Author Topic: Stop the Machine! (anyone seen this?) (Read 13613 times)

kyrathaba · « **on:** August 11, 2011, 08:31 AM »

Anyone seen this yet? Thoughts?

http://october2011.org/issues

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/time-to-stand-up

tomos · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2011, 08:44 AM »

While I could even call myself a michael moore fan, i relate to this comment:

mikeydd
Posted August 10th, 2011 11:44 PM

While I agree with many of the points made on this site, the fact is that the country is split right down the middle. About half of the people favor progressive programs and half want government to get downsized and stay the hell out of their lives. Your hubris at the righteousness of your side vs the other half of the people is amusing. Squawk all you want, but the next election will turn out like the last ones; split right down the middle and decided on statistical error. Someday, real compromise and sanity.....someday. Michael Moore aint it.

kyrathaba · « **Reply #2 on:** August 11, 2011, 09:24 AM »

About half of the people favor progressive programs and half want government to get downsized and stay the hell out of their lives. Your hubris at the righteousness of your side vs the other half of the people is amusing. Squawk all you want, but the next election will turn out like the last ones; split right down the middle and decided on statistical error. Someday, real compromise and sanity.....someday. Michael Moore aint it.

Agreed.

40hz · « **Reply #3 on:** August 11, 2011, 10:36 AM »

The one thing I find annoying is the constant keening wail about "human needs."

Human needs are boundless. It's a black hole. There will always be human needs.

Perhaps instead of constantly talking about needs it would be much more beneficial to shift the focus of discussion over to an intelligent debate about roles and responsibilities.

Because if people acted more responsibly, there would be significantly less unaddressed human needs -and fewer unrealistic attitudes surrounding the notion of 'entitlement.'

Just a thought.

JavaJones · « **Reply #4 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:47 PM »

The problem is that *neither* party's *constituents* seem to really be getting what they want. Liberals want more social programs, or at least to maintain the ones we have. Nope, sorry. Conservatives and Libertarians want less government, but we have the massive deficit we have largely because of increasing government size and involvement in foreign affairs. The recent spending cuts have not significantly changed that in fact. They are minor in relation to the total deficit and spending.

- Oshyan

kyrathaba · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2011, 05:31 PM »

Because if people acted more responsibly, there would be significantly less unaddressed human needs -and fewer unrealistic attitudes surrounding the notion of 'entitlement.'

Amen!

rmorrison100 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2011, 07:10 PM »

This is the first time I see this.

Deozaan · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2011, 07:28 PM »

The recent spending cuts have not significantly changed that in fact. They are minor in relation to the total deficit and spending.

- Oshyan
-JavaJones (August 11, 2011, 02:47 PM)

From Dave Ramsey: "If the US government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year and they would spend $75,000 a year and are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget and debt reduced to a level we can understand."

And another (from Facebook, not Dave Ramsey):

Some perspective on the US Debt. Too many zeros to understand? Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it is the budget for a family:
Total annual family income: $21,700
Amt of money family spent: $38,200
Amt of new credit card debts: $16,500
Outstanding debt on credit card: $142,710
Amount cut from the annual budget: $385 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And we are surprised S&P cut them?
Jeesh. Any bank would have bankrupted the family already.

Rover · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2011, 09:30 PM »

OP: That's some scary stuff.

"Tax the rich.." Wow that sounds great. Those "Rich." Except the left a word off... Rich People. They're people; they've earned or inherited their money. Why does it belong to someone else? Oh and by the way, those Rich People already pay most of the taxes.

According to the principles on which the US of A was founded, You are responsible for you; Not the government. It's frightening that so many people want to turn their (or more likely, someone else's) money over to the government for "correct distribution." The government. Really? Isn't this the same wasteful government that we railed about for spending $200 for a hammer?

These people (see links in the OP) are just manipulating voters to gain more power. It's sad that so many are ready to blindly follow.

zridling · « **Reply #9 on:** August 12, 2011, 10:22 PM »

From Dave Ramsey: "If the US government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year and they would spend $75,000 a year and are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget and debt reduced to a level we can understand."
-Deozaan (August 11, 2011, 07:28 PM)

Except a "family" can't print its own money. Tell Dave to get a real job and stop ripping people off with his seminars.

kyrathaba · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2011, 10:35 AM »

Oh and by the way, those Rich People already pay most of the taxes.

Not proportionally they don't...

rgdot · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2011, 11:53 AM »

I wish I could respond to Rover but it would get too political. Not that I would use foul language or anything even remotely like that but still don't think DC is the place, my opinion

Rover · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2011, 05:00 PM »

Oh and by the way, those Rich People already pay most of the taxes.

