obama puts the heat on mcpain

[Pellaz]

I know... rich people are always frothing at the mouth that some poor jobless slob is stealing some of theirs.

Umm, yeah. Right.

Or not. It doesn't help anyone out of a job, and the people who would receive it would mostly save it or pay off debt. Cue more mouth frothing wherein "it's their money!!!!" and "they're entitled to do what they will with THEIR MONEY!!!!!".

Yeah, but that's not much of an economic stimulus.

Even those who use the money to pay down debt, or pay off credit cards, would thereafter feel better about their personal economic situation. In many cases, this increased confidence would be reflected in purchases down the road.

Remember, it's not the economy, so much as the perception of the economy, read: consumer confidence. When you improve someone's financial situation, they'll feel better about spending money later.

We saw this in early 2008 with the economic stimulus rebates. Not everyone spent the money immediately, but it rippled across the financial landscape in several ways.....to the point where even the Democratic Party, which originally made fun of the idea (just as you are doing here), are now All About doing it again.

How much exactly does it cost to mail out the checks? And how much is actually lost to fraud (not some right-wing wet dream about welfare queens from the 80s)?

Careful, you're beginning to froth at the mouth, there. Are you getting this from the Daily Cos, or the Huffington Post?

I happen to work at the agency that doles out those checks. Trust me, a lot of it is subject to fraud.
And yes, it costs a lot of money to issue that many checks, to trace the ones that get lost or fraudulently cashed, to handle undeliverable checks, etc. I deal with these issues on a daily basis.

No, Obama has it about right. A massive infrastructure investment would create millions of jobs, providing money to those who need it most (and earn it!), and they will obviously spend it. Plus, it will actually result in something useful as a result, and double-bonus points, a portion of the money comes straight back to the Treasury in taxes (plus also into the states as well - triple bonus).

Except for the big fly in the ointment: the taxpayers end up footing the bill. As if the government could ever do something like this efficiently, cheaply and on time!

I liked Charlie Rangel's idea (yes, Charlie Rangel?!?!?!?!?!?) of reducing the corporate tax rate to 30.5% from its current 35% rate. I was astonished at the source, but if it took Nixon to go to China, it might take a seedy Democrat to get the tax-cut train rolling. As we learned in 2003 or so, when you reduce the tax rate, the government's revenue actually increases.

 

[Chrisf]

Umm, yeah. Right.

Even those who use the money to pay down debt, or pay off credit cards, would thereafter feel better about their personal economic situation. In many cases, this increased confidence would be reflected in purchases down the road.

Remember, it's not the economy, so much as the perception of the economy, read: consumer confidence. When you improve someone's financial situation, they'll feel better about spending money later.

Er, you're on the fax list for republican talking points I see. I guess "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong", right? Perception isn't the problem. The problem is that wages aren't keeping up with inflation, 2 millions jobs were lost this year, and the % of people who are underemployed (flipping burgers rather than starve) or unemployed is over 12 (See recent BLS report). The best thing to help people for both real and in appearance is to create jobs. And again, tax cuts don't help people who have no income, which is currently a growing segment of the population.

We saw this in early 2008 with the economic stimulus rebates. Not everyone spent the money immediately, but it rippled across the financial landscape in several ways.....to the point where even the Democratic Party, which originally made fun of the idea (just as you are doing here), are now All About doing it again.

Obama's suggested doing it again, but rather than it being the only thing he tries to improve the economy, it's just one small part. It's far more reasonable when taken in context...

Careful, you're beginning to froth at the mouth, there. Are you getting this from the Daily Cos, or the Huffington Post?

Daily Kos is a far more useful source of information that Fox News, which now basically consists of a bunch of hosts who yell at their viewers and guests. Hence the real frothing.

I happen to work at the agency that doles out those checks. Trust me, a lot of it is subject to fraud.
And yes, it costs a lot of money to issue that many checks, to trace the ones that get lost or fraudulently cashed, to handle undeliverable checks, etc. I deal with these issues on a daily basis.

Heh, nice dodge. So, do you not know the answers to the questions I asked (in which case your original point was bogus), or would they invalidate your argument? And it's hilarious that government employees or contractors are the loudest complainers. I hope you see the irony here...

Except for the big fly in the ointment: the taxpayers end up footing the bill. As if the government could ever do something like this efficiently, cheaply and on time!

