Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 18 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
   1701. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4264802)
How the hell do you get that from what I wrote? By "them", I mean the bottom 80%.

I know exactly whom you meant. You made clear in #1691 that we shouldn't expect to get much from "the remaining 7%," so who does that leave to shoulder the tax burden other than "the rich"?

***
Not that I disagree, but I don't think that's a winning campaign slogan.

No, voters don't want to pay higher taxes and they don't want to substantially cut the size or scope of government. It's the same sort of head-in-sand nonsense that led us to catastrophes like 9/11, Katrina, etc.
   1702. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4264811)
The deficit could be closed tomorrow by raising taxes by 9% of GDP.


So, if that's true, then one can get the same result by raising taxes on the top 20% by 9.6% and leaving the bottom 80% alone. I'm not necessarily advocating for such a scheme, but it does illustrate how full of it Joe is. The top 20% can easily pay enough to close the gap, and any tax increases on the bottom 80% is little more than symbolism.

Should spending be curtailed? Absolutely. Is it necessary for the poor and middle class to pay "a whole lot more" in order to balance the budget? Absolutely not.
   1703. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4264814)
As we've been hearing for years now, "the rich" make up a very small percentage of the population. Since raising taxes on the rich is generally politically popular, it would have been done by now if that was the easiest, best, and/or only way to pay for all of the things government is currently providing. The reality is, even the most demagogic liberal politicians understand that "the rich" don't have enough money to pay for the current government extravaganza.


This is the most amusingly dishonest thing I have seen posted in a long time. Putting "the rich" in quotes (like they don't really exist), pretending the relatively small population has anything to do with their ability to pay more. Pretending that because of their small population the rich are nearly helpless and clearly the reason they have not been taxed more is their inability (or something - whatever) to pay more. And winding up with the twofer of invoking "even Liberal" and the implicit assumption that in fact there is no way current government spending is sustainable - with no proof for any of it offered.

All wrapped up and presented as "fact". Awesome entertainment.
   1704. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4264815)
You made clear in #1691 that we shouldn't expect to get much from "the remaining 7%," so who does that leave to shoulder the tax burden other than "the rich"?


Obviously. Because as Willie Sutton once said "that's where the money is."
   1705. Lassus Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4264818)
I'm also flipping mine, just in case anyone cares:

I had forgotten I was thinking this, but thanks to Greg UK, I remembered while waiting for the AL game to start:
...of why I think the Black Death is a critical (perhaps necessary but not sufficient) part in the formation of the modern world.
This is not meant to be picking on Bitter Mouse, who is one of my favorite members of the liberal cabal and favorite posters on the site, but do any of you true historians think that this sentiment is - even more, recently - in danger of being oversold? I feel like I hear it quite a bit about everything, and it might be a fault of a recent publishing trend with everything from pencils to rats to the color mauve and such. Do any of you who traffic in true historical scholarship (Fernigal, MCoA, Greg, etc.) think that it gets carried to far, and fear that it might be as well in your own work if you aren't careful?
   1706. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4264819)
Rasmussen Poll just called. In the interest of accuracy, and to give BBTF more food for fodder I broke my longstanding habit of hanging up on all political calls. So the next poll released should be especially accurate.
   1707. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4264820)
I know exactly whom you meant. You made clear in #1691 that we shouldn't expect to get much from "the remaining 7%," so who does that leave to shoulder the tax burden other than "the rich"?
The people who have most of the money.
   1708. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4264825)
This is not meant to be picking on Bitter Mouse, who is one of my favorite members of the liberal cabal and favorite posters on the site, but do any of you true historians think that this sentiment is - even more, recently - in danger of being oversold?


<Blush>

I do think there is a tend to oversell everything as the most important thing ever, in history and other things. I blame James Burke (awesome shows though). And yes I am likely guilty as charged. The upside though is you poke around regarding Salt, or Irish Monks, or super-Volcano's and learn a bunch of cool stuff. Just don't take any of it too seriously.
   1709. Lassus Posted: October 11, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4264828)
Rasmussen Poll just called. In the interest of accuracy, and to give BBTF more food for fodder I broke my longstanding habit of hanging up on all political calls.

We don't even have a landline. Anything interesting in the call, or... not really?
   1710. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 11, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4264887)
Rasmussen Poll just called. In the interest of accuracy, and to give BBTF more food for fodder I broke my longstanding habit of hanging up on all political calls.

We don't even have a landline. Anything interesting in the call, or... not really?

Rasmussen is an automated poll, you respond to recorded questions by pushing phone buttons. They did Presidential Approval, Romney/Obama & Allen/Kaine (VA Senate). Asked several questions about voting frequency, certainty of voting, and possibility of changing mind. Also asked age range, gender, race/national origin, marital status, children 18 or younger, liberal/conservative/moderate, and income range.

Despite my inclusion, I continue to believe polling has become more difficult even though the technology has improved. Some think pollsters that do live interviews get better results, but automated polls are less expensive, allowing a larger sample for the same cost. It's been reported that the response rate for polls is about 8%, down from 35% a decade or two ago. Not sure anyone knows if non-responders break evenly all the time, but it is certainly possible that curmudgeonly conservatives or media-suspicious Republicans are less cooperative than others.

EDIT: The problems with the accuracy of the 2000 & 2004 exit polls were at least partially attributed to the greater number of GOP non-responders, IIRC.
   1711. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4264896)
So, if that's true, then one can get the same result by raising taxes on the top 20% by 9.6% and leaving the bottom 80% alone. I'm not necessarily advocating for such a scheme, but it does illustrate how full of it Joe is. The top 20% can easily pay enough to close the gap, and any tax increases on the bottom 80% is little more than symbolism.

Yikes. You might want to read up on household income and redo your math.
   1712. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4264903)
This is the most amusingly dishonest thing I have seen posted in a long time. Putting "the rich" in quotes (like they don't really exist),

That's not why "the rich" was in quotes.

pretending the relatively small population has anything to do with their ability to pay more.

False.

Pretending that because of their small population the rich are nearly helpless and clearly the reason they have not been taxed more is their inability (or something - whatever) to pay more.

Also false.

And winding up with the twofer of invoking "even Liberal" and the implicit assumption that in fact there is no way current government spending is sustainable - with no proof for any of it offered.

You believe current government spending is sustainable?
   1713. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 11, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4264909)
This is the most amusingly dishonest thing I have seen posted in a long time. Putting "the rich" in quotes (like they don't really exist),


They don't really exist, as liberals use the term. Just because one is in the highest tax bracket, or makes $200K per year, or $250K per year, does not necessarily mean that one is rich. Far from it, in many cases. The _real_ "rich" are those who have mansions and fancy cars and yachts. There are relatively few of those. And they are paying more than their fair share of taxes.
   1714. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4264974)
Just because one is in the highest tax bracket, or makes $200K per year, or $250K per year, does not necessarily mean that one is rich.


The highest tax bracket starts at $388,000, which puts them in the top 1%. If you make more than 99% of the country, you're rich, or that word has no meaning. And yes, I understand the difference between wealth and income, but since we tax income and not wealth, what are you going to do?
   1715. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4264979)
You believe current government spending is sustainable?


Over what time horizon? Are we going to get in some odd game of pretending that forecasts out 10, 20, or 30 years out are meaningful?

For the short term, next 4 years, then yes it is completely sustainable.

And they are paying more than their fair share of taxes.


According to you, but you think pretty much any amount of money paid in taxes is more than one's fair share. So forgive me if I am not willing to accept this assertion.
   1716. Lassus Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4264988)
Hey, anyone watching the debate? I just remembered it was on.

Just turned it on. Ryan accuses everyone of misquoting Romney and takes some anecdotes to support the caring Romney. Pokes fun at the VP for being Mr. Foot-in-Mouth.

But, back to baseball.
   1717. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4264994)
And they are paying more than their fair share of taxes.



According to you, but you think pretty much any amount of money paid in taxes is more than one's fair share. So forgive me if I am not willing to accept this assertion.


Here's an article that claims the in 2009, top 1% of income earners made 17% of the nation's income, and paid 37% of the individual income taxes.

The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS' top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country's taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009.




   1718. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4265006)
Not to mention that the very rich - those earning more than, say, $1,000,000 per year - are the most capable of moving their earnings, or themselves, if necessary, abroad. If you don't think finance jobs would flee this country in a millisecond under a more "progressive" tax regime, then you don't pay attention to what's gone on in Europe.

90% of the work in my firm could be done anywhere in the world.
   1719. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4265014)
Hey, anyone watching the debate?

Biden smirking might not be an effective tactic.
   1720. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4265015)
top 1% of income earners made 17% of the nation's income, and paid 37% of the individual income taxes


And? I don't think that is their fair share, to be blunt. With how the progressive tax system is structured the wealthy are supposed to pay more. That is a feature. Things like the EITC mean that the lower levels pay no or reduced income taxes (and of course these "Poor Rich folks and their tax burden articles always talk about federal income tax, rarely payroll or other taxes - many of which are very regressive) for a reason.

Once this happens then yes everyone else is going to pay more. I happen to believe in diminishing marginal returns - put simply rich peoples' money is not as valuable to the rich as poorer peoples' money is to them. Thus if you need revenue it is best to take it from those who got it and will miss it the least - the rich.

As Warren Buffet said, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." New York Times, November 26, 2006.

However I am more than willing to have the upper middle class pay more also. I am comfortably in the top 5% of wage earners (not anywhere near that in wealth though sadly - I blame my kids, the damn parasites*) and so I am signing up to pay more. I am willing to go back to the dark ages of the 1990 level repressive tax rates (or even - gasp - higher).

* I recently was talking about my boys - using pretty close to that exact phrase - when the younger boy, sitting nearby, without looking up from his book, announced "you're welcome". Sarcasm, nature or nurture?
   1721. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4265017)
Not to mention that the very rich - those earning more than, say, $1,000,000 per year - are the most capable of moving their earnings, or themselves, if necessary, abroad. If you don't think finance jobs would flee this country in a millisecond under a more "progressive" tax regime, then you don't pay attention to what's gone on in Europe.

90% of the work in my firm could be done anywhere in the world.


Never happen. You make a million plus per year and you would flee NYC because you have to pay more in taxes? I'll believe it when I see it.
   1722. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4265019)
I happen to believe in diminishing marginal returns - put simply rich peoples' money is not as valuable to the rich as poorer peoples' money is to them.


I feel like you should be a rich person before you make this judgment. One time when my grandma was still around, we were talking about how her friend, who was in her early 90's, had been given only a couple of years to live. I said something about she had lived a full life. My grandma snarled at me and blurted "When you're 91, dying at 93 is damned terrifying."
   1723. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4265021)
And? I don't think that is their fair share, to be blunt.


I agree. That's why I posted it.
   1724. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4265022)
If you don't think finance jobs would flee this country in a millisecond under a more "progressive" tax regime, then you don't pay attention to what's gone on in Europe.


Oh no the hedge fund managers would move to Singapore! You speak as if a few percentage points would cause them all to go Gault. First of all I don't believe it(why have they not already fled the terrible rates they are seeing - they could be paying less right now by your theory). I am also not convinced we are helpless in the face of the wealthy. As I asked last time, why are they fighting so hard against all these taxes if it was so painless and easy to avoid them.

Yes if we went to 90% taxes and the rest of the world was at 30% there would be issues, but no one is suggesting that.
   1725. Zoppity Zoop Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4265023)
"and so I am signing up to pay more."

You don't need to sign up. You can pay more in taxes anytime you want. And with a 1040X, you can do it in hindsight.
   1726. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4265024)
Never happen. You make a million plus per year and you would flee NYC because you have to pay more in taxes? I'll believe it when I see it.


I don't - I'm smack in the middle of the class who gets crushed by tax hikes, ~$200-250k in NYC.

But the Hedgies and the PE guys and the bankers? You don't think they'd take off for London or HK or Luxembourg or anywhere else? You don't think you'd see a LOT more offshoring to the Carribean if tax rates jumped? Why do you think all those finance jobs on the continent migrated to Lux in the last decade or so?



   1727. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4265027)
I feel like you should be a rich person before you make this judgment.


Are you claiming their is no diminishing marginal return to money? Really? There is a diminishing marginal return to almost everything, why should money be the exception.
   1728. Danny Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4265034)
Not to mention that the very rich - those earning more than, say, $1,000,000 per year - are the most capable of moving their earnings, or themselves, if necessary, abroad. If you don't think finance jobs would flee this country in a millisecond under a more "progressive" tax regime, then you don't pay attention to what's gone on in Europe.

Yes, returning their tax rates to Clinton-era tax rates (actually lower, for several reasons) is going to cause rich people to flee the country--just like they did during the Clinton years.

Uh huh.
   1729. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4265040)
You don't need to sign up. You can pay more in taxes anytime you want. And with a 1040X, you can do it in hindsight.


And the group that wants to freeload shows up. Everyone able should pay a bit more. Me paying more is useless - the marginal utility of money is much higher for me than it is for the government for the amount of money I could afford to give extra. However the aggregated utility of all the money from people in my tax bracket as compared to the utility of that aggregated money going to the government is a different animal.
   1730. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:57 PM (#4265045)
Are you claiming their is no diminishing marginal return to money? Really? There is a diminishing marginal return to almost everything, why should money be the exception.


Because of the principle discussed upthread, where somehow, your consumption expands to fill out your income. And, because not-having doesn't FEEL as bad has having-and-then-taken-away. Take your typical NYC professional making 500k. You up his tax burden by, say, 20%, and he has to put his kids into a new school or sell his apartment - that doesn't sound like diminishing marginal #### to me.

You presume that over your arbitrary theshold, people are spending their money on toys, but that's not how it shakes out. And for the people who really are frittering away their money on jets and such, that's the money that will disappear from the country if you raise taxes.

It's a crappy side effect of globalization that taxing the ultra-rich has become much more difficult.
   1731. Zoppity Zoop Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4265046)
"Are you claiming their is no diminishing marginal return to money? Really? There is a diminishing marginal return to almost everything, why should money be the exception."

So, not only does everyone have to pay more taxes because you really want to but you can't do it unless everyone else does, you also get to determine how those individuals feel about that money as well?
   1732. Danny Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4265048)
I don't - I'm smack in the middle of the class who gets crushed by tax hikes, ~$200-250k in NYC.

No, you're not. Obama's plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts for income below $250K
   1733. Lassus Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4265052)
I'm hearing reports Biden is doing pretty well so far. Unsure how accurate.
   1734. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4265053)
But the Hedgies and the PE guys and the bankers? You don't think they'd take off for London or HK or Luxembourg or anywhere else?


I didn't realize London was a low rate tax haven. Anyway, I reject that argument on philosophical grounds. You can't raise taxes on the super rich because they will take their money and leave? That smells like blackmail to me.
   1735. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4265054)
Me paying more is useless - the marginal utility of money is much higher for me than it is for the government for the amount of money I could afford to give extra. However the aggregated utility of all the money from people in my tax bracket as compared to the utility of that aggregated money going to the government is a different animal.

That's impossible. If X>Y, multiplying them both by 150M doesn't change that.
   1736. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4265056)
No, you're not. Obama's plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts for income below $250K


I mean, in a year I'm over $250. Yippee.
   1737. Danny Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4265059)
I mean, in a year I'm over $250. Yippee.

And all of your income below $250K stays at the same tax rate. Yahoo.
   1738. Zoppity Zoop Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4265062)
"Me paying more is useless - the marginal utility of money is much higher for me than it is for the government for the amount of money I could afford to give extra."

Ah, the classic definition of where the marginal utility of money declines. Right above your own income!

So, if I buy season 2 DVDs of Game of Thrones at the store, I'm justified in loudly demanding that everyone else in the store have to buy it to, under force of government control so that I can buy it? After all, if I'm the only one buying it, the show will lose money and stop before the books are done. They'd haul me off to the loony bin.
   1739. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4265067)
And all of your income below $250K stays at the same tax rate. Yahoo.


All of your taxable income.
   1740. Monty Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4265069)
I like headlines that get right to the point.

Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
   1741. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4265072)
I didn't realize London was a low rate tax haven. Anyway, I reject that argument on philosophical grounds. You can't raise taxes on the super rich because they will take their money and leave? That smells like blackmail to me.


Relative to the rest of the continent, it was - perhaps not w/r/t personal taxes, but with regard to a total regulatory and tax burden. That's why it became a financial capital.

It's not blackmail - its a prisoners dilemma. And while you may have a philosophical objection, you also have a pragmatic problem. 30 years ago, moving away was far less of an option than in an era with Skype and access to American culture via the internet all over the world and huge expat populations in places like Singapore and HK and Dubai etc. There's still a cost to being an expat, but it is a cost, and at some point the cost of staying will exceed the cost of going.

Put it this way. How much money would it take for you to move your family to, say, Costa Rica. 10% increase in take-home; probably not. But what about 50%? 100%? And remember, if you're rich, one of the biggest costs for you or I associated with expat life - travel - is less of an issue b/c it doesn't scale with earnings.
   1742. Danny Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4265093)
Anyway, I reject that argument on philosophical grounds. You can't raise taxes on the super rich because they will take their money and leave? That smells like blackmail to me.

They didn't leave when Clinton raised their taxes, they didn't stay because Bush cut their taxes, and they're not going to leave if Obama raises their taxes back to where Clinton had them.

The whole "argument" is full of stuff.
   1743. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4265106)
Never happen. You make a million plus per year and you would flee NYC because you have to pay more in taxes? I'll believe it when I see it.

Wealthy people are fleeing the high-tax Northeast for the no- or low-tax South, and high-tax California for no- or low-tax Texas and Southwest, like crazy.
   1744. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4265114)
Because of the principle discussed upthread, where somehow, your consumption expands to fill out your income.


And the marginal gain of that extra consumption also decreases. Really, no kidding, the marginal utility of money decreases like everything else.

Ah, the classic definition of where the marginal utility of money declines. Right above your own income!


Huh? I said I am willing to be taxed, just not willing to give my money to the government. Because ...
That's impossible. If X>Y, multiplying them both by 150M doesn't change that.


Well snapper is wrong - not about the math though.

If I give $x to the government what is that marginal increase in revenue worth to the government? The answer is almost nothing, because it is the proverbial drop in the bucket. It is worth much more to me, largely because it is a much much much higher hit to me than increase for the government.

However if the tax rate for everyone in my tax rate gets raised then each individual gets the same hit I got when I volunteered my money. The government however now gets as additional revenue not just my drop, but everyone else's drops and now the bucket is full.

Besides I really don't want everyone else (who can afford more, like me) to be freeloading, so why should I give. This is the exact same logic we discussed before in the health care debate. For some reason conservatives think telling me I should donate money instead of being taxed is devastating. It isn't.
   1745. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4265118)
So, if I buy season 2 DVDs of Game of Thrones at the store, I'm justified in loudly demanding that everyone else in the store have to buy it to, under force of government control so that I can buy it? After all, if I'm the only one buying it, the show will lose money and stop before the books are done. They'd haul me off to the loony bin.


What on earth does this have to do with taxation or diminishing marginal utility?
   1746. Zoppity Zoop Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4265138)
"What on earth does this have to do with taxation or diminishing marginal utility?"

Insanely rambling that I can't do something I want to do unless everybody else is forced to as well.

You want to pay higher taxes? Fine. You don't want to pay higher taxes? Fine. You want to suggest that tax rates go up? Fine. Argue that you desperately want to pay higher taxes but you can't reach your dreams until everybody else has to pay higher taxes as well? That's something a psychopath would suggest.
   1747. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4265152)
Well snapper is wrong - not about the math though.

If I give $x to the government what is that marginal increase in revenue worth to the government? The answer is almost nothing, because it is the proverbial drop in the bucket. It is worth much more to me, largely because it is a much much much higher hit to me than increase for the government.

However if the tax rate for everyone in my tax rate gets raised then each individual gets the same hit I got when I volunteered my money. The government however now gets as additional revenue not just my drop, but everyone else's drops and now the bucket is full.

Besides I really don't want everyone else (who can afford more, like me) to be freeloading, so why should I give. This is the exact same logic we discussed before in the health care debate. For some reason conservatives think telling me I should donate money instead of being taxed is devastating. It isn't.


No. Because each of those people value their infinitesimal amount just like you do.

If the money is worth X to the gov't, and X+1 to you, it's the same for everyone else too. So, in total the gov't gets 150M(X) and people suffer a loss of 150M(X+1).
   1748. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4265154)
Argue that you desperately want to pay higher taxes but you can't reach your dreams until everybody else has to pay higher taxes as well? That's something a psychopath would suggest.


Do you talk like that in real life, or just on the internet? BM's position is a logical one. You are free to disagree, but don't pretend it's a psychotic position, because it isn't and I'm pretty sure you know that.
   1749. Jay Z Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4265167)
With the whole tax rate thing, I cannot believe that people don't understand that when they talk about the rate over 250K, that only applies to the income that is OVER 250K. So if the rate up to 250K is 25%, and the rate 250K and above is 30%, if you earn 300K you are taxed at 25% for 250K and 30% for 50K. Which makes it much less of an issue for all of these people that "I make 250K and I need every penny!" If you make just over 250K you are barely paying any more of an aggregate rate.

If they didn't do it that way people would be playing games to get just below a bracket. If the rate for 250K and below was 29%, and the rate for above 250K was 30%, if you earn 251K you actually have less take home pay than 250K. Which is certainly ridiculous. That's why the first whatever K is the same for everyone.
   1750. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4265170)
If the money is worth X to the gov't, and X+1 to you, it's the same for everyone else too. So, in total the gov't gets 150M(X) and people suffer a loss of 150M(X+1).


And BM is willing to take the X+1 hit, provided the government gets 150M(x). It's not that difficult a concept.
   1751. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4265181)
You want to pay higher taxes? Fine. You don't want to pay higher taxes? Fine. You want to suggest that tax rates go up? Fine. Argue that you desperately want to pay higher taxes but you can't reach your dreams until everybody else has to pay higher taxes as well? That's something a psychopath would suggest.


Desperately? Reach my dreams?

How about I want to suggest tax rates go up. And I am tired of the "Why don't you just give the money if you want tax rates to go up" game.
   1752. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4265183)
And BM is willing to take the X+1 hit, provided the government gets 150M(x). It's not that difficult a concept.

Sure, but the other 150M people don't have to agree, and WILL be worse off.
   1753. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4265186)
Well... I don't want to flip the Democratic ticket upside down by any stretch, but I do just want to say that I dearly wish this wasn't a JV game..

I thought Biden was damn near pitch perfect and I thought Ryan had a bad night... To be fair, I think Ryan is a bit like Obama in that he's just not a very good debater. Like Obama, he's better with soliloquies - or press conferences where he can just talk and not have to worry about responding or challenging the other person debating.

Too bad that it probably doesn't really help Team Blue much, if at all - but still... a good night for the incumbent ticket and probably nothing here to keep the challenger momentum going.

Does this maybe stop the Obama drift? Hopefully... I doubt it gains any of the lost ground back, but maybe it freezes the numbers.

I do hope that Obama watches Biden's tape in preparation for the next debate - in fact, forget Kerry as the debate prep opponent - let Biden debate him.
   1754. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4265195)
I thought Biden was damn near pitch perfect

Calling Biden's performance obnoxious would be an insult to regular obnoxious people.

I do hope that Obama watches Biden's tape in preparation for the next debate

So do I. Romney will be at 55 percent by next Thursday.
   1755. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4265201)
And BM is willing to take the X+1 hit, provided the government gets 150M(x). It's not that difficult a concept.


Oh sure state my position much better than I did in fewer words. Can we go back to Black Death talk ;)
   1756. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4265204)
Sure, but the other 150M people don't have to agree,


Um, I'm pretty sure ~ half of them would, or it will never happen.

, and WILL be worse off.


Assuming they derive no direct or indirect benefit from the additional revenue the government gets. A big assumption. That aside, too bad, so sad. That's how a democracy works. I'm a hell of a lot worse off because Bush invaded Iraq. Where can I go to be made whole?
   1757. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4265217)
With the whole tax rate thing, I cannot believe that people don't understand that when they talk about the rate over 250K, that only applies to the income that is OVER 250K. So if the rate up to 250K is 25%, and the rate 250K and above is 30%, if you earn 300K you are taxed at 25% for 250K and 30% for 50K. Which makes it much less of an issue for all of these people that "I make 250K and I need every penny!" If you make just over 250K you are barely paying any more of an aggregate rate.


We do understand it. It still sucks to pay 50% of each marginal dollar you earn.
   1758. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4265221)

I do hope that Obama watches Biden's tape in preparation for the next debate


So do I. Romney will be at 55 percent by next Thursday.


The snap polls seem to heartily disagree -- and watching both liberal and conservative twitter feeds, I'm getting a heck of a lot more "#### yeah!" from the left a good amount "The ref is hosing us!" from the right.
   1759. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4265231)
The snap polls seem to heartily disagree -- and watching both liberal and conservative twitter feeds, I'm getting a heck of a lot more "#### yeah!" from the left a good amount "The ref is hosing us!" from the right.

CNBC's snap poll has Ryan winning, 56 to 36.
   1760. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4265232)

Never happen. You make a million plus per year and you would flee NYC because you have to pay more in taxes? I'll believe it when I see it.

You won't necessarily move if you make $1 million a year. But if you make $50 million a year you might. Or if you make $1 million and your boss moves the firm because he makes $50 million a year, you either have to move to Singapore or look for a new job.
   1761. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4265233)


We do understand it. It still sucks to pay 50% of each marginal dollar you earn.


Forutnately, it's 30% -- you don't even have to pay payroll taxes on it, which happens to all the dollars under it.
   1762. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4265237)
   1763. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4265242)
Forutnately, it's 30% -- you don't even have to pay payroll taxes on it, which happens to all the dollars under it.


No, it's 50%. I pay state and city too.
   1764. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4265247)
Biden buried Ryan over the stimulus request.

Nonsense. Just because Ryan voted against the stimulus doesn't mean that his district was preempted from receiving stimulus funds, any more than Zoe Lofgren voting against the Iraq war meant that soldiers from her district didn't have to go and fight.
   1765. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4265248)
Just did a swing though my usual sources. The Liberals say they won; the conservatives say they won. In other words, status quo ante, with edge to Obama since if he holds serve, he wins.
   1766. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4265249)
Ryan did fine. Biden may lose some folks with all the interrupting, smirking and condescension, but he wasn't that bad on substance.
   1767. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4265250)

CNBC's snap poll has Ryan winning, 56 to 36.


Ha! You mean, those click polls on the website that even have a term called "freeping"?

Seriously?

   1768. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4265255)
One source has Biden interrupting Ryan 82 times tonight and another has it at 96 times. If Obama follows that game plan next week, he'll be 0-for-2.
   1769. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4265256)
No, it's 50%. I pay state and city too.


And you can deduct your state taxes at least from your Fed. So what it the real number?
   1770. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4265257)
Vice Presidential Debates are not worth a bucket of warm spit.
   1771. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4265260)
Nonsense. Just because Ryan voted against the stimulus doesn't mean that his district was preempted from receiving stimulus funds, any more than Zoe Lofgren voting against the Iraq war meant that soldiers from her district didn't have to go and fight.


I guess you're ignoring the part where Biden pointed out that Ryan used the phrase "to create jobs" as a reason to get the stimulus money.
But...but...we were told that the stimulus didn't create jobs! The Republicans insisted!
   1772. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4265263)
Forutnately, it's 30% -- you don't even have to pay payroll taxes on it, which happens to all the dollars under it.



No, it's 50%. I pay state and city too.


Take it up with your state and city government... or -- as I think the GOP would say to people who don't want their states to allow abortion or people who live in a state without Romneycare -- you can move... Heck -- if you're earning 250K, I imagine it's even easier for you to move to another state and city.
   1773. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4265266)
Nonsense. Just because Ryan voted against the stimulus doesn't mean that his district was preempted from receiving stimulus funds, any more than Zoe Lofgren voting against the Iraq war meant that soldiers from her district didn't have to go and fight.


So, just so I have this straight. Voting against the stimulus and still taking the money = OK, but wanting tax rates to go up without volunteering you own money first = hypocrisy. Do I have that right?
   1774. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4265267)
And you can deduct your state taxes at least from your Fed. So what it the real number?


I know my pop's marginal tax rate is near 50%, all in, all sorts of taxes and deductions and whatnot. Mine is closer to 40% (and will go up as I hit higher brackets). We use the same accountant, so maybe he's screwing up both our taxes. My pop's joke (most recently heard at the Rosh Hashanah dinner table) is "I work till May for the government, and you work till April".

   1775. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4265273)
EDIT: Nevermind.
   1776. Danny Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4265274)
We do understand it.

No, you don't. You claimed you and your $200K income would be "crushed" by the tax increase that wouldn't even affect you. Then you claimed that it would crush you in a few years when you are making $250K, when it would barely affect you. And this is all after you squealed about "typical" guys making $500K seeing their tax burdens increase by 20%.
   1777. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4265275)
Take it up with your state and city government... or -- as I think the GOP would say to people who don't want their states to allow abortion or people who live in a state without Romneycare -- you can move... Heck -- if you're earning 250K, I imagine it's even easier for you to move to another state and city.


Well, gross comp is lower in, e.g., Texas, so take home is pretty close in NY and Texas for associate attorneys. Cost of living in TX is much lower, obviously, but I have a unique setup so my cost of living in NYC is about $30k lower than it normally would be.
   1778. Howie Menckel Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4265276)

what's the Cliff Notes on those foreign embassy attacks at this point, re the extent to which that dopey film caused the fervor?

#independentvoter
#iamworkingtoohardtokeepupwiththisstuff


   1779. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4265277)
So, just so I have this straight. Voting against the stimulus and still taking the money = OK, but wanting tax rates to go up without volunteering you own money first = hypocrisy. Do I have that right?

This is odd. You agreed with me when I made this same point about the stimulus a couple months ago.
   1780. Jay Z Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4265278)
We do understand it. It still sucks to pay 50% of each marginal dollar you earn.


High under Clinton was 39.6%. Unless state and city are also progressive in your locale they aren't relevant to the discussion.

And yes, there have been many stories about people earning JUST over 250K and their concerns, so I guess the issue isn't really understood by everyone.
   1781. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4265279)
No, you don't. You claimed you and your $200K income would be "crushed" by the tax increase that wouldn't even affect you. Then you claimed that it would crush you in a few years when you are making $250K, when it would barely affect you. And this is all after you squealed about "typical" guys making $500K seeing their tax burdens increase by 20%.


Not a few years - next year. And it does "crush" me, IMO. I'm paying nearly 50% of each marginal dollar. Your mileage might vary, but that's oppresive.
   1782. GregD Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4265280)
Vice Presidential Debates are not worth a bucket of warm spit.
Or warm piss

And also,

This is not meant to be picking on Bitter Mouse, who is one of my favorite members of the liberal cabal and favorite posters on the site, but do any of you true historians think that this sentiment is - even more, recently - in danger of being oversold? I feel like I hear it quite a bit about everything, and it might be a fault of a recent publishing trend with everything from pencils to rats to the color mauve and such. Do any of you who traffic in true historical scholarship (Fernigal, MCoA, Greg, etc.) think that it gets carried to far, and fear that it might be as well in your own work if you aren't careful?


Lassus, not sure if you meant Greg (UK) or me as I think we may both be professional historians. I study 19th century and have no deep thoughts on the Black Death. It's clear that a series of things changed in England and in Europe creating all kinds of demographic pressures, but someone better versed than me would need to sort out the crucial from the chaff.
   1783. Tilden Katz Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4265283)
CNBC's snap poll has Ryan winning, 56 to 36.


Citation needed.
   1784. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4265290)
what's the Cliff Notes on those foreign embassy attacks at this point, re the extent to which that dopey film caused the fervor?

YouTube had nothing to do with Benghazi. Even Obama and the State Dept. are admitting this now.

***
CNBC's snap poll has Ryan winning, 56 to 36.
Citation needed.

???

You don't know how to find CNBC?
   1785. Danny Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4265295)
CNBC's snap poll has Ryan winning, 56 to 36.

You mean the internet poll that goes out of its way to warn stupid people that it's "Not a Scientific Survey?"
   1786. Tilden Katz Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4265299)
You don't know how to find CNBC?


There's no poll there. Only a online survey.
   1787. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4265302)
You mean the internet poll that goes out of its way to warn stupid people that it's "Not a Scientific Survey?"

OK, where are all these "scientific" polls showing a Biden win, as Zonk claimed?
   1788. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4265306)
Calling Biden's performance obnoxious would be an insult to regular obnoxious people.
Steamrolling the moderator seemed to work for Romney. I gotta say, JoeK disliking Biden's performance was about the most predictable happening of all time.