Not proportionally they don't...
-kyrathaba (August 13, 2011, 10:35 AM)

Proportionally, the higher your income the more your tax rate.
Some numbers:
$50k annual income pays ~18% Fed tax (that might be way off.. I haven't see the tax tables lately) Which would be ~ $9,000 taxes
$100k annual income pays ~23% Fed tax (again the % may be off) which would be ~ $23,000 taxes.

I know that I personally pay more taxes, both in actual dollars and % as I have made more money over the years.

So, I'm not sure I understand your position.

"The top 10 percent of income earners pay the most in federal taxes. Sixty-eight percent of federal revenue is generated by this group."

Article: Guess who really pays the taxes

zridling · « **Reply #13 on:** August 14, 2011, 10:35 AM »

Proportionally, the higher your income the more your tax rate.
Some numbers:
$50k annual income pays ~18% Fed tax (that might be way off.. I haven't see the tax tables lately) Which would be ~ $9,000 taxes
$100k annual income pays ~23% Fed tax (again the % may be off) which would be ~ $23,000 taxes.
"The top 10 percent of income earners pay the most in federal taxes. Sixty-eight percent of federal revenue is generated by this group."
-Rover (August 13, 2011, 05:00 PM)

Except, keep going up the income ladder and the model breaks down. Check out what Warren Buffet and any given hedge fund manager pays (less than 14%), and when the richest 400 Americans make more money than the next 150,000,000 million Americans, they should pay their fair share or go live somewhere else. If you make a million dollars, you won't be paying 23%, I promise you. Oh well, I've been all over the income ranges, and I get screwed no matter where I'm at!

Shades · « **Reply #14 on:** August 14, 2011, 11:26 AM »

The article only talks about percentages and that is just marketing BS...well, BS walks and (amounts of) money talks!

Rover · « **Reply #15 on:** August 14, 2011, 11:17 PM »

Proportionally, the higher your income the more your tax rate.
Some numbers:
$50k annual income pays ~18% Fed tax (that might be way off.. I haven't see the tax tables lately) Which would be ~ $9,000 taxes
$100k annual income pays ~23% Fed tax (again the % may be off) which would be ~ $23,000 taxes.
"The top 10 percent of income earners pay the most in federal taxes. Sixty-eight percent of federal revenue is generated by this group."
-Rover (August 13, 2011, 05:00 PM)

Except, keep going up the income ladder and the model breaks down. Check out what Warren Buffet and any given hedge fund manager pays (less than 14%), and when the richest 400 Americans make more money than the next 150,000,000 million Americans, they should pay their fair share or go live somewhere else. If you make a million dollars, you won't be paying 23%, I promise you.
-zridling (August 14, 2011, 10:35 AM)

I like to see the source for the 14% numbers. Even if that is accurate, do you not consider someone -- say Bill Gates -- who makes 100 Million giving 14 million to the federal government fair? I'll never pay 14 million over my life time (or probably my children and grand children). They pay that EVERY year.

Oh well, I've been all over the income ranges, and I get screwed no matter where I'm at!

Me too! Nothing like seeing your tax money go to support things you disagree with -- whatever they are.

Which I think is the real problem. The Fed. Gov't. spends too dang (cleaned that up for the kids) much money. They spend more than they take in. The have a standard budget increase built in every year. Some (not all) of those spending cuts they just approved were actually just increases they didn't make.

Dave Ramsey has a great article about this: Federal Budget

If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made! That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!

That's insane. All of this pointing fingers to Warren Buffet and "the Rich" is a distraction. Washington is spending this country into bankruptcy and they want us to support their plan to steal money from "the Rich" to cover it. It's a basic redistribution of wealth scheme and it is a socialist policy.

I am against socialism.

Shades · « **Reply #16 on:** August 15, 2011, 10:49 PM »

@Rover:
At this link you can read the thoughts of Warren E. Buffett about the tax matter. Straight from the horses mouth...well, written down by the (business section of) New York Times.

Rover · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2011, 09:14 PM »

Mr. Buffett is free to write a check anytime he feels the need. If he feels so guilty about all the money he make he should ended his article with "So I'm sending my first payment as a gesture of good faith. $10 million dollars payable to the IRS."

So now he pays 17%. Still paying 6.9 million per year. What is that the Federal Government provides that costs so much more to do for Warren Buffet than me?

The fact still stands the the top few percent of income earners still pay the lion's share (in actual dollars) of the federal tax.