Except (I like underlining too, although it's a little frothy...) the little detail that this is completely wrong (and besides the point).

1) It's not about efficient, cheap or on time, since that standard virtually never applied to any large-scale construction project, public or private. If it was, we should have disbanded the military decades ago.

2) The important point is that we get something that helps the economy both short and long term. For an example, see the interstate highway system. That was a huge public works project that created many jobs... and has benefited the economy immeasurably in the decades since. Go ahead and try and grasp how much less efficient transport within the country would be if we had never done that. The internet's another good example. What company created it? Oh, that's right, it wasn't a company, it was a bunch of research institutions with government grant money.

So now we have more opportunities: high-speed rail and energy infrastructure. No company will fund those, because they can't afford it and/or can't make a quick buck on it. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be done.

I liked Charlie Rangel's idea (yes, Charlie Rangel?!?!?!?!?!?) of reducing the corporate tax rate to 30.5% from its current 35% rate. I was astonished at the source, but if it took Nixon to go to China, it might take a seedy Democrat to get the tax-cut train rolling.

I'm glad you like Rangel's idea. The doesn't mean it's a good idea in and of itself. Nor does it mean it will have the desired effect.

As we learned in 2003 or so, when you reduce the tax rate, the government's revenue actually increases.

What a bunch of crap. Prove it. The deficit's been out of control the entire time Bush was preznit. This is a zombie lie; no amount of evidence to the contrary can kill it. You take some convenient time frame after a recession in the vague neighborhood of some tax change and assert that it caused the economy to grow. But how do you explain Clinton raising taxes in '93 and the economy going gangbusters for the rest of the decade? You can't, so you ignore it. Not a good basis for making a real argument, though people get away with it on Fox or talk radio all the time... there's no way for someone to call them on it.

 

[nailz]

Yeah, he's been a miserable failure!!!1111!!!!

MSNBC recently had an editorial blasting Obama for lack of diversity in his Cabinet. Their gripe? Everyone he's picked has been an Ivy League graduate. Meaning they're criticizing him for not picking stupid people.

Good job, MSNBC.

 

[nailz]

You mean the Bush tax cuts for everybody... I'm not wealthy and my taxes went down...

Really? I'm still forking over 35% of my yearly income to ... someone. Who says they're benefitting me... somehow. For 8 years.

 

[nailz]

We saw this in early 2008 with the economic stimulus rebates. Not everyone spent the money immediately, but it rippled across the financial landscape in several ways.....to the point where even the Democratic Party, which originally made fun of the idea (just as you are doing here), are now All About doing it again.

It was a stupid idea that didn't work then, and it's a stupid idea that won't work now without a backup plan implemented soon after.

Oh shit, that guys arm just got cut off with a hacksaw! QUICK, SOMEONE BRING ME THE MEDIKIT! ... Oh thank god, we have child size band-aids! Everything is going to be Fine.

Sir... sir! He's still ... he's still bleeding all over EVERYTHING and I think he just passed out!

EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE FINE.

Except for the big fly in the ointment: the taxpayers end up footing the bill. As if the government could ever do something like this efficiently, cheaply and on time!

ZOMG, Taxpayers paying for job creation to help collect taxes to pay for job creation to generate tax revenue to CREATE JOBS... MY HEAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE.

 

[Pellaz]

Really? I'm still forking over 35% of my yearly income to ... someone. Who says they're benefitting me... somehow. For 8 years.

Errm, the rate was higher (39%) before the tax cuts. And will revert back there in 2010.

Er, you're on the fax list for republican talking points I see. I guess "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong", right? Perception isn't the problem. The problem is that wages aren't keeping up with inflation,

The CPI has actually gone down, so it's deflation that economists are worrying about now.

And again, tax cuts don't help people who have no income, which is currently a growing segment of the population.

But they do help the producers of jobs, which results in more job creation.

Heh, nice dodge. So, do you not know the answers to the questions I asked (in which case your original point was bogus), or would they invalidate your argument? And it's hilarious that government employees or contractors are the loudest complainers. I hope you see the irony here...

I actually take a bit of pride in the fact that I'm a staunch supporter of the Fair Tax...even though it would probably cost me my job.

