"We are the 53%"

Is there some kind of meaningful conclusion from this?

Yes, that the Nanny State has grown exponentially creating a great deficit that really messes up our budget.

edited 18th Oct '11 8:41:19 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

Again, that conclusion is not supported by the linked article-if for no reason other than that it's low on crunch, and that corporate welfare is not part of the "nanny state," yet is included in the "Hidden Welfare" elements you're complaining about.

Actually, according to your definition, protectionism does count as Nanny Stateism. And we do have a lot of agricultural protections. So, maybe there is some issue. Though, again-needs more crunch, less fluff.

edited 18th Oct '11 8:42:43 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

The tax code is too complicated too read. There's millions of words in it, literally millions. Income tax stats Generally, it's hard to mix quantitative (tax percentage) and qualitative (fairness). That deals with qualities having a somewhat subjective nature as opposed to the objective nature of quantitative things. Tax reform is an idea, but generally there's no actual work done towards such a goal. Reforms:

• Flat/Proportional
• Fair
• Value added

Edit: I like how Fair Tax, has fair in its name. I also believe it to be fair, so it's not nominal only. None of the three tax proposals above will be able to be altered with by cronyism and favoritism like the current tax code, except maybe the flat/proportional tax which was what our tax code started out as.

edited 18th Oct '11 9:02:28 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

Yet all currently discussed programs are needlessly regressive, placing more and more of the burden on middle class families, while often failing to generate an equivalent amount of revenue.

It's disingenuous to discredit the current tax code for being "too long" and then cite proposals that clock in at a fraction of the length. Of course they're going to be shorter; they haven't gone through decades of legislation, adding in the countless deductions/credits/loopholes/etc., that the current system has.

That's the biggest weakness of the "fair tax" proposals; they're advertised in a dishonest manner as being simpler than the current tax code, when any real effort to implement them would be a nightmare compared to the current IRS.

Consider something as basic as a flat 10% income tax (with a cutoff for under 15k... it has to be a cutoff and not a rebate, otherwise it isn't flat). What counts as taxable income? There's a whole laundry list of them, and the instant a flat tax is even so much as proposed, every lobbyist in the country will pour billions into politicians' pockets fighting to get their own pet interests labeled as not counting toward income.

You think tax evasion is bad now, just wait until it becomes effectively legal.

TL;DR: Flat taxes are corporatist traps.

edited 18th Oct '11 9:14:19 AM by Ratix

Secretist, how is the US welfare state larger than the European one? The article supports no such conclusion, it merely redefines what it wants as "welfare" and then concludes that more stuff counts as welfare. It doesn't have a comparison to anything as far as I can see.

Worse yet, I can see it includes some military spending as welfare of all things.

And, you are presuming that non-US countries somehow don't have tax credits and tax deductions, therefore the US... has a larger welfare state? Huh?

Plus most of the discussion against the 53%ers is the unfair tax burden placed on the lower classes of Americans, thus when you point out these deductions that are benefiting the rich more than the poor, that makes even less sense. Now you're arguing that the rich have more welfare which is kinda the point being made by the 99%ers.

If we are going to simplify tax codes, I don't understand why we don't just simplify the one we have.

Remove everything but the income, payroll, and corporate taxes. Remove all the deductions, remove all the loopholes, classify income as "all money you earn, regardless of source". Create a 0% tax bracket to replace the standard deduction, and raise percentages across the board to compensate for the abolished taxes.

This probably still has some issues, but it strikes me as still being saner than every other simplification attempt I've seen.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Who would pass an unalterable tax code into law? That's why the current one exists; it's able to be modified. Hell, even the U.S. Constitution can be modified if needed.

Also an absolute "everything you earn counts as income" hurts many segments of the population, such as those collecting life insurance and probably need it if they're dependents whose guardian just died. A tax code that demanded as such would be an unprecedented increase in taxation authoritarianism. And if you do leave it open to change, the premise I proposed would occur, where those who lobby most effectively (read: the wealthiest) would render whole swaths of their income untouchable. The exact same problem the fair tax was supposed to correct.

@TCMT:They're proportional, not regressive!

Also, generally people criticize plans as either revenue negative or burdensome. That's because if they were burdensome, they'd be revenue positive. If they were revenue negative, they wouldn't be burdensome. Also, you don't specify if you're saying absolute burden or relative burden. Welfarists tend to care about if people's absolute burdens don't threaten their welfare while egalitarians go further specifically wanting relative burdens to be used as a tool to bring equality of outcome.

edited 18th Oct '11 9:34:20 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

...

I read the Hidden Welfare State article on Wikipedia. It's full of [Citation Needed] tags.

It's basic argument is that "not taxing 100$ for welfare programs is same as spending 100$ on welfare program". It's says so in lest last paragraph of the opening.

So by this logic, that instead of actualy having welfare system and instead jsut not running it, leaving money directly to people, US has bigger welfare than European nations?

