Race/Gender Tax? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 04-05-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the equivalence is false.
if that's all you've got, your argument falls down.

Of course they are not equal, but also try putting the flow of information presented in the context of what is being posted and what is being responded to.

If you clearly define the "equivalence" you want, I will give you one. But, you are sitting back taking the luxurious position of being non-committal so you can take pot-shots at information presented. It is far to easy to do what you do. First, can you define what you think the intent of tax policy should be?

dc_dux · 04-05-2010, 02:19 PM

Enact and enforce social and workplace policies that make breast feeding more acceptable and accessible...and a tax on baby formula might be reasonable as well.

The health care reform takes a small step...:

Quote:

Employers would be required to provide an unpaid "reasonable break time for nursing mothers" in the first year after giving birth. Women would be provided a private place, other than a bathroom, to use a breast pump. The provision exempts companies with fewer than 50 workers if the requirement would impose "an undue hardship," a determination left to the employer to make.

....but of course, the business community is outraged by this new mandate!

Quote:

But employers see yet another expense. "Every additional mandated rule further burdens employers who are struggling to keep jobs afloat," says Neil Trautwein, vice president of the National Retail Federation.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...l-Secrets.aspx

Then, extend the Family and Medical Leave Act so more low income and/or low skilled female workers can benefit and stay at home for the child's first year w/o fear of losing their job.....women who disproportionately are not covered by the FMLA.

And you might have a case for the tax you want....with exclusions for medical necessity.

But any comparison to the adverse effects of smoking/drinking is just assanine.

Cimarron29414 · 04-06-2010, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But any comparison to the adverse effects of smoking/drinking is just assanine.

I'm comparing the positive affects of doing it compared to the status quo of not doing it. The only person who made any comparison to smoking was roachboy. Do you think it is appropriate to call roachboy asinine? I think he shares your position on this issue, although I wouldn't be so bold as to speak for him.

dc_dux · 04-06-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'm comparing the positive affects of doing it compared to the status quo of not doing it. The only person who made any comparison to smoking was roachboy. Do you think it is appropriate to call roachboy assinine? I think he shares your position on this issue, although I wouldn't be so bold as to speak for him.

No, in fact it was ace who made the comparison with the comment about liberal minds going "bizzaro".

It is bizarro to raise that comparison.....and your comparison to tanning beds is nearly as bizarre.

Cimarron29414 · 04-06-2010, 10:47 AM

Yeah, okay.

Perhaps we are working on two different scales here. I thought we were discussing taxes used to control behavior. You are probably discussing taxes used to offset governmental costs. While I don't really see this massive false equivalence which renders a pretty meaningless discussion unworthy of further meaningless discussion, I do find it interesting that we always land on the exact same spot. The majority gets to dictate the terms of every post.

aceventura3 · 04-08-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Enact and enforce social and workplace policies that make breast feeding more acceptable and accessible...and a tax on baby formula might be reasonable as well.

I don't want to tax baby formula. I do not want to tax cigarettes either. but, I would tax both to the degree use imposes costs upon society.

What do you see as the role of tax policy? Do you think the point is to redistribute wealth? Punish? Encourage/discourage your pet issues of the day? What?

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No, in fact it was ace who made the comparison with the comment about liberal minds going "bizzaro".

It is bizarro to raise that comparison.....and your comparison to tanning beds is nearly as bizarre.

The problem is that there is no consistency in your approach to tax policy, nor can you clearly define the role you think tax policy should play in our society. I think for some reason you fear openly saying what you really believe on this subject. I wonder why.

dc_dux · 04-08-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't want to tax baby formula. I do not want to tax cigarettes either. but, I would tax both to the degree use imposes costs upon society.

What do you see as the role of tax policy? Do you think the point is to redistribute wealth? Punish? Encourage/discourage your pet issues of the day? What?

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

The problem is that there is no consistency in your approach to tax policy, nor can you clearly define the role you think tax policy should play in our society. I think for some reason you fear openly saying what you really believe on this subject. I wonder why.

Pot calling the kettle black?

I was clear...IMO, it is appropriate and good public policy to tax products (tobacco, alcohol) that contribute to the top causes of preventable death (and to the costs of health care for all Americans).

I would tax junk food, but that might be a bit more difficult to standardize.

Perhaps a visual aid will help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...auses_of_death

As to tanning beds, a luxury from which the contributions to cancer are beyond dispute.

Derwood · 04-09-2010, 10:01 AM

just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup (or stop subsidizing it so heavily).