I'm trying to locate the yearly revenue stats on irs.gov -- I know they're on there, but the site is pretty daunting. Since the guy in charge of the IRS website's help desk is also a friend and former co-worker of mine, this exercise might give me a chance to give him some hell.

1) It's not about efficient, cheap or on time, since that standard virtually never applied to any large-scale construction project, public or private. If it was, we should have disbanded the military decades ago.

(see below)

2) The important point is that we get something that helps the economy both short and long term. For an example, see the interstate highway system. That was a huge public works project that created many jobs... and has benefited the economy immeasurably in the decades since.

You mean the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways?

The internet's another good example. What company created it? Oh, that's right, it wasn't a company, it was a bunch of research institutions with government grant money.

But NOT directly controlled by a government agency. Thank Ghu.

So now we have more opportunities: high-speed rail and energy infrastructure. No company will fund those, because they can't afford it and/or can't make a quick buck on it. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be done.

Au contraire....if one or both is not profitable over the long run, then we're better off not spending the money and effort at all.
I love the idea of high-speed rail, but if we build them and people don't come, or the ticket price is too high, we've wasted our time. The same reservations apply to large-scale solar plants and possibly windfarms.

I'm glad you like Rangel's idea. The doesn't mean it's a good idea in and of itself. Nor does it mean it will have the desired effect.

No, but if Ireland's success is any judge.....

 

[nailz]

Errm, the rate was higher (39%) before the tax cuts. And will revert back there in 2010.

You assume the Bush tax cuts expire and nothing is done to relieve the middle class burden. Which I don't believe to be the case. But then, we've been down that can of worms.

 

[Chrisf]

Errm, the rate was higher (39%) before the tax cuts. And will revert back there in 2010.

The CPI has actually gone down, so it's deflation that economists are worrying about now.

But they do help the producers of jobs, which results in more job creation.

You know what else helps the producers of jobs? More business. Seriously, you've drunk so much kool-aid you just don't get it. If the business climate overall sucks, giving money mostly to the wealthy is more likely to encourage them to invest overseas than bother to start or expand a business over here.

I actually take a bit of pride in the fact that I'm a staunch supporter of the Fair Tax...even though it would probably cost me my job.

A staunch supporter of the latest gimmick to cut taxes for the rich and put more burden on everyone else? Woohoo! You know there's another one of those things ever coupla years, right? And none of them will actually fly, because you can only push the masses so far with this kinda crap before they vote you out of office. See Social Security privatization and the 2006 elections.

I'm trying to locate the yearly revenue stats on irs.gov -- I know they're on there, but the site is pretty daunting. Since the guy in charge of the IRS website's help desk is also a friend and former co-worker of mine, this exercise might give me a chance to give him some hell.

So, I asked for something backing up your assertion that cutting stimulus checks was expensive or especially prone to fraud, and you don't seem to have anything yet. Which makes me believe that it was made up (like most conservative "facts"). I know you didn't originate the idea; I've heard it elsewhere. But it's probably not true, and even had it been, you didn't say it because you knew it - you said it because you heard it elsewhere.

You mean the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways?

Yes, I do. From back when Republicans cared about results, and good government. I suppose you think that because it was developed in part for the army's use somehow invalidates the fact that it was a big government program that helped the country economically both short and long term. It doesn't.

Au contraire....if one or both is not profitable over the long run, then we're better off not spending the money and effort at all.
I love the idea of high-speed rail, but if we build them and people don't come, or the ticket price is too high, we've wasted our time. The same reservations apply to large-scale solar plants and possibly windfarms.

The current rate we ship cash to the middle east is unsustainable. It's actually a vital national security priority to greatly reduce our dependence on oil from that region. Add in the true cost of everything, and it's almost impossible for an energy source that's twice as expensive as current market rates to not actually be financially worth it in the long run if it's saving us some grief

 

[SharkBlack]

Really? I'm still forking over 35% of my yearly income to ... someone. Who says they're benefitting me... somehow. For 8 years.

And it was 38 percent before the tax cuts... You got a tax cut. So if you don't want it, give back that 3 percent to the government you ingrate jk

--
I'm all for a large scale infrastruscture investment. As long the investment is put to good use in durable infratructure projects. I will definitely stimulate job growth and leave us with something tangible.

But overburdening business in this country will drive them overseas faster than anything else.

 

[Pellaz]

You know what else helps the producers of jobs? More business. Seriously, you've drunk so much kool-aid you just don't get it. If the business climate overall sucks, giving money mostly to the wealthy is more likely to encourage them to invest overseas than bother to start or expand a business over here.

On this, we agree completely.

But if you don't grasp that "poor business climate" = "second-highest business tax rate in the industrialized world," well... We'll have to agree to disagree.

A staunch supporter of the latest gimmick to cut taxes for the rich and put more burden on everyone else? Woohoo! You know there's another one of those things ever coupla years, right? And none of them will actually fly, because you can only push the masses so far with this kinda crap before they vote you out of office. See Social Security privatization and the 2006 elections.

You're not seriously defending the current tax code, are you?

So, I asked for something backing up your assertion that cutting stimulus checks was expensive or especially prone to fraud, and you don't seem to have anything yet. Which makes me believe that it was made up (like most conservative "facts"). I know you didn't originate the idea; I've heard it elsewhere. But it's probably not true, and even had it been, you didn't say it because you knew it - you said it because you heard it elsewhere.

You're beginning to froth again. Handily done.

I know that it costs the Financial Management Service -- the check-cutting arm of Treasury -- about $25 to cut any government check. With the latest rebate, IRS issued approximately 70 million rebate checks, so....yeah, we're not talking $750 billion here, but it ain't cheap.

As for the fraud, I'm referring to intercepted and cashed checks, not necessarily fraudulently filed returns. Even if a check is lost and not cashed, it still costs IRS and FMS a fair amount to track down, cancel and reissue the check.

The current rate we ship cash to the middle east is unsustainable. It's actually a vital national security priority to greatly reduce our dependence on oil from that region. Add in the true cost of everything, and it's almost impossible for an energy source that's twice as expensive as current market rates to not actually be financially worth it in the long run if it's saving us some grief

*goggle* We agree on something! Huzzah!

And it was 38 percent before the tax cuts... You got a tax cut. So if you don't want it, give back that 3 percent to the government you ingrate jk

Nahh, contribute it toward the "Let's get _________ to ProgPower XI Fund." (Fill in the band with your favorite impossible band to get.)

I'm all for a large scale infrastruscture investment. As long the investment is put to good use in durable infratructure projects. I will definitely stimulate job growth and leave us with something tangible.

Absolutely. We'd BETTER be able to point to something useful afterwards. (And yes, highways are useful.)

But overburdening business in this country will drive them overseas faster than anything else.

Why are you speaking in the future tense? With a 35% business tax rate, it's already been happening. And will continue, as there will be little traction in a Democratically-controlled Congress and White House for any sort of relief for the "big, evil corporations."

Moreover, when the 'franchise tax' rate -- the tax on passive-activity royalties paid by artists, musicians, etc. -- reverts back to its 50% level (that's what it was during the Clinton Era), we'll see some REAL pain.

A good friend in a currently top-of-their-genre band is gloomy about their prospects after the rate increases...and he is no fool when it comes to business. On the brighter side, the rate might not be allowed to increase, since it would affect actors and Hollywood types, too.

 

[Chrisf]

On this, we agree completely.

But if you don't grasp that "poor business climate" = "second-highest business tax rate in the industrialized world," well... We'll have to agree to disagree.

I always laugh when people say nonsense like this. Taxes are too high in the US? As compared to.... Europe? Then by your reasoning, we should absolutely adopt socialized medicine, since over there taxes are lower AND they cover everyone's health insurance.

And if taxes are so terrible here, why are any companies left? This is another lie perpetuated by the right... use one kind of tax and ignore all others just to make some argument.

You're not seriously defending the current tax code, are you?

Compared to most of the alternatives being offered, yes. Explain why another is superior in general (not just for some small subset of the population).

You're beginning to froth again. Handily done.

If calling you on something that's not true is frothing...

I know that it costs the Financial Management Service -- the check-cutting arm of Treasury -- about $25 to cut any government check. With the latest rebate, IRS issued approximately 70 million rebate checks, so....yeah, we're not talking $750 billion here, but it ain't cheap.