My point is still that the federal government spending is out of control* and needs to be scaled back a lot. *This is not just the current administration although they are the worst by far. Spending has been running away since Bush 1.

I do feel the wealthiest people in our country have an obligation to do more. Bill and Belinda Gates set up a charity to do just that. It's about only thing I like about Bill.

I do not think it's the federal governments job to re-distribute wealth. Nor does the Constitution give them power to do so.

I guess we'll see how everyone else feels in Nov. 2012.

Shades · « **Reply #18 on:** August 18, 2011, 10:16 AM »

Sorry for not letting it rest.

Although I see your point and actually agree with practically all of it, there is something nagging.

Taken from the U.S. Census bureau:
In 2009 there were 117,181,000 households in the US. The phrase that keeps returning is: "the top 1% controls 95% of the money in the US"
So that leaves a solid 116 million households. How much Federal taxes are for each of those households I don't know, but assume that when on average each of these households pays 1000 USD/year, there would be 116,000,000,000 USD/year on tax revenue.

How can one say that the rich pay the lion share? (yes, I am fully aware that this projection of numbers is way too simple)

Then again, such numbers also mean that taxing the rich more will not make much of dent either. So government spending is the major issue.

Hmmm, how many secret agencies you you really need? The US military machine is also quite costly. Spent a few less percentage points (single digit!) less on these and invest that money in infrastructure (more jobs), alternative energy sources (more high-tech jobs).

Everyone is better off for it (incl. the rich, so I truly don't understand why the Tea party gets their knickers in such a twist about tax increases if the need arises).

If the above makes me a socialist simpleton, so be it. Live and let live.

tomos · « **Reply #19 on:** August 18, 2011, 03:12 PM »

@Rover,
one of the reasons people are focusing on the rich is because of the imbalance that is getting ever more extreme between the rich and the poor. I actually think you're right, the solution is not to tax the rich more (although living where I do, I find 17% or even, God forbid, 23%, laughably low tax rates).**

But if this problem is not addressed, society as we know it will collapse, like in the 1920's/30's, maybe worse, maybe better, probably differently.
Unfortunately I dont have a solution, but first people/governments have to acknowledge it as a problem before things can even think about changing...

** I'm reminded of the old emmigrant song "The Green Fields of Amerikay/Canada"

Then it's pack up your seastores and tarry no longer
Ten dollars a week isn't very bad pay;
With no taxes or tithes to devour up your wages
When you're on the green fields of Amerikay

Rover · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2011, 09:10 PM »

Sorry for not letting it rest.
-Shades (August 18, 2011, 10:16 AM)

We're having a nice civil discussion. No reason to feel sorry.

Although I see your point and actually agree with practically all of it, there is something nagging.

Taken from the U.S. Census bureau:
In 2009 there were 117,181,000 households in the US. The phrase that keeps returning is: "the top 1% controls 95% of the money in the US"
So that leaves a solid 116 million households. How much Federal taxes are for each of those households I don't know, but assume that when on average each of these households pays 1000 USD/year, there would be 116,000,000,000 USD/year on tax revenue.

How can one say that the rich pay the lion share? (yes, I am fully aware that this projection of numbers is way too simple)

Then again, such numbers also mean that taxing the rich more will not make much of dent either. So government spending is the major issue.
-Shades (August 18, 2011, 10:16 AM)

Agreed - Gov't spending is the major issue we can agree on.

I think your numbers got scrambled. According to Wikipedia (the 100% most accurate source in all the world

) 2007 Fed Income Tax was 1.366 Trillion and change. There were just under 139 million returns filed giving a flat average of ~$9,800 per return. We don't know if those are households or not.

If I'm reading the graph correctly and it's accurate, the top 25% of all income earners paid 85% or 1.161 Trillion of those dollars. The bottom 50% of earners paid 0.041 Trillion or 41 Billion of those dollars. Leaving the top 51-74% of income earners to pay the remaining 164 Billion dollars.

Warren and his other top 1% friends paid 505 Billion of that themselves.

Hmmm, how many secret agencies you you really need? The US military machine is also quite costly. Spent a few less percentage points (single digit!) less on these and invest that money in infrastructure (more jobs), alternative energy sources (more high-tech jobs).

Everyone is better off for it (incl. the rich, so I truly don't understand why the Tea party gets their knickers in such a twist about tax increases if the need arises).
-Shades (August 18, 2011, 10:16 AM)

I'm not in the tea party. My understanding is they get their knickers twisted for exactly the reason agreed on above. Gov't spending needs to be brought back in-line. Until then, raising taxes is out of the question because we've had so many "fake" spending cuts in the past. e.g. We'll cut spending by eliminating the cost of the war. We have plans to be out by 2011. Then something changes and that deal of off. The spending cut isn't realized.