Oh wait, that'll never happen....

guy44 · 04-09-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup (or stop subsidizing it so heavily).

Oh wait, that'll never happen....

Amen, brother. How come conservatives aren't up in arms about this? I mean, they just clearly aren't going to be able to cut entitlements any time soon, so why not look to something that everyone (except the recipients) agrees is useless? If they want to cut government spending, they should target the $20 billion a year in farm subsidies that are totally pointless and are an actual waste of taxpayer dollars. If Fox and Palin and Beck and Boehner and all them started going apeshit about farm subsidies, they'd not only be in the right, but they might actually succeed in reducing government spending. And every liberal who doesn't grow corn or soybeans would be happy to join them!

Yes, yes, I know that this a a bipartisan problem originating with the nature of the Senate, etc., but I can't take these people even a little bit seriously if they try to cut food stamps or unemployment insurance in the name of fiscal responsibility but would never touch farm subsidies.

dogzilla · 04-09-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup (or stop subsidizing it so heavily).

Oh wait, that'll never happen....

How about we just tax the liberals who feel so strongly that people's money be redistributed 95% of their income?

That makes just about as much sense as imposing a tax on something because the nanny state says it is bad for you.

As far as high fructose corn syrup, I cannot stand the taste of artificial sweeteners. Diet caffeine free coke is one of the foulest tasting drinks I've seen on the market. One of the artificial sweeteners gives me headaches.

I also have no weight problems or any other health issues related to drinking soda, so don't try imposing another nanny state tax on me.

Cimarron29414 · 04-09-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Amen, brother. How come conservatives aren't up in arms about this? I mean, they just clearly aren't going to be able to cut entitlements any time soon, so why not look to something that everyone (except the recipients) agrees is useless? If they want to cut government spending, they should target the $20 billion a year in farm subsidies that are totally pointless and are an actual waste of taxpayer dollars. If Fox and Palin and Beck and Boehner and all them started going apeshit about farm subsidies, they'd not only be in the right, but they might actually succeed in reducing government spending. And every liberal who doesn't grow corn or soybeans would be happy to join them!

Yes, yes, I know that this a a bipartisan problem originating with the nature of the Senate, etc., but I can't take these people even a little bit seriously if they try to cut food stamps or unemployment insurance in the name of fiscal responsibility but would never touch farm subsidies.

Farms subsidies? Really? You speak of being taken seriously when your best solution to a $1,400,000,000,000 budget overrun rate is the $20,000,000,000 in farm subsidies. Look at you, only $1,380,000,000,000 left to find!

guy44 · 04-10-2010, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Farms subsidies? Really? You speak of being taken seriously when your best solution to a $1,400,000,000,000 budget overrun rate is the $20,000,000,000 in farm subsidies. Look at you, only $1,380,000,000,000 left to find!

It's hard to convey sarcasm, humor, etc. in text so I'm going to be generous and assume that you were being playful rather than sarcastic (honestly, I really don't know).

A) Of course farm subsidies aren't going to end the deficit. But $20 billion isn't chump change, either.

B) I proposed cutting farm subsidies not because they are such a huge amount of money, but because they make no sense, can be cut with bipartisan support, and are genuinely harmful to the global economy. In short, they are the lowest-hanging fruit.

Why be snide? Farms subsidies cost a lot of money, truly suck, have no benefits, and could garner bipartisan support for elimination. This is yet another reason why I have no tolerance for so many (not all) conservatives; rather than do due diligence on a realistic plan to cut the deficit, they prefer to just sit back and bemoan big government.

Cimarron29414 · 04-10-2010, 09:34 AM

No, I wasn't being playful or sarcastic. I was being absolutely dead serious.

Tell you what, I'll give you farm subsidies. You let me phase out Social Security ($675,000,000,000 paid out just last year).

Imagine all the people...planning their own retirement like grown-ups.

Let me guess, this falls into your "not realistic" category. Why is that exactly? Perhaps we should start with you giving an itemized list of the sacred cows. That way, we avoid the wrath of your intolerance.

I do find it curious that you have no tolerance for fellow Americans who choose a different role for government in their lives than you. Do all manner of people who have different views than you receive the same intolerance or is it limited to conservatives? I'm not a conservative, in the sense that you mean it, so I just want to check before we continue. I mean, if you have no tolerance for my kind as well, then there really would be no point in continuing a dialog.

dippin · 04-10-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

No, I wasn't being playful or sarcastic. I was being absolutely dead serious.

