viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

Oh I know all that, haha. It was more rhetorical. If I decided to name my child Adolf Blaen Hitler could anything happen to me and my family legally? I mean, besides people thinking we were completely insane.

Such as the incident mentioned in the video, the whole cake decorating thing, can people refuse you service based on names? I'm sure people would out of shear disgust, but wouldn't their managers come into the picture and make them give you service?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

ASSUMING of course that you had no domestic violence ****, or child abuse, or...well, generally hurting your children, not a damned thing could be done from the government end if it was just a name. The judge removed the children because of domestic violence and child abuse, not over their names.

It's a private business. It's their right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

P.S. Both of those parents were unemployed and living off welfare, just so you know the type we are talking about.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

I'm sure it's not too far fetched to see special attention given to a family based on child names and whether or not indoctrinating children with "questionable ideals" is putting them at risk. Then again the same could be said for parents who indoctrinate their kids with religion. I don't think many people would willingly touch that subject.

Understandable, but I could imagine a nightmare of a law suit happening when a business, such as Publix, is sued because of denying service to someone because their name is Adolf Hitler, especially when the name was not even chosen by the individual and had no control over the naming process and is possibly too young to go through the legal process of having his/her name changed.

You mean like black people?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

It goes beyond this. Beyond it to levels of "Hitting his wife and strapping his children into seats to make them watch him do it".

Can't help parents being idiots, can't help a store employee being an idiot.

Unemployed, 3 kids with more on the way when this first happened, domestic violence, and on welfare?

I don't think Black, White, or Plaid has anything to do with it. I think it's the specific type of person that shouldn't be on welfare or having children.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

I wasn't referring to the Campbell's (are you high, I didn't even mention them in the last post at all). I was just saying that it wouldn't be too far fetched to see a family receive more attention from social services because their choice of child names and/or lifestyle is viewed as not "normal". It's extremely common for people to be ostracized (and sometimes harassed) by the government (and neighbors/family/etc..) because they don't fit the mold that they set.

All this in speculation assuming the family is legitimately safe and no domestic violence/abuse involved at all. Just fucked up things like naming your child Adolf Hitler

As far as the name, no, you can't make the parents do anything. But, bad employees can/should be fired. Because that employee did not agree with the name does not mean that they had the authority to tell them no. What makes a "bad name" to that employee? If they felt disgusted that I wanted my son, Blaen Jr., to have a cake with a soccer ball on it and they didn't want to make the cake because they thought Blaen Jr. was a despicable name does that make it okay?

Oh come one, Mr. StiffNeck Liberal the 3rd, you know you're more racist than that

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

There's not a lot to speculate on when you phrase it that way. I'll grant you that yeah, a stupid name like that will get you more scrutiny - but it won't get them to take your children. Well, I take that back. I mean, they could take your children for any reason in theory, but they would open themselves up to massive civil liability - and if the taking of the children was for too poor/obviously fake of a reason, the civil worker who takes them may find themselves personally liable for it as well.

I should have been more direct instead of pointing out why this case is just....so obvious. There's almost no situation I support removing children from their parents in...except these type of situations.

Yeah, that whole subject is a giant morass that I don't want to even get into too much detail with. Let's say that employee was a jew, whose grandfather was killed in a german concentration camp. What do you think happens to the employer if he fires her for refusing to put Adolf Hitler on a cake?

It's just a bad, bad shitty situation. Everyone was well within their rights though, so I really don't know what to say beyond that.

We're on the politics forum, where I have a standing bet with Scrappy about language usage. A bet I'm not about to lose.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

Well I think we covered as much ground as we could on that subject. Kudos to us.

What's this bet you have going?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Scrappy and I have a running bet on whether or not I can restrain myself from using adolescent nomenclature on the politics sub-forum for 2 months, essentially.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

Why

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

A better question: Why not?

bbundy

Since allot of people on this forum appear to be republicans or subscribers to the religion of Rand and Hayek Can somebody explain how making the tax code so the oligarchs in our society pay zero taxes while effectively raising taxes on working people would be a good thing for our economy?

I’d like to hear a good argument rather than just that we got to help out our “job creators”.

Because the way I see it moving in that direction as we currently have been over the last 40 years has been horrible for our economy. Free money for the obscenely rich has just helped fuel financial bubbles and government corruption, and corruption in the financial system. And shifting the pain of the tax burden on working people through Social security Tax, Medicare Tax, and Income tax has just made them not so competitive against moving all the jobs overseas.

