kelpdiver 2 #176 January 30, 2008 Quote Is it possible private and affordable schools would spring up in response to the available market? Of course, you'd have to trust market forces (i.e., be a free market advocate). But you guys won't discuss anything except your perceived consequences of the short term effect only. The danger in trusting market forces is that if the experiment fails, half a generation of children are affected. The only sure short term effect is a lot of wealthy parents got a nice tax refund of $5000. And a huge government subsidation of religious schools. The worst outcome would be a lot of diploma mills (already a scourge of the AA degree scene) parading as high schools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #177 January 30, 2008 Quote Quote they still can't afford to make up the difference between the voucher value and the cost of a private school Is it possible private and affordable schools would spring up in response to the available market? Of course, you'd have to trust market forces (i.e., be a free market advocate). But you guys won't discuss anything except your perceived consequences of the short term effect only. Shitty analogy deleted. Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? I can't imagine that you REALLY believe that a superior education can be had for the price of the vouchers that have been suggested by the GOP, free market or no. If so, why hasn't the free market already produced such superior but inexpensive private schools to compete with the expensive ones? No, the voucher proposals are all thinly disguised attempts to subsidize the upper middle class with taxpayer money. PS I teach in a private school.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #178 January 30, 2008 QuoteIn reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. A "gift"? A "tax cut for the rich"? Go look at the amount of the total tax that "the rich" pay. It's been steadily increasing, and more and more of "the poor" have been taken OFF the tax rolls (due to not having to file due to those "tax breaks for the rich") and they still get even MORE money back! "Tax break for the rich"... fucking spare me.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #179 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteIn reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. A "gift"? A "tax cut for the rich"? Go look at the amount of the total tax that "the rich" pay. It's been steadily increasing, and more and more of "the poor" have been taken OFF the tax rolls (due to not having to file due to those "tax breaks for the rich") and they still get even MORE money back! "Tax break for the rich"... fucking spare me. You STILL haven't figured out the Willy Sutton effect, have you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #180 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. A "gift"? A "tax cut for the rich"? Go look at the amount of the total tax that "the rich" pay. It's been steadily increasing, and more and more of "the poor" have been taken OFF the tax rolls (due to not having to file due to those "tax breaks for the rich") and they still get even MORE money back! "Tax break for the rich"... fucking spare me. You STILL haven't figured out the Willy Sutton effect, have you? And YOU still haven't figured out the parable of the goose and the golden eggs, have you? Fact: The rich are paying even MORE of the bill than ever before, even AFTER the tax cuts. Fact: Due to the tax cuts, there are even MORE people (2005 estimate: approximately 44 *million*) that will owe no tax and are effectively off the tax rolls. Fact: The lowest quintile receives $14.76 for every $1 paid in federal tax. The highest quintile receives 32 cents. Fact: (2005 data from IRS) The top 1% (>$364K) paid 39.38% of the total tax bill while earning only 21.2% of the total income. The top 25% (>62k) paid 85.99% of the total bill while earning 67.52% of the total income. The bottom 50% (<31K) paid 3.07% of the total bill while earning 12.83% of the total income. So, tell me again how this tax cut is "only for the rich", will you, because the *FACTS* sure don't support it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #181 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIn reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. A "gift"? A "tax cut for the rich"? Go look at the amount of the total tax that "the rich" pay. It's been steadily increasing, and more and more of "the poor" have been taken OFF the tax rolls (due to not having to file due to those "tax breaks for the rich") and they still get even MORE money back! "Tax break for the rich"... fucking spare me. You STILL haven't figured out the Willy Sutton effect, have you? And YOU still haven't figured out the parable of the goose and the golden eggs, have you? Fact: The rich are paying even MORE of the bill than ever before, even AFTER the tax cuts. . And they always will - Willy Sutton effect, that you just can't understand. Your "goose" analogy is shitty absurd. No rich person ever died from paying taxes. Maybe they'll just have 3 mansions in Aspen instead of 4.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #182 January 30, 2008 Or an old sportscar instead of a plane.Once we start using class separation as a means to punish or legislate taxes, there may be no end to it. The definition will keep being redefined, until you have the same situation as the gun control issue. Of course this will mean nothing to you. Flat Tax or no Tax, Second Amendment or None of the BoR You choose, I will not ever be in favor of restrictions on such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #183 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIn reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. A "gift"? A "tax cut for the rich"? Go look at the amount of the total tax that "the rich" pay. It's been steadily increasing, and more and more of "the poor" have been taken OFF the tax rolls (due to not having to file due to those "tax breaks for the rich") and they still get even MORE money back! "Tax break for the rich"... fucking spare me. You STILL haven't figured out the Willy Sutton effect, have you? And YOU still haven't figured out the parable of the goose and the golden eggs, have you? Fact: The rich are paying even MORE of the bill than ever before, even AFTER the tax cuts. . And they always will - Willy Sutton effect, that you just can't understand. Your "goose" analogy is shitty absurd. No rich person ever died from paying taxes. Maybe they'll just have 3 mansions in Aspen instead of 4. No, I understand your "Willie Sutton effect" as being "tax the rich because that's where the money is". I just show it as the bullshit that it is....Democratic class envy/class warfare at it's finest. My goose analogy is perfectly apt. If you tax down the businesses and rich, they downsize/outplace/shut down.... taking money OUT of the economy...gee, wasn't THAT a real smart thing to do...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #184 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIn reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. A "gift"? A "tax cut for the rich"? Go look at the amount of the total tax that "the rich" pay. It's been steadily increasing, and more and more of "the poor" have been taken OFF the tax rolls (due to not having to file due to those "tax breaks for the rich") and they still get even MORE money back! "Tax break for the rich"... fucking spare me. You STILL haven't figured out the Willy Sutton effect, have you? And YOU still haven't figured out the parable of the goose and the golden eggs, have you? Fact: The rich are paying even MORE of the bill than ever before, even AFTER the tax cuts. . And they always will - Willy Sutton effect, that you just can't understand. Your "goose" analogy is shitty absurd. No rich person ever died from paying taxes. Maybe they'll just have 3 mansions in Aspen instead of 4. No, I understand your "Willie Sutton effect" as being "tax the rich because that's where the money is". I just show it as the bullshit that it is....Democratic class envy/class warfare at it's finest. My goose analogy is perfectly apt. If you tax down the businesses and rich, they downsize/outplace/shut down.... taking money OUT of the economy...gee, wasn't THAT a real smart thing to do... Taxing businesses and taxing the rich are not the same thing. Have you one shred of evidence that the pre-cut tax rates on wealthy Americans had any effect on business hiring practices or business bankruptcies? I mean, we know Enron went bust, but that wasn't due to taxes. Even AFTER his fraud conviction and his wife claimed "It's all gone", Ken Lay's bond allowed him to commute between his mansions in Houston and Aspen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #185 January 30, 2008 QuoteI can't imagine that you REALLY believe that a superior education can be had for the price of the vouchers that have been suggested by the GOP, free market or no. If so, why hasn't the free market already produced such superior but inexpensive private schools to compete with the expensive ones? 1 - If the proposals have been crappy ones (as a result of continuing to suck up to the public education establishment they write diluted proposals that are merely gestures intending to placate certain voters), that's a moot point. We're talking concept here. You go write up better proposals. 2 - At least, in your response, you admit that the public schools cannot give a superior edcation for the price paid? (or are you still stuck on poor voucher proposals rather than tying ALL the money that each kid should be able to use for his education) I'm amazed that you guys still don't admit that letting all parents choose where to spend ALL the money that SHOULD be tied to the child instead of the school would give them more opportunities. You can't get past the idea that someone rich might also benefit like all the rest. If that REALLY bothers you so much, then hypothesize ONLY allowing vouchers for kids from families that make less than $(x) per year and see if some choose to leave failing public schools for better opportunity. Any good social extremist will like that because it's an equivalent targetted tax on the rich. I mean, they can always CHOOSE to spend that voucher at the local public school. try that scenario why are you guys so against the kid and in favor of a government monopoly? or is it just that it's more important to you that certain people must not get any benefit, rather than poor kids get a break? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #186 January 30, 2008 Quote Quote I can't imagine that you REALLY believe that a superior education can be had for the price of the vouchers that have been suggested by the GOP, free market or no. If so, why hasn't the free market already produced such superior but inexpensive private schools to compete with the expensive ones? 1 - If the proposals have been crappy ones (as a result of continuing to suck up to the public education establishment they write diluted proposals that are merely gestures intending to placate certain voters), that's a moot point. We're talking concept here. You go write up better proposals. 2 - At least, in your response, you admit that the public schools cannot give a superior edcation for the price paid? (or are you still stuck on poor voucher proposals rather than tying ALL the money that each kid should be able to use for his education) I'm amazed that you guys still don't admit that letting all parents choose where to spend ALL the money that SHOULD be tied to the child instead of the school would give them more opportunities. You can't get past the idea that someone rich might also benefit like all the rest. If that REALLY bothers you so much, then hypothesize ONLY allowing vouchers for kids from families that make less than $(x) per year and see if some choose to leave failing public schools for better opportunity. Any good social extremist will like that because it's an equivalent targetted tax on the rich. I mean, they can always CHOOSE to spend that voucher at the local public school. try that scenario why are you guys so against the kid and in favor of a government monopoly? or is it just that it's more important to you that certain people must not get any benefit, rather than poor kids get a break? If vouchers covered the total cost of a good education they would be great. NOT ONE actual proposal has even come close. The actual voucher poposals we've seen have been essentially useless to the poor, hence they ARE in their present form just a thinly disguised subsidy to the wealthy and middle income families, and religious schools.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #187 January 30, 2008 Quotejust a thinly disguised subsidy to the wealthy and middle income families, and religious schools. Define your terms, with dollar amounts earned per year, please. Would that "wealthy and middle income families" be the ones that currently pay 96.3% of the federal tax bite? God forbid someone that actually PAYS taxes get something back for it...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #188 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuotejust a thinly disguised subsidy to the wealthy and middle income families, and religious schools. Define your terms, with dollar amounts earned per year, please. Would that "wealthy and middle income families" be the ones that currently pay 96.3% of the federal tax bite? God forbid someone that actually PAYS taxes get something back for it... You are really confused about the meaning and purpose of taxes. Taxes are NOT user fees.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #189 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuotejust a thinly disguised subsidy to the wealthy and middle income families, and religious schools. Define your terms, with dollar amounts earned per year, please. Would that "wealthy and middle income families" be the ones that currently pay 96.3% of the federal tax bite? God forbid someone that actually PAYS taxes get something back for it... You are really confused about the meaning and purpose of taxes. Taxes are NOT user fees. Neither is welfare.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #190 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotejust a thinly disguised subsidy to the wealthy and middle income families, and religious schools. Define your terms, with dollar amounts earned per year, please. Would that "wealthy and middle income families" be the ones that currently pay 96.3% of the federal tax bite? God forbid someone that actually PAYS taxes get something back for it... You are really confused about the meaning and purpose of taxes. Taxes are NOT user fees. Neither is welfare. Fascinating non-sequitur. Thanks for confirming that you are indeed very confused.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #191 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotejust a thinly disguised subsidy to the wealthy and middle income families, and religious schools. Define your terms, with dollar amounts earned per year, please. Would that "wealthy and middle income families" be the ones that currently pay 96.3% of the federal tax bite? God forbid someone that actually PAYS taxes get something back for it... You are really confused about the meaning and purpose of taxes. Taxes are NOT user fees. Neither is welfare. Fascinating non-sequitur. Thanks for confirming that you are indeed very confused. Bringing up user fees isn't?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #192 January 30, 2008 >My goose analogy is perfectly apt. If you tax down the businesses and >rich, they downsize/outplace/shut down.... taking money OUT of the >economy...gee, wasn't THAT a real smart thing to do... Actually that's been proven false. Per standard economic theory, companies will hire people based on whether their economic output exceeds their salaries. Taxes the corporation pays, or taxes on salaries that the CEOs get, do not affect that equation. So the argument "taxing companies makes them downsize" has little merit. However, taxing companies unevenly _does_ have a strong competitive effect, and makes the companies more heavily taxed less competitive. This can lead to them losing their markets - which _does_ result in layoffs/bankruptcies. Thus the importance of uniform taxes. In addition, taxing companies heavily in a country that allows both imports and outsourcing of labor results in most labor moving outside the country. That has already happened here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #193 January 30, 2008 Quote>My goose analogy is perfectly apt. If you tax down the businesses and >rich, they downsize/outplace/shut down.... taking money OUT of the >economy...gee, wasn't THAT a real smart thing to do... Actually that's been proven false. Per standard economic theory, companies will hire people based on whether their economic output exceeds their salaries. Taxes the corporation pays, or taxes on salaries that the CEOs get, do not affect that equation. So the argument "taxing companies makes them downsize" has little merit. Economic theory != real life experience. I've seen exactly what I described above with my own eyes. QuoteHowever, taxing companies unevenly _does_ have a strong competitive effect, and makes the companies more heavily taxed less competitive. This can lead to them losing their markets - which _does_ result in layoffs/bankruptcies. Thus the importance of uniform taxes. In addition, taxing companies heavily in a country that allows both imports and outsourcing of labor results in most labor moving outside the country. That has already happened here. And why would raising their taxes make them less competitive, Bill? Perhaps because their cost of doing business increased, so they had to downsize or outsource to survive? Thanks for making my point for me.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #194 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuote>My goose analogy is perfectly apt. If you tax down the businesses and >rich, they downsize/outplace/shut down.... taking money OUT of the >economy...gee, wasn't THAT a real smart thing to do... Actually that's been proven false. Per standard economic theory, companies will hire people based on whether their economic output exceeds their salaries. Taxes the corporation pays, or taxes on salaries that the CEOs get, do not affect that equation. So the argument "taxing companies makes them downsize" has little merit. Economic theory != real life experience. I've seen exactly what I described above with my own eyes. QuoteHowever, taxing companies unevenly _does_ have a strong competitive effect, and makes the companies more heavily taxed less competitive. This can lead to them losing their markets - which _does_ result in layoffs/bankruptcies. Thus the importance of uniform taxes. In addition, taxing companies heavily in a country that allows both imports and outsourcing of labor results in most labor moving outside the country. That has already happened here. And why would raising their taxes make them less competitive, Bill? Perhaps because their cost of doing business increased, so they had to downsize or outsource to survive? Thanks for making my point for me. How does taxing a CEO's compensation package make a company less competitive? Could millionaire hedge fund managers not get by if they had to pay tax at the same rate I do?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #195 January 30, 2008 >I've seen exactly what I described above with my own eyes. I have no doubt that you have. However, I will go with the opinions of people like Warren Buffet over yours. No offense. >And why would raising their taxes make them less competitive, Bill? > Perhaps because their cost of doing business increased, so they had to >downsize or outsource to survive? Yes - WHEN TAXES ARE APPLIED UNEVENLY. When taxes are applied evenly, there is no loss of competitiveness (since their competitors have exactly the same additional burden) and no downsizing as a result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #196 January 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteIn reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. A "gift"? A "tax cut for the rich"? Go look at the amount of the total tax that "the rich" pay. It's been steadily increasing, and more and more of "the poor" have been taken OFF the tax rolls (due to not having to file due to those "tax breaks for the rich") and they still get even MORE money back! "Tax break for the rich"... fucking spare me. My tax bill this year is about the same as the average income for the country. I'm fully aware of the tax burdens, as well as the difference between the Clinton brackets and the current ones. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that giving $5000 to every person who was already sending their kid to catholic school just got a pretty hefty tax cut. You want to argue if the tax is fair in the first place. But that again, is a different question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #197 January 31, 2008 Quote How does taxing a CEO's compensation package make a company less competitive? Could millionaire hedge fund managers not get by if they had to pay tax at the same rate I do? Bill and I are in an offshoot about the effect of tax on business - kindly restrain your strawmen to the main argument of the thread, thanks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #198 January 31, 2008 Quote>I've seen exactly what I described above with my own eyes. I have no doubt that you have. However, I will go with the opinions of people like Warren Buffet over yours. No offense. >And why would raising their taxes make them less competitive, Bill? > Perhaps because their cost of doing business increased, so they had to >downsize or outsource to survive? Yes - WHEN TAXES ARE APPLIED UNEVENLY. When taxes are applied evenly, there is no loss of competitiveness (since their competitors have exactly the same additional burden) and no downsizing as a result. IF you are *solely* discussing business-to-business competition, I agree with your point in general. However, I am discussing the *reality* of a company struggling to stay solvent. When government intervention (via whatever mechanism) increases the cost of business beyond what that company can sustain, that business has 3 choices: 1. Downsize 2. Outsource (if they can) 3. Go out of business ... all avoidable if the gov't hadn't gotten greedy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #199 January 31, 2008 QuoteQuote>I've seen exactly what I described above with my own eyes. I have no doubt that you have. However, I will go with the opinions of people like Warren Buffet over yours. No offense. >And why would raising their taxes make them less competitive, Bill? > Perhaps because their cost of doing business increased, so they had to >downsize or outsource to survive? Yes - WHEN TAXES ARE APPLIED UNEVENLY. When taxes are applied evenly, there is no loss of competitiveness (since their competitors have exactly the same additional burden) and no downsizing as a result. IF you are *solely* discussing business-to-business competition, I agree with your point in general. However, I am discussing the *reality* of a company struggling to stay solvent. When government intervention (via whatever mechanism) increases the cost of business beyond what that company can sustain, that business has 3 choices: 1. Downsize 2. Outsource (if they can) 3. Go out of business ... all avoidable if the gov't hadn't gotten greedy. I see you are AVOIDING the question about CEO compensation, and how taxing that adversely affects businesses.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #200 January 31, 2008 QuoteQuote How does taxing a CEO's compensation package make a company less competitive? Could millionaire hedge fund managers not get by if they had to pay tax at the same rate I do? Bill and I are in an offshoot about the effect of tax on business - kindly restrain your strawmen to the main argument of the thread, thanks. Evasion again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