Tell you what, I'll give you farm subsidies. You let me phase out Social Security ($675,000,000,000 paid out just last year).

Imagine all the people...planning their own retirement like grown-ups.

Let me guess, this falls into your "not realistic" category. Why is that exactly? Perhaps we should start with you giving an itemized list of the sacred cows. That way, we avoid the wrath of your intolerance.

I do find it curious that you have no tolerance for fellow Americans who choose a different role for government in their lives than you. Do all manner of people who have different views than you receive the same intolerance or is it limited to conservatives? I'm not a conservative, in the sense that you mean it, so I just want to check before we continue. I mean, if you have no tolerance for my kind as well, then there really would be no point in continuing a dialog.

Of course, to balance the budget you must phase out the benefits, but keep the contributions. Otherwise that deficit would still be that big.

Cimarron29414 · 04-10-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Of course, to balance the budget you must phase out the benefits, but keep the contributions. Otherwise that deficit would still be that big.

Yes, you have to fill in the hole that you dug. First, you have to quit digging the hole. We are still digging.

Specifically, I would happily relinquish all rights to the SS funds I have already contributed - as long as I don't have to contribute any more.

guy44 · 04-10-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

No, I wasn't being playful or sarcastic. I was being absolutely dead serious.

Tell you what, I'll give you farm subsidies. You let me phase out Social Security ($675,000,000,000 paid out just last year).

Imagine all the people...planning their own retirement like grown-ups.

Let me guess, this falls into your "not realistic" category. Why is that exactly? Perhaps we should start with you giving an itemized list of the sacred cows. That way, we avoid the wrath of your intolerance.

I do find it curious that you have no tolerance for fellow Americans who choose a different role for government in their lives than you. Do all manner of people who have different views than you receive the same intolerance or is it limited to conservatives? I'm not a conservative, in the sense that you mean it, so I just want to check before we continue. I mean, if you have no tolerance for my kind as well, then there really would be no point in continuing a dialog.

Ignoring the craziness of "phasing out" social security, I do believe you barely even glanced at what I wrote. To whit:

Quote:

I can't take these people even a little bit seriously if they try to cut food stamps or unemployment insurance in the name of fiscal responsibility but would never touch farm subsidies.

My intolerance, as you put it, was expressly directed at people who would cut important safety net programs but NOT farm subsidies. Since you obviously are not one of those people, my intolerance was not directed at you. I find it ironic that you claim I am the one incapable of continuing a dialogue. I would suggest reading what I wrote first.

dippin · 04-10-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Yes, you have to fill in the hole that you dug. First, you have to quit digging the hole. We are still digging.

Specifically, I would happily relinquish all rights to the SS funds I have already contributed - as long as I don't have to contribute any more.

Except that social security is still a pay as you go system. Relinquishing your future benefits don't change the fact that money must be put in right now to pay for the benefits that are being paid right now. In fact, ss still runs a yearly surplus. If you cut contributions right now, you'd have to cut not only future benefits, but existing benefits right now.

That is what all the talk of privatizing or doing away with ss ignores. To change from the current pay as you go system you'd have to either run massive deficits in the short and medium term, or cut current benefits.

Cimarron29414 · 04-11-2010, 05:51 AM

When SS was created, it was designed to help people who simply lived beyond the average life expectancy and had extinguished their personal retirement. Adjusting for today's longevity, SS should not even kick in until you are 85 or so. Doing that, you reduce the amount needed. What's more, the fact that the system continued to reduce the age of benefits and turn it into a true retirement program is why it broke and it went from something like .3% of your income (as a tax) to 7.5% today.

As an example, a 22 year-old today would simply have to contribute 2% of their income for 15 years to pay for those on SS until it phased out. They would get nothing in return other than the knowledge that they don't have to give 7.5% for the rest of their career with no hope of ever seeing that money. A 32 year-old would pay 1% for the next, say, 7 years. Something like that. It doesn't really matter the exact formula - you can't tell me that one does not exist. It can be done and be phased out.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Ignoring the craziness of "phasing out" social security...

Exactly why is that crazy?

dippin · 04-11-2010, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

When SS was created, it was designed to help people who simply lived beyond the average life expectancy and had extinguished their personal retirement. Adjusting for today's longevity, SS should not even kick in until you are 85 or so. Doing that, you reduce the amount needed. What's more, the fact that the system continued to reduce the age of benefits and turn it into a true retirement program is why it broke and it went from something like .3% of your income (as a tax) to 7.5% today.