Basically the Ryan or Romney tax plan the way I see it is to make a certain class of income earners at the upper end of the spectrum pay zero tax and make up for it by increasing middle class effective tax and reduce spending on any type of social safety nets or other benefits of a first world country such as health, education, and environmental protection by over 90% I can only see this having even more disastrous effects on American society than moving that direction already has. I think it will lead to us having a small number of people who own everything including the government and a whole lot of people out of work and needing assistance to survive.

Bob

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Under Ryan's plan, Romney would pay a tax rate of 0.82% Bbundy.

Food for thought.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Romney has said--several times--that high income earners would stay at their current tax rate. The lie that the rich will stop paying taxes will be told enough times that a good percentage of the population will believe it come November 6.

If you've read Hayek and still have these questions, then I question whether you've really read Hayek at all.

The real questions should be--why are we talking about Americans as "classes"? Why are the rich evil? Why is retaining wealth bad for individuals? How is it that the government can create more jobs and wealth for Americans by taking away money, skimming some off the top, and redistributing it? How did we become the world's economic powerhouse during our first 150 years when the government's average tax per GDP was 3%? How does restricting business through taxes and bureaucracy put money in the average person's pocket?

How much money that you earn should you be able to keep? Right now in California with all taxes added, it's less than half. Is that fair?

Okay--cheap shot. You can't answer all of them. But that's where I'm coming from. With all the big brains in Washington and those new things called "computers", can't they work efficiently with say 15-20% of GDP to get the same results? Personally, I'd rather take my wife out to dinner and give my kids a better education than invest in Solyndra or bail out a union. Perhaps Washington would learn with an unfettered market that wealth--and therefore the tax base--grow.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Unfortunately, I made that cursed bet with Scrappy, so I'm going to have to really work at this to make my words drip the proper disdain in this response.

Secondly, if I see the retarded **** I see in this post again from you Cord, I'm going to say **** the bet with Scrappy.

Wrong. This is a tax analysis of what Romney has said - On the Distributional Effects of Base-Broadening Income Tax Reform

Now, this is actually a non-partisan attempt at giving Romney all the benefit of the doubt in everything he has said. The net result is that upwards of 95% of the country sees between an 0.8 to 2.2 percent tax increase (On income, mind you. We aren't talking about going from 100 in taxes to 100.8 in taxes here.) - with the richest 5% receiving a large cut in taxes.

However, let's go take another analysis on it, shall we? Mitt Romney's Tax Plan Would Give Average Tax Break of at Least $250,000 to People Making Over $1 Million | CTJReports

Does any of this sound like leaving the richest people alone? It doesn't to me.

Now, I will say this. Romney may not have meant what he did when he outlined his tax plan. That is fine.

But he refuses to outline any further tax plan. This is the only tax plan he has given us. If he wants to say that he meant something else, it is up to him to tell us that something else. This is all he has told us. If he didn't mean this, then it is his responsibility as a presidential candidate to inform us he was wrong, meant something else, and then inform us of it.

Now this...this is rich. Previously, I've let your whining about people "lying" about Romney and/or the Republicans slide - but now, I'm calling you out on the behavior you are engaging in while simultaneously whining about it. Let's take a look at some of the things you've said, shall we?

I think we mocked you lots on this, but not only did I see this habit in previous posts, I saw this behavior throughout this very post. So, let's take a look at them, shall we?

The US was *absolutely not* an economic powerhouse during our first 150 years. In fact, we didn't even gain significant prominence on the world stage untill ~1913-1918 depending on which historian tells it, and it took us untill the 1920s to have more significance than, say, the modern Greece. Let me be clear about something, not only is this a flat out lie Cord, but this is factually and historically completely wrong. The US first came into prominence with our entry into World War I - not before. But to say our first 150 years? I don't know whether this is jingoistic delusion or what. From 1760 to about 1840, to imply we were an economic powerhouse is laughable. Not only laughable, but it displays such a level of ignorance of US history that...I am struggling to try to find words at this point for it.

The late 1800s? If you even try to imply that we were an economic powerhouse on the world stage before the 1900s, I am unable to summon an appropriate theory as to why you would claim that that is not completely insulting. I don't know how to express how much of a total lack of knowledge of history it must take to even try to put forth this statement.

Now, as for the argument you are going to mount with "But I meant to say we became an economic powerhouse after we had massive amounts of low taxes..." because I raped the **** out of your original argument, yeah. Becoming an economic powerhouse had nothing to do with any innate American qualities that you are going to try to advocate, we had the last major manufacturing centers that weren't bombed to **** from WWI and WWII. Manufacturing centers that were built in no small part due to...taxes and socialistic policies. Uh oh. Additionally, if what you imply actually was true, it fails on two points. We should have been an economic powerhouse before we instituted massive taxes and socialistic policies, not after. Secondly, if it were true, places like Somalia would be enormously fast growing economic hot spots - not places like China or India.

Oh, and one other thing, as a pre-emptive strike for when you try to bring out the reply I know you will. It didn't work that way. We became an economic powerhouse after we instituted the income tax and numerous other taxes as well as socialistic policies, not before. To try to split them apart and then exclaim "But we would have done better if we had not done that!" is idiotic. Perhaps we would have done better without them - but our history disputes that. You chose your arguing tact very very poorly.

And this question again demonstrates a substantial lack of understanding of our country's history. Considering that you are trying to equate necessary, badly needed regulations to EeEeBiL in your over-sweeping generalization of bureaucracy, I really don't know what to say. You have so little grasp of history it's baffling. I can guarantee you've had ancestors in your family tree who have fought and died for some of the regulations you dismiss as bureaucracy (Notable assumption: Your family has been in the US for a century or more and you aren't suffering from a case of immigration).

Move elsewhere. Or could it be that California enables people to earn much, much more than they would earn in other states because of that taxation, and not in spite of?

History would indicate yes. California is only the biggest economy in the US, it has been the largest economy for ages, and has historically had crazy regulations and taxes compared to the rest of the US. I mean, if the taxes were so bad, you could just move to somewhere else and make way more because you have to pay less taxes, right Cord?

Actually, it's very easy to answer all of them. I only bothered to answer the most relevant and hardest ones, but I can go back and rape the **** out of the rest of them. However, typically, it is poor form to set up a strawman (For the person who constantly whines about strawmans: A strawman is setting up your opponents weakest argument, only to knock it down. I have no idea where you got your definition from.), and due to the bet with Scrappy, I won't be able to take that pleasure unless you give me the opportunity.

Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP | Department of Numbers

Pardon me while I walk away laughing. The irony here is, of course, that the US gov't actually uses the least amount of taxes relative to our GDP of any First World country and yet manages to get a shockingly high level of governance for what little we pay relative to other First World countries.

If you can manage to do that, you have the cheapest wife and kids I've ever seen.

The cost per citizen on Solyndra was something along the lines of $2 or less.

P.S. If you are really, really, really truly worried about all you claim: Start hitting foreign aid. Foreign aid costs us far, far more per year than Solyndra plus all of the union bailouts we've done ever in the history of the country - we give billions to Pakistan, and people whinge about giving US companies and unions millions.

P.P.S. Note that I'm absolutely not saying that unions or Solyndra are a good use of the money. Merely that they are a better use of money then giving the money to Pakistan.

P.P.P.S. And if you were really, really truly sincere...you'd curse Bush as the worst president that has ever sat economically. But you aren't sincere, you are peddling in ideology, nothing more.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I'd have to see more details, but Ryan worked at McDonald's in high school, then later worked as a waiter and a personal trainer while working as a Congressional staffer. I wonder if that counts?

You suck at this game.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

You are muddling a bunch of different things here. First, my interpretation of Hayek and Rand is not that they favor zero taxes being paid by a bunch of oligarchs.

Second, I don't even know what "free money for the obscenely rich" even means. The financial bubbles are far, far, far more complicated than tax codes. In fact, of the many different causes of the financial calamities of the past 40 years, I would argue the tax code is among the least significant.

The culture of fraud in the financial sector - which Clinton, GWB and Obama are all equally guilty of implicitly promoting - is a major problem but it has next to nothing to do with tax rates.

Third, I don't understand your point of "shifting the pain of the tax burden." Can you cite something which says that the lower 75% of income earners are paying more in taxes as a percentage of their income than they were at some point in the past?

Romney's "tax plan" if you want to call it that is so vague as to hardly qualify in my opinion but I guess the same is true of Obama. Romney's platform states:
Other than eliminating estate taxes, I fail to see how that is skewed regressively.

