending his claims.

Jeff: "is no different than a bible thumper proving their God">>

This is where we are to believe that a person appealing to a standard reference on matters of politics is somehow comparable to a religious person appealing to a religious book to confirm supernatural claims.

Sorry, that's a false analogy.

Jeff should attempt to deal with the data presented rather than go with the lazy method of attacking some unnamed source as "liberal" just because he doesn't like the fact that the results happen to conflict with his pet political beliefs.

D.
-------------
"The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context....
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 11, 2013 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "it is well known that both progressive liberals and religious conservatives alike are incapable of seeing reality."
Here's a newsflash: The CBO and the Census Bureau are real. The inside of your intestine, where you get your information, is not reality.

RE "The unfortunate fact is that what people with such a mindset 'think and feel' is of little rational value but unfortunately have consequences in a democratic society."
Apparently your own mindset is what you're talking about. You "think and feel" a lot, but you can show no evidence to back up your assertions.

RE "Both are infected with the sure knowledge that they know how everyone else should live, think and believe."
I have never suggested that you live or think a certain way, but I will assure you, without fear of contradiction, that it is good policy to believe in facts, and you should try it.

RE "Another commonality is that their logic is self serving and self validating."
Says the guy who supports his opinions with more of his opinions.

RE "Trying to prove a liberal argument with liberal references..."
Show me where I have done that. (Hint: the Congressional Budget Office and the Census Bureau are not "liberal sources". In any case, regardless of any bias of a source that provides facts, the facts are still facts. Unless you can show otherwise, as far as anybody can know, all of my information is correct.

RE " I'm simply a realist that sees reality for what it is..."
That is made abundantly clear by the way you won't address facts from the Census Bureau or the CBO, but you cling to the opinions you pull from your cloaca.

RE "...and believes in doing what is best based on one's own sense of personal responsibility, individual freedom,..."
And to hell with the society that makes your way of life possible.

RE "...and the humanity to respect the property and freedom of others."
But not their opinions, their Census Bureau, or their CBO.

RE "For you liberals Obama's delusional platitudes become your reality."
Where have I quoted Obama?

RE "That unquestioned adoration infects you with his delusions."
So the CBO and the Census Bureau are Obama's delusions?

RE "You are exactly the same as the right wing religious conservative that unquestioningly follows someone with an online divinity degree."
Oh-- exactly the same. Except that I provide factual information from verifiable sources.

RE "There is no truth or ability grasp a whisp of reality in either."
Thank you for summarizing any two of your posts.

Maybe you do have Asperger's Syndrome like that woman said, but I'm more inclined to believe that you're just not a pleasant person. Whichever the case is, I'm still waiting for you to support your opinions with something that is not more of your opinions.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 11, 2013 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )