A-hah! I knew it!!!!

Also, Kaus.

Ah politics where what you say is secondary to your acting skills.

I didn't listen to either speech, because I find political speeches about as interesting as watching paint peel. I do a lot of public speaking, it's part of my job. I also have dry mouth, and am ALWAYS drinking during talks. Why is this news? I have no idea what was in either speech because all anyone can talk about is the damn water bottle!

He explained what happened on the Mark Levin Show tonight. Apparently he had recorded a 15 minute Spanish language video almost immediately before doing this one. Without a podium it just made an awkward placement for the water.

Has anyone seen Rand Paul's Tea Party Response to 2013 State of the Union Address? I think it is much better.

So an ignorant, ass backward marxist/leninist president makes what is supposed to be a major presentation, and the slavish media picks up a few seconds from the response? Unbelievable. Talk about low priorities.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "I’m not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."

Let's focus on the water lunge.

Never mind the props, feel the words.

"Obama's answer to every problem is tax, borrow and spend."

What a load of unmitigated, craven bollocks.

What a load of unmitigated, craven bollocks. -- Martin Blaise at February 14, 2013 11:56 AM

Are you saying that is false?

============================

We won’t grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers and more cops and more firefighters. Most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share

Revenue is the new word for taxes.

Well I go to work pretty much everyday for 50+ hours per week and I'm salaried. What do you call my fair share share. I'm already working at least 28% of the year (102 days) to pay my taxes. Should it 180 days? Then why is it fair for someone to sit on their ass 100% of the year collecting food stamps, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, Obamaphones and Obamacash. That is 47% of the population.

And -- and the reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and .

So he wants to reduce the SS payments to seniors. As SS was originally written, you weren't being taxed, you were contributing to a trust (or annuity) fund. You were guaranteed a certain payback. If I paid into Mellon bank or Prudential Annuity Insurance fund from 18 to 65 with a guaranteed return and they defaulted or changed the deal I could sue. Can I sue the Social Security Administration?

The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms and more time expanding and hiring, a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can’t work the system and pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries, a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that are creating jobs right here in the United States of America.

I agree that the income tax rates should be fair between the boss and the workers. A flat 17% on wages and a 12% flat tax on investment income.

It isn't just the tax code anymore. It's the regulations as well. Boeing wanted to expand it's operations in South Carolina. The NRLB got involved. The EPA has a whole slate of "green" regulations about to go into place. There are numerous ones to mention, but I hit the highlights.

We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar, with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before, and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.

The CAFE standards were established in the Carter years (a failed presidency). The Prius and other electric cars save only about $400 dollars over the life of the car. Also research investments in Fiskars.

As for wind and solar: one word -- Solyndra.

everyone’s energy bill is lower BullSHIT!! I'm paying over $3.25 for gas. My electric bill has doubled over the last 4 years.

Now, in the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that. That’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.

There have been about a hundred leases made under Obama. The rest of the newly producing permits were done under Bush. And Why wouldn't he approve of the Keystone pipeline?

Source for quotes: Washington Post.

Your quote, but with a different emphasis:

We won’t grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers and more cops and more firefighters. Most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share

Jim. P.,

Much of what you say is a series of half truths. To be fair the opposite side of this argument also mostly offers a series of half truths.

Until people start approaching these issues open and honestly we will never get anywhere. For example, when you say the following:

"I'm already working at least 28% of the year (102 days) to pay my taxes. Should it 180 days?"

This kind of a statement might be true for you personally... but the system isn't designed to care how many days it takes you to earn your salary.

The number of days and hours you or anyone else works isn't factored into the system at all.

If you managed to earn every penny for the year in the course of 1 day and then sat on your ass for the other 364 you would be taxed just the same.

There are many people who work their hands to the bone just to make ends meet who are taxed at a lower rate than you simply because they don't earn as much... it doesn't mean they are working less.

Similarly, there are many people who lounge on the beach all year long and then get paid huge sums of money for token appearances at various meetings. Their tax rate is higher than yours but they are working less than you are.

