jjamie12

If I am interpreting this correctly: I must have missed this Relevant section: " The last time NASA visited Tempel 1, it ended in violence. In 2005, Deep Impact fired a copper bullet that slammed into the surface and gouged a crater. The high-speed collision spewed such a huge plume of dust that it obscured Deep Impact's view." We sent a spacecraft toward a comet and fired a bullet from said spacecraft and we hit the comet?!? Can someone provide some context around how much harder / easier this is to do than the type of technology we'd need to have a working missile defense system? Do we have any armchair experts on this? Understanding (of course) that this comet is, you know, A LOT bigger than a missile...

The 'Premire'

I'M NOT ASKIN' YA WHO RUNS CHINA! When they sign the Presidential checks, who's name is on it?

Good. Thanks for this -- the original linked article didn't have the actual report in it.

Commision Findings Maybe this works?

Commission Findings I find it VERY hard to take this with any kind of seriousness when you read this: And then there's this: I'm not even really sure what this is supposed to mean -- Of course they did. I mean -- they really, really, really screwed up. Just like in every 'financial crisis'. Also -- No mention of (in fairness -- this isn't the report, it's just a synopsis of what the report will say): 1 - Rating Agencies 2 - Investors in MBS Thoughts?

I don't know. Does it matter? (in the context of a 'What is the basis for a progressive taxation system') In my mind it doesn't -- it's simply a fact that some people benefit from the collective infrastructure more than others. Why they do is of less importance, in this particular discussion. (Granting that the 'why' is far more important, in general... If we could REALLY nail down the 'why' and 'fix' it, then I think the 'This person CHOSE to not take advantage of the infrastructure' argument becomes much stronger.) I added the bold -- it's been awhile since I've looked at the data, but believe what I wrote to be true... I don't want to focus solely on inner-city, though, either -- it should be noted very rural school districts have the same type of problems. In any event, I agree with you that we've created a perfect expecations trap. We are failing these kids, and in so doing, we are hurting the economic vibrancy of the US, in general. Something is very wrong in many of our schools, no doubt. Again, I fail to see how changing the system of taxation fixes the (previously agreed on by you and I) misallocation of those tax dollars. [All the while understanding that federal taxation does not DIRECTLY affect the quality of the particular school that someone goes to -- Again, I'm arguing from an outcomes based stance, which is fundamentally at odds with how you're viewing the discussion.] No doubt about it. Notice I'm not asking for more. On a side note: Again, thanks for the discourse on this. I initially took the position that I did only to generate some discussion -- I've argued before that I am for a flat tax. Now? I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe I'm changing my mind on this one -- maybe I just am 'wanting' to believe what I'm writing and that is clouding my judgment... I'm not sure yet. I CAN say with certainty that this discussion has certainly spurred me to think more about it, which (I suppose) is all you can ask for from a message board community.

I guess I would say: Sure, I'm focusing on the end result. That's the world we live in. Bad school districts and bad infrastructure, while misallocated resources from an economic perspective, are actual problems for a decent chunk of society, not to mention that they are almost ALWAYS misallocated to the benefit of the people who (generally) need those benefits less. Speaking of this: How would changing the tax structure fix this misallocation? Wouldn't this just mean (in general) that folks would be paying even more (relatively) for those bad services that hinder their children's chances at getting out of the economic place they're in? Key word in here is 'should'. Currently, it doesn't. Do you disagree with that? If I live on the East Side of Buffalo, do I have the SAME benefit of infrastructure as a kid in Williamsville? Further: Shouldn't we, as a society, say "Hey- great job on using the infrastructure to your benefit. The fact that you make (say) $350K is due, at least in part, on the fact that the current system in place (the current system being: All of the collective policy choices we've made to get to the point we're at) 'worked better' for you than most others. Since it did, (and since the more you make, obviously, the better it worked for you) we'll ask you to kick in a little more each step of the way as you make more and more dough. Feel free to use any of the tax loopholes we've created to your benefit, and thanks again for using the system to your (and the US's) benefit."

Isn't that precisely the point, though? Finding and fixing this fraud would cost money, and would add layers and layers of "...these things are unnecessary, add nothing to actual quality of care (likely are detrimental to it) and are extremely costly to society benefitting a few at the expense of the many...the antithesis of my philosophy."

#1 - I won't STFU. Stop being an ass. #2 - Your arrogance is starting to get in the way of your critical thinking. Stop for a minute and think about this: Your math won't tell me anything about how much tax this guy is going to have to pay because, even if you can absolutely NAIL this guy's income, you still don't have nearly enough information to make any sort of case on whether or not he will be caught up in any tax hikes on families making over $250K. Again, maybe his wife is an I-Banker who makes $1.2 Million / year. You don't know.

I don't believe this last piece here to be true at all. It is simply a fact that some public schools are tremendous, and otheres are just plain awful, as one example that two individuals may or may not benefit the same from their 'infrastructure'. Further, above you are starting from the assumption that the janitor 'chose' his profession in the same way that the I-Banker did... Most likely, that janitor (try as he might) wouldn't be able to be an I-Banker, he simply doesn't have the IQ (or whatever) for it -- Isn't that (rightly so, I might add) why they get paid the big $$? Because so few are 'capable'? Again- You seem to be starting from an: Everyone has an equal shot at everything sort of perspective; I've found that to be not *quite* true. Here's another, very personal, example. My Dad works in a factory, and my Mom is a school nurse. No matter what I do in school, I'm never going to have the network of contacts that, say, a guy who's Dad works as an I-Banker would have. That's not to say that I had NO shot at becoming an I-Banker, it's just reality that I had much less of a chance of becoming a Lord of Finance than someone who's family was more 'in-the-know' than mine. And that's OK, I don't begrudge anyone their their lot in life -- My parents did an awesome job and were able to put me on a nice path in life. I just hope (as everyone does, I think) that I am able to extend those pathways for my kids. I recognize, however, that not everyone is nearly as lucky as I am. Not everyone gets my parents- some get drunks, some get selfish jerks and some other get parents like mine, just with more education and 'bigger', 'more important' jobs -- I was super lucky to have my parents; those people are super-duper lucky. Your last question is the most important, though, for sure. My answer is: I don't know. Our current system certainly isn't the right policy, we both can agree on that. Whatever system we come up with, it should probably be some variation of a flat tax with no deductions. My main point in this thread is to point out that reasonable people can (and have) made reasonable arguments about why we should have a progressive tax system; that the system isn't 'stupid' or 'dumb'; that arguments can be made about why the Progressive system is in place without them being something like "That guy makes more money than me so screw him!" Just to be clear: You certainly have NOT done that in this thread, I find it refreshing that you're willing to engage in the debate. Other folks, though, simply want to believe that *other* ideas are just flat-out wrong and stupid and illogical and make no sense. Sometimes, they're wrong.

Actually, this thread is discussing levels of taxation. Specifically, we're discussing whether or not income over $250K should be taxed at a higher rate. Perhaps you've missed one of the 300 Obamacare threads? (birddogwhatever never mentioned anything about Obamacare--everything he talked about was in reference to income levels and whether or not he was going to be over the income threshold. You, of course, brought Obamacare into this, claiming to *know* that he doesn't make over the threshold "...so of course he's for taxing people more because it doesn't affect him!" It's not 'information', OC. I have no idea what his wife makes, and neither do you. Of course, once again: The only person in this thread talking about Obamacare is you. Everyone else is talking about income levels. You seem fixated on whether or not birddog is going to be over the $250K threshold. You say there's no way he is because you *know* how much he makes based on % of Medicare patients seen. Of course, in all of your arrogance (assuming that you're right about him making less than whatever $ amount) you forgot to take into account the fact that he may be married to someone that would put them above the $ threshold. Whoops. Let me end by saying this: You MUST be a pretty intelligent dude, you went to West Point and now run a consulting group, right? I think that's fantastic. Good job by you. I just don't understand how you can be SO sure that birddog won't be affected by higher tax rates over $250K. West Point and your consulting firm don't have any good data on that. And seriously: What the hell is the matter with us that we're posting on message boards on Friday nights?!? I'm married with kids -- can't you go have some fun or something for the both of us!?!?

I don't think I am, but I'm willing to listen as to how I'm framing the argument that way? I *think* what I'm saying is that the I-Banker has benefitted from all of the policy decisions that have been made to get to a point where people who are capable of being I-Bankers get paid a lot more money (rightly so, I might add) than people who are janitors. I freely admit that they aren't making the same monetary contributions back into the system. (Wait-- are you talking about a 'monetary contribution' in the sense that the I-Banker is allocating capital efficiently which helps to create jobs so that the janitor actually has a job? And that the I-Banker should get some sort of 'credit' on his side of the ledger for that?) Let me be very clear about this: I do NOT believe that Progressive Taxes is 'fair'. It is, quite obviously, 'unfair'. Agreed, but we should also remember that 'maximizing' the dollars going into the system may not mean 'fair' for everyone.

I don't necessarily disagree, Chef; maybe it *would* increase tax receipts, maybe it wouldn't (I tend to think that it would, depending on the level). There are pros and cons to each system. Personally, I *think* I'm in favor of a consumption tax, but I'm not married to it -- Either way, no proposals that limit Congressional intervention are going to be enacted any time soon. Too much power in giving away tax breaks to your friends.

OR You don't know everything there is to know in the world and his wife is an I-Banker who makes $1.2 Million / year.

Let's keep in mind that I'm only trying to answer the question posed by Chef a few pages ago: Namely, Why should you pay more taxes on a percentage basis if you make more than $250K? That being said, I'm not quite sure that this is the analogy that you want to be makinge here. Clearly, the secretaries, janitors & other support staff lost more. Which is why (the thinking goes) that those I-Banking guys making tons of dough SHOULD have been paying more (as a percentage) in taxes to help those people who lost their jobs get back on their feet, right? There is a system in place that rewards people who can be I-Bankers through remuneration on a much grander scale than those who are only able to perform menial tasks. Is it so much to ask of the I-Banker to kick back into that system at a slightly higher rate than the janitor who wasn't (or isn't or can't be) capable of benefitting from the system in the same way? That's the justification for it, no?

Agreed. Pros and Cons to any system you construct. It is really a larger discussion about the role of government and what level funding is necessary for the government to fulfill that role. I think you and I both agree that the problem is not on the 'revenue' side of the house in Washington.

GG- I respect you quite alot as a poster on PPP. I've learned a whole lot about economics from your postings here, and I'd just like to point out that I know that you're smarter than this.

I agree here with Gene (first time for everything). This is, I think, the best way to justify Progressive Taxation.

Totally agree Tom (and I understand the distinction). However, I disagree with your second line, in that not everyone benefits equally with respect to those things. I don't think it's a huge stretch (at all) to say that, for example: An Investment Banker making $500K / year has benefitted from that security more than, say, a janitor in my office building. No? I mean, it's almost a 'by definition' kind of thing: The more I have to lose, the greater the benefit is. Also- there are probably always going to be janitor jobs in my office building whether or not the US is running around trying to keep Asia stable, whereas alot of those I-banking jobs aren't there without that extra stability.

It's not what they will get from the infrastructure. It's what they've already received from the infrastructure. It's an important distinction to make, and it's also important to note that the infrastructure that I'm speaking of refers also to things like security, education, general health, etc. as well as the more generally thought of 'infrastructure' of the gold-paved roads that only the people making more than $250K get to drive on. Edit: Why does every taxation discussion around here devolve into the whole First Guy: "I just saw a guy on welfare whip out his cell phone. HIS CELL PHONE! I AM ENRAGED!" Other guy: "Why do you care what he spent his piddly amount of money on? I know what you should and shouldn't care about, not you! I'M ENRAGED BY YOUR LACK OF COMPASSION!" debate? Isn't that pretty worthless? You know: "my personal anecdote is better than yours" never actually leads to anything substantial, it just clouds an actual debate about whether there should actually be a progressive tax or a flat tax (which is what started this whole welfare nonsense -- in addition to nonsense replies of golden paved roads as strawmen get punched in the face, knocked on the ground and burned alive)

Here are two (not that I necessarily agree with the points): 1- You (the figurative 'you' -- the person making more than $250K) have (obviously, given your current stature on the money-making scale) benefitted more from the infrastructure (security, roads, bridges, educational system, etc) built from the tax base than those who make less than you. Therefore, a somewhat larger percentage of your taxes should go toward continuing to maintain or build more of the infrastructure. 2- We're all better off (including you) when the population at large is healthier, when there is a social saftey net so that people don't have to turn to stealing or begging for money, when the population at large is more educated (you know, so that they can go out and make more money so they can invest it with you).

Never mind. I don't really care that much.

Thank you.

You 'won'? Congratulations. DC Tom beat me to the substance, but I'll just say this: I think that you actually believe what you wrote about the Right and 9/11. And I think that's really scary.