WROOOONG

Welfare programs job is to catch those who can't deal with problems themselves or problems grow too large to be handled. Even if you "saved" those 100$, it's not much use when you finaly run out of money. Compare that instead you paid those 100$ and when you ran out of money, there was safety net to catch you. Besides, I'm suspicious of the page. Soudns liek something from Conservapedia but formated to sound "legit" in Wikipedia... That, or directly quoted from a book. It also has 6 sources

A directly proportional tax is regressive by virtue of the fact that the poor actually have to spend a larger percentage of their income.

In order to be progressive, a tax HAS to be at least partially disproportional.

On the other hand, I think we're getting off-topic.

I'm not sure how people who need the money getting paid out from life insurance are any different from people who need the money getting paid out from a paycheck or need (maybe that should be "need") the money getting paid out from capital gains. It's all the same thing: Income. If you're getting enough income in to pay taxes, you do. If you're not, you don't. I honestly don't see how the source matters.

edited 18th Oct '11 9:58:58 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Theoretically, insurance payouts should be handled the same as capital gains taxes.

Here's something I found recently: http://read.bi/pa5yl9

I mean, damn.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

What.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

^ They wanted to increase bank reserves. So the Federal Reserve offered to pay interest on money the bank doesn't lend. Banks have since then collected enormous piles of money to earn interest instead of lending it out in a risky financial market.

<The Fed> ... Proooooooobably shoulda put some extra stipulations on that policy huh...

I don't have a facepalm reaction image suitable enough for this nonsense.

And I know a fuckton of facepalm reaction images.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I hope that link gets some airplay somewhere, because I just don't understand how anyone with a brain and not in the 1% can look at that and still claim everything's OK and it's the workers' fault they're poor and out of work.

I mean, heck, it even opened my eyes, and I was already sold. I already knew stuff was bad, but some of those statistics are even worse than I thought.

edited 19th Oct '11 9:39:18 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Bloomberg Businessweek has a nice quiz to see if you are OWS or 53%? It has eight questions with answers with values ranging from 20 to -20. The more positive an answer, the more 53% you are. The more negative an answer is, the more OWS you are. Any subscribers to it? or you could just buy the single issue for the quiz?

Bloomberg Bussinessweek site

edited 19th Oct '11 9:48:47 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

If your not subscribed, then your in the 99%

edited 19th Oct '11 10:01:17 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Baff wins the internet.

Quiz here:

• What is your profession?
  • Hedge fund manager (+20)
  • Other (+2) (Me, so 2 for me)
  • Cop (-2)
  • Unemployed (-10)
  • Distributor of hugs (-20)

• Which of these books had the most profound effect on you?
  • Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (+20) (Me, so that's 22 now for me)
  • The novelization of Boiler Room (+10)
  • A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn (-5)
  • My Life by Leon Trotsky (-10)
  • Hydroponic Basics by George F. Van Patten (-20)

• First thing you read each morning?
  • My investment portfolio (+10)
  • The Wall Street Journal (+5) (Me, so that's 27 now)
  • E-mails from my boss (+2)
  • Comments on my Tumbir (-5)
  • The Occupied Wall Street Journal (-20)

• The last time you were arrested was for:
  • Sexual assault charges at a Harvard final club in 1985, ultimately expunged (+20) (Never been arrested, but pervy so, 47 now)
  • Insider trading (+15)
  • Possession of an illegal substance (0)
  • Stealing to feed my family (-10)
  • Marching on the Brooklyn Bridge (-15)

• What slogan best expresses your sentiments?
  • "Occupy Occupy Wall Street" (+15) (Me, 62)
  • "Investment Bankers Unite" (+10)
  • "Impeach Obama, Protector of Wall Street (-5)
  • "Shit is all fucked up and bullshit" (-15)
  • "Weed not Greed" (-20)

• What is the person doing? (Imagine picture of zombie)
  • Don't all Democrats look like that? (+10) (Me, 72)
  • Clearly not looking for a job (+5)
  • He's an extra on The Walking Dead (+2)
  • Making a travesty of Occupy Wall Street (-5)
  • Protesting Wall Street's zombie-like hunger for profit (-10)

• What are the protesters' demands?
  • Porta Potties (+10) (Me, 82)
  • To curtail the government-enabled abuses of big government (0)
  • To be broadcast in-shot on Anderson Cooper 360 (-2)
  • The movement is stronger for making no official demands (-10)

• What adjective best describes the Occupy Wall Street protesters?
  • Tom's of Maine-esque (+10) (Me, 92)
  • Incoherent (+5)
  • Quixotic (0)
  • Right (-5)
  • Sans-culotte-like (-10)

• Results (add up all your selections mathwise)
  • >+74 You are David Koch (Me, 92)
  • +74 to +1 You are the 1%
  • 0 to -75 You are the 99%
  • <-75 You are high

edited 19th Oct '11 10:43:22 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971