The situation is more nuanced than anyone generally wants to acknowledge... so instead it is reduced to cheap talking points that don't get us anywhere.

If earnings were strictly tied to effort and time you might have a better case... but go ahead and ask any junior attorney at a prestigious law firm who is putting in more time and who is earning more money… them or the senior partners within the firm. Within many environments those at the top earn more and work fewer hours than the people at the bottom. For people like that to whine and complain about taxes elicits little sympathy from me because they are the ones who designed the system within their work place. That they pay more taxes is simply a symptom of them following their own self interest and greed.

There are many people who work their hands to the bone just to make ends meet who are taxed at a lower rate than you simply because they don't earn as much... it doesn't mean they are working less. -- Orion at February 15, 2013 6:14 PM

Then why are they taxed at a lower rate? Is it fair that I pay in the 28% range while they pay 17%? It's fair that I pay that 28% because I make more money? So I have a contract with a company that I get paid $100K regardless of how much I work for a year. I owe 28% to the government.

What if I had a contract that was at $50K? Should I only owe 23% percent for the same level of effort?

But If I had a $20K contract and did nothing should I only owe 10%?

So regardless of my effort I owe more to the government because I make more?

What if I was a waiter that has a 5 $20k tips, but my hourly wage showed me as making only $17K?

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, as she worked with other people in a group. Most of them were competent and they all worked more or less to the best of their abilities. However, due to the fact that she had formed the group, she got to distribute the grades and often saved the best for herself, based solely on the fact that she formed the group, rather than on individual performance and despite the fact that all the others worked just as hard and contributed just as much,

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. She hasn't sucked up to anyone, nor has she been particularly ruthless. As a result, I've only given her a 2.0, despite her working just as hard as me. Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of your GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I formed the group! I had an idea that others, like Audrey, improved upon and then combined with their own ideas, then I took the credit and praise. I should be the one who gets the grades, even if the others are putting forth just as much if not more effort.'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the conservative's philosophy.'

Jim P. Says:

"Then why are they taxed at a lower rate? Is it fair that I pay in the 28% range while they pay 17%? It's fair that I pay that 28% because I make more money? So I have a contract with a company that I get paid $100K regardless of how much I work for a year. I owe 28% to the government."

If you are being serious then it shows a real problem in your understanding of taxation.

You are taxed the exact same amount for each dollar you earn as everyone else.

Someone being "taxed at a lower rate" is simply a proxy for the statement "they earn less money than I do".

So you might as well be asking "Why do they earn less than I do?"... to which there can be a myriad of possible answers, some that might have proper justification and some that might not.

When you ask "Is it fair that I pay in the 28% range while they pay 17%?"... you might as well be asking "Is it fair that I earn 4 times as much as they do?"

Maybe it's fair, maybe it isn't... since when did "fair" have anything to do with it?

On the one hand I can define it as fair in the sense that if anyone earns the same amount as you they are taxed at the same rate.

An unfair system would be one where two people earn the same salary and one is taxed at a different rate than the other.

Just to make you feel better... you are taxed at the same rate for the 1st dollar you earn as anyone else... you are taxed at the same rate for the 2nd dollar you earn as anyone else... this process continues until you start to earn more dollars than someone at which point you begin to notice that each successive dollar you earn is taxed a little more than the previous one.

In economics this type of a relationship is known as diminishing marginal utility.

Is diminishing marginal utility "fair"?... if it applies equally to everyone then yes.

Fair simply means you are treated the same as everyone else.

Whether or not that treatment is justified is different from whether or not it is fair.

I'd argue that there is a case for it being justified as well. The reason being that at any point you are free to be taxed at 17%... all you have to do is go to your employer and request to have your salary reduced to less than $36000 per year... there, now your problem is fixed, right?

Except we both know that it is to your advantage to have your salary be as high as possible.

Hence is makes no sense to bitch and moan about having an advantageous position over the people you are complaining about. If it is so great to be taxed in the 17% bracket you are free to join it. If I were you, I'd stay in the 28% bracket and be happy that you are earning 4 times as much as the people you are complaining about.

If it still bothers you, feel free to take a dramatic pay cut and feel better that while you earn a fraction of what you used to... now only 17% of the time are you working to pay taxes.

Maybe it's fair, maybe it isn't... since when did "fair" have anything to do with it? -- Orion at February 16, 2013 9:01 PM

Text of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I admit I didn't use the right word with "fair", when I really meant "equal".

So how is it equal that that I have to work 28% (102 days of my income) for the government while someone that makes less money only has to pay 17% (62 days of income) for the government?

In economics this type of a relationship is known as diminishing marginal utility.

Is diminishing marginal utility "fair"?... if it applies equally to everyone then yes.

The diminishing marginal utility idea doesn't really apply to most wage earners in the United States. If I make in the $20K range I will generally still have use for more money. If I'm in the $35K, or $70K or $100K or even $250K annual income I can probably use more money and not have diminishing returns.

Yes, at the $250K level you can probably buy a new car every year for cash, but I probably wouldn't. I would then be stocking up for my retirement or the collapse, whichever comes first.

Even when you get into the millions it gives you the opportunity to start another company and you can employ more people. But taking 40% (146 days of work) for the government and redistributing it to someone else is saying that I have no thought for anyone else.

The socialist aspects of diminishing marginal utility when it comes to many things just doesn't work for me.

Jim P. Says:

"Then why are they taxed at a lower rate? Is it fair that I pay in the 28% range while they pay 17%? It's fair that I pay that 28% because I make more money? So I have a contract with a company that I get paid $100K regardless of how much I work for a year. I owe 28% to the government."

Orion replies:

"If you are being serious then it shows a real problem in your understanding of taxation.

You are taxed the exact same amount for each dollar you earn as everyone else."

Umm, do you not understand how percentages work Orion?

Lujlp Asks:

"Umm, do you not understand how percentages work Orion?"

I certainly do... I also understand how taxes and tax brackets work.

For example, the arguments you and Jim P are making are consistent with a common misconception about how taxes work... that is why I was pointing out the problem with his argument.

Let's take the 2012 tax brackets here and I'll explain what I mean.

The 28% tax bracket is for earnings between $85,650 and $178,650 for single people (the range is obviously different for married individuals or heads of households... but the same reasoning applies to those situations).

This does not mean that if you happen to earn %100,000 that you are taxed at the 28% rate for the entire sum of $99,000.

Instead you are taxed at 10% for the first $8,700 (that is the first tax bracket)... you are then taxed at 15% for the money earned between %8,701 and $35,350... you are then taxed at 25% for the money earned between $35,351 and $85,650... and finally you are taxed at the 28% rate for money earned between $85,651 and $99,000.

As a result the total tax rate is below the 28% level. No one is taxed at 28% on every dollar they earn, only some dollars are taxed at the 28% rate.

That is the flaw with the opposing argument.

Just to put a final nail in the coffin for the opposing argument let's look at the tax tables for 2012 and see how much a person who earns $99,000 is actually taxed.

If the argument you are defending is correct it should be ~$28,000 because that is 28% of $99,000... if I am correct then it should be notably less than this figure.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Lo and behold the tax for $99,000 is $21,174... and that isn't even taking into account things like deductions which would reduce the effective tax rate for this individual.

That is the problem with Jim P.'s argument... because he asserts that he is taxed at 28% on every dollar he earns when in fact he isn't.

He would know this if he did how own taxes and paid attention to the actual amount he paid to the federal government.

This is how I know my own tax rate isn't really 28%... because I just did my own taxes and saw first hand that I didn't owe 28% of everything I earned.

Jim's tax rate is probably closer to the 20% level than 28%... hence his argument is poorly constructed, ill informed, or purposefully deceptive.

Jim P. Asks,

"I admit I didn't use the right word with "fair", when I really meant "equal".

So how is it equal that that I have to work 28% (102 days of my income) for the government while someone that makes less money only has to pay 17% (62 days of income) for the government?"

Because you are taxed equally for each individual dollar within each respective tax bracket.

These rules apply equally to everyone.

Please read my above response to Lujlp so you can see what I mean.

Orion,

Let's go with your argument is valid, and I'm out in la-la-land with the yo-yo's.

Then how do you explain someone making $25K with two kids getting more money back than they paid in?

Jim P,

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about with your example. You are going to have to toss in some concrete numbers with references so I can understand the point you are trying to make.

If I run the numbers really fast, here is what I get with your example:

For the 2012 tax year a head of household with two children earning $25K will end up with the following standard deductions:

8700 for being the head of a household
11400 for the exemptions they get for themselves and their 2 dependent children.

This implies that their taxable income is only $4900.

As a result they should owe $493 to the federal government in taxes.

This quick run down doesn't take into account other possible tax deductions or credits that may apply depending upon the specifics of their situation.

So I don't know what you mean by them "getting more money back"... when the calculation clearly shows they pay something into the system.

If you have a fundamental issue with dependents providing a tax advantage that is a different issue altogether... but it is equal in the respect that if anyone has a dependent they get the exact same deduction as anyone else.

In terms of you being "out in la-la-land with the yo-yo's"... that isn't what I am trying to say.

Instead what I am saying is that the specifics of your argument are not in any way supported by the facts.

If you earn $100K, you don't actually pay anywhere near $28K in taxes to the federal government.

The actual taxes for someone who earns $100K are actually closer to the $18K level if they only take the standard deductions, have no dependents and are are unmarried... if they are married, have dependents, and use itemized deductions their taxes will be even less than this.

That your numbers are so far off from reality suggests that you haven't given this issue as much thought as you think you have.

That doesn't mean the tax system is perfect... but your specific objections are way off base.

So, then Orion now that you have explained how people who earn more are taxed at a higher rate, please explain how you said people who earn different amount are taxed at the same rate.

They say that politics is show business for ugly people, although Rubio is hardly ugly. In such terms, Marco Rubio ad-libbed his lines in a way the liberal press did not like.

Lujlp,

I am sorry that the level of the conversation seems to be above your head.

Let me try and explain again in a more simple way.

When you say the following:

"now that you have explained how people who earn more are taxed at a higher rate, please explain how you said people who earn different amount are taxed at the same rate."

You are perpetuating a series of half truths to try and support a position that is mathematical inaccurate.

Strictly speaking, each and every additional taxable dollar someone earns is taxed at exactly the same rate as everyone else's.

Now this may be a confusing concept, so let me break it down for you.

The very first taxable dollar you earn is taxed at the same rate as the very first taxable dollar anyone else earns... the same is true for the second taxable dollar, the third taxable dollar and so on.

At some point you may earn more taxable dollars than someone else at which point it is possible that the next taxable dollar you earn is taxed at a higher rate than one of the previous dollars you earned.

When talking about tax rates one needs to talk about it on a dollar for dollar basis... talking about it in aggregate is a strategy to obfuscate the actual mathematics of taxation.

If all you are interested in is the final aggregate tax rate then things will ALWAYS appear "unequal" by virtue of the existence of tax deductions.

However this apparent inequality isn't real and the only way to get rid of it would be to eliminate all tax deductions and tax credits for everyone.

That strategy doesn't yield a better tax system.

The problem with using words like "equal" in this context is that there are numerous ways we can utilize the term.

For example, one could argue that the tax system is "unequal" unless everyone pays exactly the same dollar amount regardless of how much they earn... hence a person who earned $20K might have to pay $20K into the system just like a person who earned $100K would have to pay $20K into the system.

That's "equal" right?... It is also a stupid taxation system.

A second option would be to tax everyone at exactly the same percentage of their income (which is the type of system Jim seems to be advocating for)... hence someone who earns $20K might have to pay $4K while the person who earns $100K would pay $20K into the system.