I'd like to see a source for that - one that applies to the stimulus checks, and not normal tax rebates, where other costs are bundled in. But:

1) Yes, it's tiny compared to the $750 billion. In fact, republicans have now lost the ability to complain that ANYTHING is too expensive now. If we just mint that much money for Paulsen's buddies, then we can pay to send out checks.
2) That's a problem with how it's done; it should be fixed. (8) years ago, there was a sense of fixing the problems in government, not just whining about everything. See FEMA for an example. That's how you deal with these problems. The government is obviously not going away; we should try to improve it as much as possible.

As for the fraud, I'm referring to intercepted and cashed checks, not necessarily fraudulently filed returns. Even if a check is lost and not cashed, it still costs IRS and FMS a fair amount to track down, cancel and reissue the check.

Yes yes, we all know fraud is expensive. Look how much the credit card companies spend on it. But the question is if it's actually a lot of money for the whole program of issuing tens of millions of checks. That's a little different.

Nahh, contribute it toward the "Let's get _________ to ProgPower XI Fund." (Fill in the band with your favorite impossible band to get.)

I thought you were gonna go with "Aki"...

Absolutely. We'd BETTER be able to point to something useful afterwards. (And yes, highways are useful.)

So, see... you CAN be reasonable sometimes.

Why are you speaking in the future tense? With a 35% business tax rate, it's already been happening. And will continue, as there will be little traction in a Democratically-controlled Congress and White House for any sort of relief for the "big, evil corporations."

Again, I don't agree at all. People always want lower taxes, that's human nature. And you can make all kinds of arguments that you could do X, Y and Z with the money that you or your company currently pay in taxes. But the government money has to come from somewhere. Running up massive debt devalues your currency.

And as demonstrated under Clinton, you CAN raise taxes and still improve the economy. I'm glad we had this very real world example to prove this. All economic theories which state that this was not what would happen are wrong.

Moreover, when the 'franchise tax' rate -- the tax on passive-activity royalties paid by artists, musicians, etc. -- reverts back to its 50% level (that's what it was during the Clinton Era), we'll see some REAL pain.

Really? Did Obama propose that? Cause I missed that.

A good friend in a currently top-of-their-genre band is gloomy about their prospects after the rate increases...and he is no fool when it comes to business. On the brighter side, the rate might not be allowed to increase, since it would affect actors and Hollywood types, too.

I thought they were all rich elites?? That's what Fox keeps telling me...

 

[Pellaz]

I always laugh when people say nonsense like this. Taxes are too high in the US? As compared to.... Europe? Then by your reasoning, we should absolutely adopt socialized medicine, since over there taxes are lower AND they cover everyone's health insurance.

Source, please.

Use Finland as an example.

And if taxes are so terrible here, why are any companies left?

Gee, could it be because.......they don't have a choice? Somehow I can't see, say Wal-Mart outsourcing its retail locations to Ireland or India.

This is another lie perpetuated by the right... use one kind of tax and ignore all others just to make some argument.

Are we talking about something other than income taxes, here?

Compared to most of the alternatives being offered, yes. Explain why another is superior in general (not just for some small subset of the population).

Flat tax -- would be far simpler to supervise, since we could toss out all the current crap, loopholes, complications, stupid rules and inconsistencies in the Revenue Code and just use the flat percentage. Compliance costs across the board would be virtually eliminated, reducing the burden on all taxpayers. However, the IRS would still be necessary to process returns, collect taxes and issue checks.

Fair tax -- would eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes in favor of a point-of-sale consumption tax. Lower-income individuals would have their tax paid in advance by annual prebate checks. (Everyone would get them, but for those who don't esrn too much and don't spend too much, the prebate would cover their tax liability.) The resulting surge in investment and return of foreign-source income back to the States, by most estimates, would be impressive.

I'd like to see a source for that - one that applies to the stimulus checks, and not normal tax rebates, where other costs are bundled in.

The rebate checks are handled exactly the same way as regular refund checks and are subject to offset, etc. No big deal. Incidentally, during the 2001-2002 tax rebates, $25 million in back child support was paid by offset in Massachusetts alone. So much for deadbeat dads trying to avoid getting a tax refund!

Yes yes, we all know fraud is expensive. Look how much the credit card companies spend on it. But the question is if it's actually a lot of money for the whole program of issuing tens of millions of checks. That's a little different.

*shrug*

I've been working at IRS for nineteen years. If my word isn't good enough, then this discussion is over. (Which will no doubt relieve everyone else watching the thread. )

Really? Did Obama propose that? Cause I missed that.

No need. It happens automatically when the Bush tax cuts 'sunset,' in 2010.

 

[Chrisf]

Source, please.

Use Finland as an example.

Err, I don't need to provide sources for your argument. You made the claim, you back it up. You suggested that business taxes were more favorable in Europe. I simply said that taxes overall were not likely cheaper. I don't know your interest in Finland in particular, but I see they have a general VAT that is 22%. They also have a progressive tax code, and the benefit of not spending 829374563289746 dollars a year on their military. Why is that superior to what we have here?

Gee, could it be because.......they don't have a choice? Somehow I can't see, say Wal-Mart outsourcing its retail locations to Ireland or India.

That's hardly representative of jobs in the US overall. There's a huge number of companies that could simply up and move if they felt it was strategically advantageous. They haven't all left. Why? Maybe the picture is a wee bit more complicated than just the corporate tax rate.

Are we talking about something other than income taxes, here?

I think people care about all the taxes they pay, not just income taxes. Why would you think otherwise? Oh... maybe skewed perspective from your job? I hadn't thought of that before, but maybe that's possible. Hmm...

Flat tax -- would be far simpler to supervise, since we could toss out all the current crap, loopholes, complications, stupid rules and inconsistencies in the Revenue Code and just use the flat percentage. Compliance costs across the board would be virtually eliminated, reducing the burden on all taxpayers. However, the IRS would still be necessary to process returns, collect taxes and issue checks.

So, the savings to the federal budget are minimal, but it sure is a great way to raise the lowest tax bracket and lower the highest! Why is that not a gift for the rich and a screwing of the poor?

Fair tax -- would eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes in favor of a point-of-sale consumption tax. Lower-income individuals would have their tax paid in advance by annual prebate checks. (Everyone would get them, but for those who don't esrn too much and don't spend too much, the prebate would cover their tax liability.) The resulting surge in investment and return of foreign-source income back to the States, by most estimates, would be impressive.

C'mon, it's so transparently a gimmick. You can't create money out of nothing, and it's at best a numbers game. What % of income do the poor pay in "consumption"? And the rich? And the middle class? Again, it's a simple screw-the-poor scheme to help rich people. It's not fair at all. Recognize marketing when you see it...

The rebate checks are handled exactly the same way as regular refund checks and are subject to offset, etc. No big deal. Incidentally, during the 2001-2002 tax rebates, $25 million in back child support was paid by offset in Massachusetts alone. So much for deadbeat dads trying to avoid getting a tax refund!

So... litterally 4 dollars of fraud per person!!!11!! How much for the bank bailout? Or Iraq War? Or Halliburton contracts even? If we care about fraud, we're wasting time talking about this stuff. Not that I don't think they should eliminate it everywhere possible, but a sense of perspective is useful.

I've been working at IRS for nineteen years. If my word isn't good enough, then this discussion is over. (Which will no doubt relieve everyone else watching the thread. )

It's all well and good to suggest that there are inefficiencies in the system. What I object to is the fact that it somehow means we should change to something worse simply because we blow those inefficiencies out of proportion.

No need. It happens automatically when the Bush tax cuts 'sunset,' in 2010.

But Obama suggested only letting the highest tax rate change expire, so this is at best ambiguous.

 

[Pellaz]

Err, I don't need to provide sources for your argument. You made the claim, you back it up. You suggested that business taxes were more favorable in Europe.

Nope. I said that the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

I did mention that Ireland reduced theirs dramatically and are now the jewel of (western) Europe...maybe that's where the confusion crept in. They reduced theirs to a mere 12.5%. Good for them!

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree

I don't know your interest in Finland in particular, but I see they have a general VAT that is 22%. They also have a progressive tax code....

lol!
In this case, "progressive" means "tax the crap out of." I mentioned Finland because I know a few people from there (including our own Aki) who have...err...mentioned the tax code, not kindly.

And this is hardly surprising, since the individual tax rate there varies from 16% up to a whopping 51.5% (including income taxes imposed by municipalities). Plus their 22% VAT. And some sort of "church tax." (!)

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/finland/finland_tax.asp

Why is that superior to what we have here?

Believe me, I never said it was.

 

[Chrisf]

Nope. I said that the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

I did mention that Ireland reduced theirs dramatically and are now the jewel of (western) Europe...maybe that's where the confusion crept in. They reduced theirs to a mere 12.5%. Good for them!