I'll have to look at the analysis, but I'm skeptical of that number. I've already seen a bunch of flawed or BS claims on "Ryan's budget" that are using previous proposals rather than the Ryan-Widen proposals actually passed by the House.


I'll try to address Blaen's novella later.

bbundy

The legislators that are of that religion seem to be in high alignment with corporatists and oligarchs when voting on things concerning fairly taxing income of different types. It is this reason I have said as we move more towards fascism it will be Libertarians blazing the trail. It seems Libertarianism completely fails when you throw our government system into the mix.

I don’t know the magnitudes of the influence But to say that drastically lowering taxes just specifically for the “Job creators” will help stimulate investment and job growth by a significant amount and discount the fact that most of that retained cash is just going back into the casino game for private equity and hedge funders creating garbage like derivatives I think is having blinders on. We had a period of historically very low capital gains tax closely followed by a financial bubble. I think there is some significance. Oddly the period also had no jobs growth and declining wages as I keep hearing how low capital gains tax is supposed to address that.

I will put on my partisan hat here. Congress passes legislation and controls the purse strings. Before Clinton left Office Republicans took control of congress between 1995 and 2005 we had a period where the current Ideology of the Republican Party had control. The most control they had in our nation’s history and essentially 6 of those years controlling all three branches the only time they did that in history. I think during this time a great amount of damage was done to government in terms of regulation, tax policy, and even competence.

I am pretty sure the Working class is providing the greatest share of total federal revenue that they have in many decades. And it is totally disingenuous to not include Social security and Medicare tax in that which accounts for nearly half of federal revenue. Example Romney pays zero social security and Medicare tax. A salary worker making 110K pays ~$15,000 before he starts calculating his income tax bill. Corporate tax and other taxes such as tariffs are at an all-time low. The super wealthy are paying quite a bit simply because there revenues have grown at hundreds of times the rate of working people but the pain that tax is inflicting on them is incredibly low by comparison to working people who are losing jobs to cheaper workers in other countries. It seems making workers cheaper by lowering the amount of their compensation the federal government is taking would have a much greater impact on which county the job creators are going to hire people.

I think Blaen’s responses cover better than I could on some of the other points on taxes.

Bob

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Before listing the youtube video, all I have to say about the above post by BBundy is...WOW.

Erskine Bowles was part of Clinton's economic team--one which HAD to work with Republicans, who required those on welfare to seek work and who actually managed to balance the budget for what, three years? Which Democrat would you listen to about the economy, Bowles or Obama?

Here's what a Democrat thinks of Paul Ryan:

Erskine Bowles praises Paul Ryan, budget plan (VIDEO) | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

bbundy

federal revenue

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I feel like I am constantly getting trolled in this thread and I am an idiot (or insane, per the quote attributed to Einstein) for continually coming back and trying to shed some objectivity to the discussion... *le sigh*

Which taxes were drastically lowered specifically for high income earners? If you are talking about the "Bush tax cuts" of 2001 and 2003, you are talking out of your ***.

Yes, some truly wealthy people that are able to live primarily off of income-generating investments got a sweet deal when they saw capital gains and qualified dividends taxed at 15%. You know who else saw marginal tax reductions?

Virtually every other US citizen, including low income earners like those that live on fixed incomes via pensions, Social Security and savings. For those married couples making less than $70,700 taxable, after exemptions and deductions (meaning their gross income was significantly higher than that), they got to take long-term capital gains and dividends paid from qualified stocks at ZERO percent.

Grandma needs to sell that AT&T or McDonald's stock she has held for 30 years to pay for her retirement or healthcare? She pays NO TAXES on that. You, me, Obama and Mitt Romney? We would have paid 15%.

I do tend to agree that the treatment of carried interest for hedge fund managers needs more looking in to but is much lower priority than I think you make it out to be. I would be surprised if there were more than a few thousand successful hedge fund managers in this country making money.

Correlation is not causation, as you are well aware.

Remember that the Treasury Secretary is a cabinet post appointed by the President. Robert Rubin, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, et al. "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One."

It is likewise disingenuous to leave out tax credits. The left-leaning Tax Policy Center has this chart for 2010's numbers, using effective tax rates by income levels, including all Federal taxes and credits (like the expansion of the Earned Income tax credit that was part of those dastardly Bush tax cuts for the rich):