If the above makes me a socialist simpleton, so be it. Live and let live.
-Shades (August 18, 2011, 10:16 AM)

I never thought that about you. Hope I didn't imply that.

I'm all for changing the tax code. They're are way too many loop holes for guys like WG Buffett. Why does he only pay 17% and I pay more.
I'm a little on the fence here.

On the one hand, companies that make lots of money also tend to create lots of jobs. Not always, but usually. Should we penalize profitable companies with more taxes? When you think about it, taxes are like insurance or rent. It costs money to keep the USA safe from bad guys, keep the roads repaired, etc. etc. Since we all benefit from National Scale perks, we should all share in the cost of those perks. But how do you fairly distribute the cost?

Flat taxes have pros and cons, so do sliding scales.

I don't know what's "fair" but I pretty darn sure all the rhetoric from some liberals about "Taxing the Rich" is a distraction and is designed to incite class envy; even more enmity.

I think we all agree things need to change.

40hz · « **Reply #21 on:** August 20, 2011, 07:25 AM »

...but assume that when on average each of these households pays 1000 USD/year...

-Shades (August 18, 2011, 10:16 AM)

FWIW most households in the US pay more than $1000 per year for income tax.

Tax Year:
Filing Status:

If your taxable income is between...    your tax bracket is:
   0 and 8499 10%
   8500 and 34499 15%
   34500 and 83599 25%
   83600 and 174399 28%
174400 and 379149 33%
379150 and     over 35%

Most US taxpayers currently fall within the 15% and 25% tax brackets.

CORRECTION: Disregard following example and see Mouser's post immediately below.

Ignoring allowed deductions to income (which will vary from individual to individual) someone who earned $8499 would owe $850 in taxes. If they earned $1 more to make it $8500, their tax wold jump to $1275!

The rudest shock most US taxpayers ever experience is when they discover that they just barely made it into a higher tax bracket than they thought they'd be in. Usually, it was due to some windfall unexpected taxable income they made during the year. Often it's a small company bonus, a minor stock sale, or a prize of some sort that tipped the scale. When that happens, our hapless earner often finds himself scrambling to come up with several hundred additional dollars to pay off Uncle Sam by April 15th.

In the US, May 30th is referred to as Tax Freedom Day. Because that's the date by which the average wage earner has traditionally made enough to pay all of his or her tax obligations. So for five months out of the twelve, all US taxpayers are basically working for their government. They don't start working for themselves until June 1!

According to The American Spectator however, in 2011, the date is more correctly August 12th...

mouser · « **Reply #22 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:30 AM »

If they earned $1 more to make it $8500, their tax wold jump to $1275!

That's a *VERY* common misunderstanding of how things work in the US , but it's incorrect.

See http://money.howstuf...es/tax-brackets1.htm

In short, only the money ABOVE the previous tax bracket gets taxed at the additional rate.

So in your example, the person making $8500 would pay:
10% in taxes on the first $8499 = $850
15% in taxes on the $1 = $0.15

Note 1: When I say it's a common misperception, I mean that it's believed by most people in the US who are in middle/lower income tax brackets. You can bet your ass that the rich people understand very well how it really works and aren't too concerned with correcting the misunderstanding.

Note 2: I have very strong feelings about these issues like many of you -- but let's remember our policy of avoiding divisive political/religious arguments on DC on the basis that there are better places to debate such things more fully.

40hz · « **Reply #23 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:26 AM »

hat's a *VERY* common misunderstanding of how things work in the US , but it's incorrect.
-mouser (August 20, 2011, 08:30 AM)

Mouser is correct. (Sad thing is I knew that too!)

That's what I get for posting something when I've been up most of the previous night.

Original post has been annotated. Apologies to all.

Rover · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2011, 04:05 PM »

In the US, May 30th is referred to as Tax Freedom Day. Because that's the date by which the average wage earner has traditionally made enough to pay all of his or her tax obligations. So for five months out of the twelve, all US taxpayers are basically working for their government. They don't start working for themselves until June 1!

According to The American Spectator however, in 2011, the date is more correctly August 12th...

-40hz (August 20, 2011, 07:25 AM)

It's interesting to me that we all accept May 30 or Aug 12 as Tax Freedom Day. And then we think we're paying something less than 41.6% tax. May 30 equals 41.6% of the year and typically 41.6% of the money I'll earn that year.

Just something to think about I guess.

@mouser: If you think this is becoming divisive we should probably lock the thread.