CNBC's snap poll has Ryan winning, 56 to 36.
Citing this as if it had meaning is far more obnoxious.
   1789. Danny Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4265316)
Not a few years - next year. And it does "crush" me, IMO. I'm paying nearly 50% of each marginal dollar. Your mileage might vary, but that's oppresive.

Getting taxed an additional 3% ONLY on whatever small sum you make over $250K next year is not going to crush you.

You're going to make $260K? Yeah, that extra $300 is just murderous.
   1790. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4265320)
You mean the internet poll that goes out of its way to warn stupid people that it's "Not a Scientific Survey?"


OK, where are all these "scientific" polls showing a Biden win, as Zonk claimed?


This one, for one...

The MOE on such polls is through the roof, of course -- and no margin measures how much it matters -- but at least it's a random sample rather than a contest to see which side has more people willing to keep clicking a radial button, clear their cookies, rinse, and repeat.
   1791. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4265328)
This is odd. You agreed with me when I made this same point about the stimulus a couple months ago.


That's right. I agree both are OK. You and others think the former is fine and the latter is not. That's the difference.
   1792. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4265332)
I'm paying nearly 50% of each marginal dollar.


I suppose 40 is nearly 50.
   1793. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4265334)

Not a few years - next year. And it does "crush" me, IMO. I'm paying nearly 50% of each marginal dollar. Your mileage might vary, but that's oppresive.


Sooo... in other words...

You're not being "crushed" right now because you're making, let's say, 125K after taxes... but you will be next year because you're making, let's say, 130K after taxes, instead of the $130,400?
   1794. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4265338)
Getting taxed an additional 3% ONLY on whatever small sum you make over $250K next year is not going to crush you.

You're going to make $260K? Yeah, that extra $300 is just murderous.


Marginal tax rates crush marginal efforts to earn marginal income. I think that paying over 40% of my gross comp and nearly 50% of marginal dollars is oppressive. You disagree. What's your tax rate?
   1795. zonk Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4265339)
CBS snap poll has it 50-31-19...
   1796. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM (#4265347)
I was watching the game with the sound muted and heard the debate on the radio, so I didn't catch any of whatever body language there was.

That said, I thought Biden was terrific but that the chief benefit will be to energize the Democratic base. Ryan presented his side well, even if Biden refuted him on substance more than a few times, and vindicated his selection.

Overall, I'd give Biden an A-/B+ and Ryan a B+/B, and Raddatz a solid A to Jim Lehrer's D-. I'm still watching the game and have no idea what the commentators are saying. There's plenty of time for that tomorrow after the two games are over.

One last thought: Why didn't the ####### Yankees take out a life insurance policy on A-Rod and then make a phone call before the postseason began?
   1797. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4265348)
Marginal tax rates crush marginal efforts to earn marginal income.


Well, unless you are arguing that you should little or no tax on extra income, I don't get your point. If you are currently paying $400 in taxes for every extra thousand you make, will paying $440 instead "crush" your efforts?
   1798. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4265353)
Five of the seven live-bloggers on the Economist site called it for Biden, and the other two called it a draw.

I can't believe people weren't watching baseball instead. What is wrong with you people! Verlander's pitching!
   1799. Tilden Katz Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4265356)

CBS snap poll has it 50-31-19...


Among undecided voters.
   1800. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 11, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4265360)
And I fail to see how Zop's father pays 50%. The highest NY state and local tax rates combine for just under 11%. The highest US rate is 35%. they combine for 46%, but since one can deduct state and local taxes from the fed, the 35% is reduced to 31%. So his rate should be no more than 42%.
Page 18 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4254 - 10:18am, Nov 24)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1011 - 10:17am, Nov 24)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(96 - 10:14am, Nov 24)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(23 - 10:14am, Nov 24)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogBoston Red Sox in talks to acquire free agent Hanley Ramirez - ESPN Boston
(4 - 10:05am, Nov 24)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(61 - 9:57am, Nov 24)
Last: Conor

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(1 - 9:45am, Nov 24)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogSunday Notes: Arroyo’s Rehab, Clark & the MLBPA, Doc Gooden, AFL Arms, ChiSox, more
(17 - 9:30am, Nov 24)
Last: depletion

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(25 - 9:18am, Nov 24)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(452 - 9:06am, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogHanley Ramirez and the Logjam in Boston | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 8:05am, Nov 24)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(30 - 1:16am, Nov 24)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8650 - 11:54pm, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogAstros interested in Robertson: source | New York Post
(18 - 11:31pm, Nov 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(36 - 11:16pm, Nov 23)
Last: spike

Page rendered in 1.0718 seconds
52 querie(s) executed