That's "equal" right?... It also ignores the fundamental difference in social equity that people of disparate income levels gain from those taxes. Someone who has $16K of disposable income per year simple doesn't gain as much from their taxes to the federal government as someone who has $80K of disposable income.

Outside of social security and medicare/medicaid most of the federal budget is spent on the defense department. It is objectively true that defense spending is more financially beneficial to someone who has $80K of discretionary spending versus $16K of discretionary spending. This is because the person earning $16K will spend every dollar they earn on rent, food, and transportation for the year... they will accumulate zero personal assets. By contrast the person with $80K of discretionary spending can and will have property, securities, and other tangible assets which the defense department will secure from loss.

This disproportional benefit only increases the more one happens to have.

Technically speaking the social security system disproportionately benefits those who earn more as well primarily because of differences in longevity (i.e. the longer you live the more one extracts from social security). If you die at 55 but paid into the system for 35 years you are shit out of luck and get nothing in return.

As a result the system which makes the most sense in terms of "equality" is one where people are all taxed exactly the same for each taxable dollar, but that for each additional dollar one earns the relative tax compared to previous dollars increases.

This way one tries to take into account the disproportional benefits accrued from the tax money by continually taking a larger chunk of additional dollars.

Look, I get that these kinds of concepts can be difficult to understand. However, simplistic analysis of the problem that ignores things that aren't immediately obvious won't solve anything.

Sorry no, these concept are not hard, you said people were taxes the same, not taxed the same* prorated per each addition level of income.

You misspoke in your rush to show someone else up, grow up and just admit it

Lujlp,

Actually I didn't misspeak. What I specifically said was:

"You are taxed the exact same amount for each dollar you earn as everyone else."

The word "each" wasn't put there accidentally. You overlooked that specification in your zeal to find something wrong with my argument.

I then further clairified my position in the very same post by saying this:

"Just to make you feel better... you are taxed at the same rate for the 1st dollar you earn as anyone else... you are taxed at the same rate for the 2nd dollar you earn as anyone else... this process continues until you start to earn more dollars than someone at which point you begin to notice that each successive dollar you earn is taxed a little more than the previous one."

You rushed to judgment... I didn't rush to misspeak.

So now by your own argument it is time for you to "grow up and just admit it".

I won't bother holding my breath.

Outside of social security and medicare/medicaid most of the federal budget is spent on the defense department. It is objectively true that defense spending is more financially beneficial to someone who has $80K of discretionary spending versus $16K of discretionary spending. This is because the person earning $16K will spend every dollar they earn on rent, food, and transportation for the year... they will accumulate zero personal assets. By contrast the person with $80K of discretionary spending can and will have property, securities, and other tangible assets which the defense department will secure from loss. -- Orion at February 17, 2013 8:25 PM

Now, the next question I want you to answer is where any of the rest of the spending, outside of the defense department is mentioned in the Constitution of the United States.

Where is the EPA, SSI, the Department of Transportation, the FDA, the Department of Energy or Education?

I'll give you the 16th and your interpretation of it. Give me where you find the above departments.

Jim P. Asks:

"Where is the EPA, SSI, the Department of Transportation, the FDA, the Department of Energy or Education?"

Article 1 Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Environmental protection, social security, transportation, food safety, energy, and education all fall within the purview of the "welfare of the united states".

Hence Congress has the power to form and fund agencies of this type.

The same goes for the following part of section 8:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

And if those parts are too general for you, what about this part:

"To establish Post Offices and post Roads"

So Congress has the power to establish roads, but it can't form a department responsible for maintaining those roads?

Before you answer that question you should read this first:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So yes... the constitution does provide for the formation of such departments.

Do these departments sometimes have mission creep that extends into the territory of states rights?... sure... but their fundamental existence is certainly constitutional.

The constitution really isn't that long, and these provisions are written in plain English. Did you skip over article 1 and head straight to the amendments when you read it?