Err, their corporate tax rates are 12.5% for trading income, and 25% for non-trading income. But their income tax is:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 20% on the first € 35,400
41% on the balance
[/FONT]
So is this really better? And they have a VAT of 21.5%! So, the citizens bear all the tax burden at far higher rates. I haven't seen any reason why this is supposed to be better than what we have here.

In this case, "progressive" means "tax the crap out of." I mentioned Finland because I know a few people from there (including our own Aki) who have...err...mentioned the tax code, not kindly.

And this is hardly surprising, since the individual tax rate there varies from 16% up to a whopping 51.5% (including income taxes imposed by municipalities). Plus their 22% VAT. And some sort of "church tax." (!)

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/finland/finland_tax.asp

Believe me, I never said it was.

So... you never had any point in the first place then. You suggested corporate taxes were too high in the US and that would/has caused companies to leave. I called you on in it, saying it would be no better in any other first world country, and you pointed to a country that taxes worse than we do. Right. So.... you have no backing for any of your points?

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

Thankfully, the luster has evaporated. People have begun to see that Obama is exactly what Bill Clinton said he was: A Chicago-style thug.

Illinois Gov. Blagojevich's scandal has apparently reached as high as Obama's Chief of Staff (See London Times article). People from both sides of the aisle are demanding that Obama come clean. So far, he's been a clam -- which is interesting considering his campaign promise to be "transparent" with his administration.

The media is portraying this as a Republicans vs. Democrats issue again (see article). But it's not. Even those who voted for Obama wonder why his cabinet is, essentially, Clinton's third term. They wonder why so much scandal follows him everywhere he goes. And they want answers regarding his staff and what he knows of Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme.

People like to talk about the "firsts" with Obama. The most amazing first of all may be that he'll be the first President-elect to be indicted and kicked out of office before he's even sworn in.

One can only hope.

 

[Pellaz]

I'll wait to see what happens with Rahm Emmanuel and the Blagojevich scandal. So far, it isn't a badly smoking gun.

But whew, if Emmanuel is directly tied to the scandal via phone conversations with him, Obama's going to need a new Chief of Staff even before his coronat-- err, inauguration.

 

[Chrisf]

Thankfully, the luster has evaporated. People have begun to see that Obama is exactly what Bill Clinton said he was: A Chicago-style thug.

I know! What's Obama's approval rating, btw? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/09/Poll_Obama_approval_rating_79_percent/UPI-40031228843993/

Illinois Gov. Blagojevich's scandal has apparently reached as high as Obama's Chief of Staff (See London Times article). People from both sides of the aisle are demanding that Obama come clean. So far, he's been a clam -- which is interesting considering his campaign promise to be "transparent" with his administration.

Riiiight.... as long as you keep ignoring the recordings of Blago saying how much he fucking hates Obama, cause the O-man won't give him anything for appointing someone Obama thought would be good for the seat.

The media is portraying this as a Republicans vs. Democrats issue again (see article). But it's not. Even those who voted for Obama wonder why his cabinet is, essentially, Clinton's third term. They wonder why so much scandal follows him everywhere he goes. And they want answers regarding his staff and what he knows of Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme.

You're confusing two separate things. I'll wait for some proof connecting Obama to anything here before worrying about it; you apparently won't. But the fact that Obama is appointing a lot of Clinton people is a "good thing" (tm). These are competent people who can start fixing things on day one. Perhaps you're one of those who thinks the Clinton years were a disaster; you might be interested that the vast majority of the country seems to feel otherwise.

I really try to ignore most of the hyperventilating in the media over how Obama's picking the wrong people for this or that. His campaign was all about how HE was the right person for the presidency, and not McCain or Clinton. Who fills what role in his cabinet is not something I remember him discussing pre-election, and it's not something that makes a lot of sense to judge at this point.

People like to talk about the "firsts" with Obama. The most amazing first of all may be that he'll be the first President-elect to be indicted and kicked out of office before he's even sworn in.

One can only hope.

Ahhh... I get it now. You're a first-order political hack who would rather see a democrat in trouble than see the country improve. You don't hope that he's kicked out if he's committed a crime, you just hope they can get him on something.

Like Johnny Mac.... "country first" is only a campaign slogan.