As an example, a 22 year-old today would simply have to contribute 2% of their income for 15 years to pay for those on SS until it phased out. They would get nothing in return other than the knowledge that they don't have to give 7.5% for the rest of their career with no hope of ever seeing that money. A 32 year-old would pay 1% for the next, say, 7 years. Something like that. It doesn't really matter the exact formula - you can't tell me that one does not exist. It can be done and be phased out.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Exactly why is that crazy?

Of course it can be "phased out." Still doesn't change the fact that if you don't cut current benefits you can't cut current contributions.

Tully Mars · 04-11-2010, 07:19 AM

I say we just tax all the neo-cons that supported the Iraq debacle until the money spent on that is payed off. Think that's approaching 1 trillion quickly. That should help fund Grandma's SS and Medicare for a while longer.

Cimarron29414 · 04-11-2010, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Of course it can be "phased out." Still doesn't change the fact that if you don't cut current benefits you can't cut current contributions.

What am I missing here? I am agreeing that you can not slash benefits to people who are currently depending on that money and are on a fixed income. However, there is a sliding scale as to who will need to see any of that money. The younger you are, the longer you have to prepare for retirement. So, the new workforce isn't going to get anything, but they do have to pay into it for a short period of time. Over time, the program disappears because those receiving benefits...well, they die. Then, no one has to pay into it any more.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I say we just tax all the neo-cons that supported the Iraq debacle until the money spent on that is payed off. Think that's approaching 1 trillion quickly. That should help fund Grandma's SS and Medicare for a while longer.

Ooh, ooh! Let's tax all the liberals who supported the war on poverty, since that has been a complete debacle too. Oh, and then there's the war on drugs, let's tax everyone who supported that! Oh, and we could tax everyone who supported "No child left behind" since that isn't working either. And in 15 years, we can tax all the liberals who thought Obamacare was a good idea, because that will be another $3T back in the kitty.

I fully support punishing the people who think the federal government's stupid ideas are good ones.

Tully Mars · 04-11-2010, 09:04 AM

Sounds like you're interesting in "punishing" one group way more then the other.

Also- You might want to look into the history of SS and why it was started, cause..

Quote:

When SS was created, it was designed to help people who simply lived beyond the average life expectancy and had extinguished their personal retirement.

Is highly inaccurate.

dippin · 04-11-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

What am I missing here? I am agreeing that you can not slash benefits to people who are currently depending on that money and are on a fixed income. However, there is a sliding scale as to who will need to see any of that money. The younger you are, the longer you have to prepare for retirement. So, the new workforce isn't going to get anything, but they do have to pay into it for a short period of time. Over time, the program disappears because those receiving benefits...well, they die. Then, no one has to pay into it any more.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 AM ----------

Ooh, ooh! Let's tax all the liberals who supported the war on poverty, since that has been a complete debacle too. Oh, and then there's the war on drugs, let's tax everyone who supported that! Oh, and we could tax everyone who supported "No child left behind" since that isn't working either. And in 15 years, we can tax all the liberals who thought Obamacare was a good idea, because that will be another $3T back in the kitty.

I fully support punishing the people who think the federal government's stupid ideas are good ones.

No, my point is that people would have to keep paying for a long period of time in order to not cut any current benefits and not generate additional deficits. Chile did what you want to do in 1981, but for 20 years the old pension system still cost about 5% of gdp, which was a significant chunk of the government's budget.

As for the other point. I'm not a liberal in the American sense of the word. I'm more of an old social democrat. But when you look at what both self described conservatives and liberals want to cut from the budget, and what they want to keep, the only real difference is that liberals are ok with increasing taxes. the vast majority of so called conservatives are just as opposed to cutting social security, medicare, and aid to the poor as liberals.

Cimarron29414 · 04-11-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Sounds like you're interesting in "punishing" one group way more then the other.

Also- You might want to look into the history of SS and why it was started, cause..

Is highly inaccurate.

I'm not interested in punishing anyone. You brought it up, I threw the other direction at you. Although, the war on drugs/poverty/education are equally as stupid as the war on Iraq - with no better outcome for all the money thrown at it.

Look at the age at which the SS benefit was dispersed at the time the program was created and cross-reference that value with the average life span of Americans at the time. If you did the same thing for today's life span, one wouldn't qualify for SS until the age of 84 or so. Hence, it's obvious it was only supposed to cover those who live a REALLY long time (as opposed to the current benefit which they started issuing as early as 65 and have had to move it because of the debacle (your word) it has become.)

