By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Ben Stein says that taxes has to be raised on the rich....

Baalzamon on 21 October 2012
Mr Khan said:

I feel that in the long-term we should instill a sense of ethics and responsibility in business

What is a business?  Isn't it nothing more than a legal entity that is controlled by people?  The business effectively can't make its own decisions.  Instead, it is humans that make the decisions.

So just perhaps, we should be instilling a better ethical standard into the citizens of our country that go on to run businesses.  They are the ones that are making these business choices.  They are the ones that need to be ethical and more responsible.

Just something I thought I would mention, as people always seem to be deceived that it is a business that is making unethical choices, when the business didn't do shit.  The people who owned the business made the unethical choice, and the business was simply a cover that people then blame their problems on.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 21 October 2012

Or to put it another way. It's not so much that taxable income is a lower percentage of GDP then it should be.

It's that GDP is being artificially inflated by government spending because people care more about an arbitrary number set out by Keynes then they do basic market fundamentals.



Kasz216 on 21 October 2012
Baalzamon said:
Mr Khan said:

I feel that in the long-term we should instill a sense of ethics and responsibility in business

What is a business?  Isn't it nothing more than a legal entity that is controlled by people?  The business effectively can't make its own decisions.  Instead, it is humans that make the decisions.

So just perhaps, we should be instilling a better ethical standard into the citizens of our country that go on to run businesses.  They are the ones that are making these business choices.  They are the ones that need to be ethical and more responsible.

Just something I thought I would mention, as people always seem to be deceived that it is a business that is making unethical choices, when the business didn't do shit.  The people who owned the business made the unethical choice, and the business was simply a cover that people then blame their problems on.


That is true.   With the interent now a days, it would be supremely easy for consumers to make the most basic ethical choices when it comes to just about anything they produce.

Most people just can't be bothered.



Ail on 22 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
klystron said:
Mr Khan said:
klystron said:
RedInker said:
Taxing the rich is a must. But neither Obama or Romney have the balls to mention this. Ive said this before America has to get its debt down or the country will go pop like Greece and the ramifications will fuck up the whole global economy.


One of the problems with "taxing the rich" is that you must consent to the government to define the meaning of rich. Someday you'll be on the wrong side of that line because the definition will always change. This is why I don't like giving the government the power to draw a line and treat people differently on one side of it or the other.

That's a pretty poor line of reasoning. Surely there must be an objective measure of wealth, even for the "small businessman" argument that i've heard against using the income definition of wealth.

So if a president says he wants tax policy that raises taxes on everyone making $250,000 a year, you are ok with that? So what happens if the next president wants the line drawn at $25,000? You ok with that then? What if it becomes $250,000 and stays there and hyperinflaction has the poverty line at $300,000. Is that ok?

The small business argument is a very valid argument. Most small businesses are subchapter-S corporations where the business income is filed on top of the owner's individual tax rate. If you don't like the argument then advocate simpler tax policy.;

I simply cannot understand the argument that we should raise taxes rather than cut spending. We've had so much government spending the last four years if it was going to fix the economy it would have. We should fix spending at a percentage of GDP and leave it there.

The argument is not rather.  The argument is whether or not taxes need to be raised or not.  Even Obama agreed to budget cuts.  He even agreed to more, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire on income $250,000 or greater.

There is an issue now with tax revenues, due to the economic slowdown.  As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues are lowest in decades. 

Except that's not REALLY the issue.

Tax Revenue as a  percentage of GDP is lower then it's ever been.

This is largely due to the fact that government is a larger percentage of GDP then it's been.  Meaning taxable income is a lower percentage of GDP.

Government Receipts now are higher then they were in 2005... so it's not really lagging behind as much as you would think.  

If you jack up government spending, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will decrease... even if tax receipts and every other single part of the economy stays the same.

 

If you only let the Bush Tax cuts expire... we surpass 2007 level taxes... by 12% in 2013.  At 2,900 Billion.

Tax receipts at the end of Clinton's era were only 1,900 Billion. (2005 was 2153 billion fyi.)

This is misleading too. Government spending as a percent of GDP has not changed that much in the last 50 years, except a recent spike following the housing crash...

Interestingly enough, prior to the current crisis, government spending as percentage of GDP was the highest during the Reagan Presidency ( you know the guy every GOP candidates workships for reigning in government....)

 



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Kasz216 on 22 October 2012
Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
klystron said:
Mr Khan said:
klystron said:
RedInker said:

 

The argument is not rather.  The argument is whether or not taxes need to be raised or not.  Even Obama agreed to budget cuts.  He even agreed to more, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire on income $250,000 or greater.

There is an issue now with tax revenues, due to the economic slowdown.  As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues are lowest in decades. 

Except that's not REALLY the issue.

Tax Revenue as a  percentage of GDP is lower then it's ever been.

This is largely due to the fact that government is a larger percentage of GDP then it's been.  Meaning taxable income is a lower percentage of GDP.

Government Receipts now are higher then they were in 2005... so it's not really lagging behind as much as you would think.  

If you jack up government spending, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will decrease... even if tax receipts and every other single part of the economy stays the same.

 

If you only let the Bush Tax cuts expire... we surpass 2007 level taxes... by 12% in 2013.  At 2,900 Billion.

Tax receipts at the end of Clinton's era were only 1,900 Billion. (2005 was 2153 billion fyi.)

This is misleading too. Government spending as a percent of GDP has not changed that much in the last 50 years, except a recent spike following the housing crash...

Interestingly enough, prior to the current crisis, government spending as percentage of GDP was the highest during the Reagan Presidency ( you know the guy every GOP candidates workships for reigning in government....)

 

How is that misleading?  Tax revenue was at normal levels until the spike following the housing crash.  Tax reciepts in 2008 were actually normal as a percentage of GDP. 

"Real income per capital" is at the same level it was 10 years ago... meaning tax receipts and government spending should roughly be around that level, slightly increased due to population increases.

In 2001 we had 148,000,000 workers.  2011.  157,000,000  So that's a 6% increase.

 

So in 2001, the "balanced deficit' year... we had federal receipts of 1991 billion.  And spending of  1862 billion.

a 6% increase means we should roughly be at....

2110 Billion in taxes and 1973 billion in spending.

In 2011 we had 2303.5 in taxes, and 3606 billion in spending.

 

So... taxes are above expectations... and spending should be cut by more then half.




Around the Network
richardhutnik on 22 October 2012
Baalzamon said:
Mr Khan said:

I feel that in the long-term we should instill a sense of ethics and responsibility in business

What is a business?  Isn't it nothing more than a legal entity that is controlled by people?  The business effectively can't make its own decisions.  Instead, it is humans that make the decisions.

So just perhaps, we should be instilling a better ethical standard into the citizens of our country that go on to run businesses.  They are the ones that are making these business choices.  They are the ones that need to be ethical and more responsible.

Just something I thought I would mention, as people always seem to be deceived that it is a business that is making unethical choices, when the business didn't do shit.  The people who owned the business made the unethical choice, and the business was simply a cover that people then blame their problems on.

Ethics need to be instilled in business people who make the decisions.  You can make a culture of a business ethical.  Problems happen, however, in corporate structures, where owners of the business only demand maximizing profits as a rule (some will have ethical concerns in what stocks they buy, but such is usually after the fact because about the only thing you get out of stock ownership is an increase in stock price and dividends).  The management of a business is hirelings, for the most part, in establish companies.  They will get some stocks, which rewards increase in stock prices.  Individuals get fired for making bad decisions that cost companies money.  In none of this, is there any basis to factor in ethics, only image and avoidance of lawsuits and getting in trouble with the government.  Privately owned businesses with equity held by the individual running the company, end up operating differently.  In all this, a big issue is that guys involved in the company and the owners, if the company is established, very likely didn't build the company, they bought it.  

This is a problem you see here and there, whenever ownership and management get disconnected.



richardhutnik on 22 October 2012
MDMAlliance said:
richardhutnik said:
MDMAlliance said:
klystron said:

With all due respect to Dr. Stein, I suggest he and you all watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ and see why the rich don't have enough money to run our bloated government.


That video you linked, that guy is twisting things a lot and obviously has some kind of superiority complex.  So many things were neglected in that video that it's stupid.  One obvious thing that is missing is pretty much any form of tax coming from anywhere else.  Where does sales tax go?  Where does everyone elses taxes go?  What about all the other taxes that we have that aren't just taxes on corporations and income?  Also, those numbers he mentioned ARE significant.  Significant enough to the point where balancing the increase of taxes with cuts in spending where they are questionable could pull us out of a deficit.  That video is overly biased.

edit: also when he mentioned the military, he should have doubled the amount due to the fact that if that were to happen, the deficit would have decreased by that same amount, in theory.

Ben Stein, as numbers of others who have had ties to Republican administrations and have a background in economics (Ben Stein does have a college degree in economics and has adviced individuals in Washington on economic policy) that budget cuts alone isn't going to be enough to get the budget balanced.  Taxes are going to have to be raised, because revenues are too low.  They would rather not do this, but it is seen as a necessity.  And it isn't about "let's punish the rich and successful!" but rather "What way does the least harm to the least amount of people?"


I was questioning the video in context of this thread, and you don't need to have a degree to tell his obvious biased slant on the subject.

You are saying Ben Stein has a pro-tax slant?  



Kasz216 on 22 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
MDMAlliance said:
richardhutnik said:
MDMAlliance said:
klystron said:

With all due respect to Dr. Stein, I suggest he and you all watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ and see why the rich don't have enough money to run our bloated government.


That video you linked, that guy is twisting things a lot and obviously has some kind of superiority complex.  So many things were neglected in that video that it's stupid.  One obvious thing that is missing is pretty much any form of tax coming from anywhere else.  Where does sales tax go?  Where does everyone elses taxes go?  What about all the other taxes that we have that aren't just taxes on corporations and income?  Also, those numbers he mentioned ARE significant.  Significant enough to the point where balancing the increase of taxes with cuts in spending where they are questionable could pull us out of a deficit.  That video is overly biased.

edit: also when he mentioned the military, he should have doubled the amount due to the fact that if that were to happen, the deficit would have decreased by that same amount, in theory.

Ben Stein, as numbers of others who have had ties to Republican administrations and have a background in economics (Ben Stein does have a college degree in economics and has adviced individuals in Washington on economic policy) that budget cuts alone isn't going to be enough to get the budget balanced.  Taxes are going to have to be raised, because revenues are too low.  They would rather not do this, but it is seen as a necessity.  And it isn't about "let's punish the rich and successful!" but rather "What way does the least harm to the least amount of people?"


I was questioning the video in context of this thread, and you don't need to have a degree to tell his obvious biased slant on the subject.

You are saying Ben Stein has a pro-tax slant?  

I would of thought you would of got this by the context of his posts and the dicussion about this so far.

He was talking about the Bill Whittle Video and Bill Whittle.

Not Ben Stein.  Saying he had an obvious anti-tax slant.


Note the person he was originally replying to.



richardhutnik on 22 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
MDMAlliance said:
richardhutnik said:
MDMAlliance said:
klystron said:

With all due respect to Dr. Stein, I suggest he and you all watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ and see why the rich don't have enough money to run our bloated government.


That video you linked, that guy is twisting things a lot and obviously has some kind of superiority complex.  So many things were neglected in that video that it's stupid.  One obvious thing that is missing is pretty much any form of tax coming from anywhere else.  Where does sales tax go?  Where does everyone elses taxes go?  What about all the other taxes that we have that aren't just taxes on corporations and income?  Also, those numbers he mentioned ARE significant.  Significant enough to the point where balancing the increase of taxes with cuts in spending where they are questionable could pull us out of a deficit.  That video is overly biased.

edit: also when he mentioned the military, he should have doubled the amount due to the fact that if that were to happen, the deficit would have decreased by that same amount, in theory.

Ben Stein, as numbers of others who have had ties to Republican administrations and have a background in economics (Ben Stein does have a college degree in economics and has adviced individuals in Washington on economic policy) that budget cuts alone isn't going to be enough to get the budget balanced.  Taxes are going to have to be raised, because revenues are too low.  They would rather not do this, but it is seen as a necessity.  And it isn't about "let's punish the rich and successful!" but rather "What way does the least harm to the least amount of people?"


I was questioning the video in context of this thread, and you don't need to have a degree to tell his obvious biased slant on the subject.

You are saying Ben Stein has a pro-tax slant?  

I would of thought you would of got this by the context of his posts and the dicussion about this so far.

He was talking about the Bill Whittle Video and Bill Whittle.

Not Ben Stein.  Saying he had an obvious anti-tax slant.


Note the person he was originally replying to.

Ahh.  He was replying to me, and i didn't post the Bill Whittle video, so pardon my confusion.  And yes Bill very much has a partisan slant.  His entire program is a partisan promotion piece.



:D on 22 October 2012

You know what? I normally would provide an opinion, but I'm not in power so frankly; I don't give a poop.