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

No, my point is that people would have to keep paying for a long period of time in order to not cut any current benefits and not generate additional deficits. Chile did what you want to do in 1981, but for 20 years the old pension system still cost about 20% of gdp, which was a significant chunk of the government's budget.

As for the other point. I'm not a liberal in the American sense of the word. I'm more of an old social democrat. But when you look at what both self described conservatives and liberals want to cut from the budget, and what they want to keep, the only real difference is that liberals are ok with increasing taxes. the vast majority of so called conservatives are just as opposed to cutting social security, medicare, and aid to the poor as liberals.

dippin,

I'm not focusing on just SS. That just happened to be the program I chose to counter someone's farm subsidies assertion. There are many other programs I would cut. Some of the taxes from those programs would then be diverted to offset SS until it was fully phased out.

dippin · 04-11-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'm not interested in punishing anyone. You brought it up, I threw the other direction at you. Although, the war on drugs/poverty/education are equally as stupid as the war on Iraq - with no better outcome for all the money thrown at it.

Look at the age at which the SS benefit was dispersed at the time the program was created and cross-reference that value with the average life span of Americans at the time. If you did the same thing for today's life span, one wouldn't qualify for SS until the age of 84 or so. Hence, it's obvious it was only supposed to cover those who live a REALLY long time (as opposed to the current benefit which they started issuing as early as 65 and have had to move it because of the debacle (your word) it has become.)

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

dippin,

I'm not focusing on just SS. That just happened to be the program I chose to counter someone's farm subsidies assertion. There are many other programs I would cut. Some of the taxes from those programs would then be diverted to offset SS until it was fully phased out.

The bulk of the government spending is ss, medicare, and the military.

In fact, the estimate is that this year these 3 items alone will cost about 2.13 trillion. The estimate is that tax revenues for this year will be about 2.16 trillion.

In other words, you'd either have to cut every other thing the government spends on, including interest payments, or you'd be in the same situation with regards to medicare, or you'd really, really have to cut the military.

Cimarron29414 · 04-12-2010, 05:28 AM

I have absolutely no problem cutting the military back. But, that comes with some difficult choices. For example, if you take the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, you also take them out of Haiti and Darfur. If we aren't meddling, then we aren't meddling.

I would phase out Medicare the same as SS, by the way. Of course, you already knew that I would.

04-06-2010, 10:47 AM	#85 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Yeah, okay. Perhaps we are working on two different scales here. I thought we were discussing taxes used to control behavior. You are probably discussing taxes used to offset governmental costs. While I don't really see this massive false equivalence which renders a pretty meaningless discussion unworthy of further meaningless discussion, I do find it interesting that we always land on the exact same spot. The majority gets to dictate the terms of every post. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 04-06-2010 at 01:30 PM..

04-09-2010, 10:01 AM	#88 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	just tax the shit out of High Fructose Corn Syrup (or stop subsidizing it so heavily). Oh wait, that'll never happen.... __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

04-10-2010, 09:34 AM	#93 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	No, I wasn't being playful or sarcastic. I was being absolutely dead serious. Tell you what, I'll give you farm subsidies. You let me phase out Social Security ($675,000,000,000 paid out just last year). Imagine all the people...planning their own retirement like grown-ups. Let me guess, this falls into your "not realistic" category. Why is that exactly? Perhaps we should start with you giving an itemized list of the sacred cows. That way, we avoid the wrath of your intolerance. I do find it curious that you have no tolerance for fellow Americans who choose a different role for government in their lives than you. Do all manner of people who have different views than you receive the same intolerance or is it limited to conservatives? I'm not a conservative, in the sense that you mean it, so I just want to check before we continue. I mean, if you have no tolerance for my kind as well, then there really would be no point in continuing a dialog. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

04-11-2010, 07:19 AM	#100 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I say we just tax all the neo-cons that supported the Iraq debacle until the money spent on that is payed off. Think that's approaching 1 trillion quickly. That should help fund Grandma's SS and Medicare for a while longer. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

04-12-2010, 05:28 AM	#106 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I have absolutely no problem cutting the military back. But, that comes with some difficult choices. For example, if you take the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, you also take them out of Haiti and Darfur. If we aren't meddling, then we aren't meddling. I would phase out Medicare the same as SS, by the way. Of course, you already knew that I would. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."