Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Feb 2016, 2:27 pm

bbauska
What is socialism in your opinion? You say the GI bill is socialism. What is the definition of Socialism in your opinion?


There is an accepted definition of socialism. Its not my opinion.
Socialism is a variety of social and economic systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment


I think that social welfare programs that are re distributive are part way down the spectrum - as I said before. Just above this repeat of your question.
The GI Bill took money from general taxation to put millions of men and a few women into Universities, provided loans for small business and also provided payments to some until they could find employment. That general taxation was paid by businesses and individual taxpayers, most who did not have access to a similar program. So in that way it was entirely re distributive taking money from all to give to a few... Well, few millions.

Bbauska
ACA - Not socialism, but forced entrance into a program unless you accept penalties

So the part of the law, in participating states, where those who cannot afford insurance are subsidized? Or even provided basic insurance at no cost? (Medicaid)

Seems to me that you are as accepting of the various social welfare programs in the US but you just can't face calling them socialist..
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 01 Feb 2016, 4:11 pm

No, The GI bill (which you called Socialism), is not Socialism. That is my point. You were WRONG.

Admit it and go on.

If you need the location of your statement saying it was Socialism, just look at the post above yours. I bolded it for you. How did the GI bill control production?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Feb 2016, 4:16 pm

This is funny. Suddenly you guys know what socialism is?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 01 Feb 2016, 4:40 pm

danivon wrote:This is funny. Suddenly you guys know what socialism is?


Just asking RickyP, as he said the GI bill was Socialism, and his definition did not bear that out. (His words, not mine)

Would he want all programs to be based upon payments given to those who are working somehow to earn them (e.g. the service in the military to get the GI Bill)?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 11:06 am

geojanes wrote:Our last 12 years of rates:
2003: 23.6%
2004: 25.8%
2005: 26.3%
2006: 26.4%
2007: 28.4%
2008: 26.5%
2009: 26.5%
2010: 17.7%
2011: 13.1%
2012: 4.27% amended
2013: 6.12% amended
2014: 12.0% amended

2015: 6.47%

Got our rate back down, just barely avoiding the AMT. That big tax increase didn't trickle down to me. How did the tax hike hit you?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 05 Apr 2016, 2:25 pm

I wonder if Hillary will get tripped up in the Panama Papers leak?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/clinton-supported-tax-evasion-revealed-panama-papers-sanders-opposed.html

It looks like the Berndog chose the high road once again.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 6:19 pm

geojanes wrote:
geojanes wrote:Our last 12 years of rates:
2003: 23.6%
2004: 25.8%
2005: 26.3%
2006: 26.4%
2007: 28.4%
2008: 26.5%
2009: 26.5%
2010: 17.7%
2011: 13.1%
2012: 4.27% amended
2013: 6.12% amended
2014: 12.0% amended

2015: 6.47%

Got our rate back down, just barely avoiding the AMT. That big tax increase didn't trickle down to me. How did the tax hike hit you?


That's pretty low ... normal income year?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Apr 2016, 6:17 am

dag
I wonder if Hillary will get tripped up in the Panama Papers leak?


Just wondering about Hillary? What about all the rest of the millionaires on Capitol Hill and in State governor mansions?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 06 Apr 2016, 7:21 am

I certainly agree with you Ricky but I highlighted Hillary since she is currently involved with running for president of the United States.

Anyone one of these deceitful bastards found to be avoiding taxes while representing US citizens or citizens of their own respective countries should surrender their office.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Apr 2016, 7:30 am

Ray Jay wrote:That's pretty low ... normal income year?


Yeah, I know, that's why I write about this. It's crazy, especially compared to what we used to pay. Income was as normal as in any recent year. State and city income taxes were considerably more than what we paid to the federal govt this year.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Apr 2016, 8:36 am

Getting at RJ's question a little deeper: The correlation coefficient (or "r") of total income to federal tax rate to my household income 2003-2015 is 0.42, which makes the R-squared 0.18! At least it's positive you might say!

The correlation coefficient (or "r") of my state/city tax rate to total income is 0.993!

In my case anyway, there really isn't that much correlation between household income and Federal tax rate, while state and local taxes track it nearly exactly. Crazy!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 06 Apr 2016, 10:10 am

geojanes wrote:Getting at RJ's question a little deeper: The correlation coefficient (or "r") of total income to federal tax rate to my household income 2003-2015 is 0.42, which makes the R-squared 0.18! At least it's positive you might say!

The correlation coefficient (or "r") of my state/city tax rate to total income is 0.993!

In my case anyway, there really isn't that much correlation between household income and Federal tax rate, while state and local taxes track it nearly exactly. Crazy!


Yes, it shows the complexity of the federal tax code. Seems like you are benefiting from many loopholes. :smile:

Are you including FICA in your analysis of fed tax?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Apr 2016, 1:08 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Are you including FICA in your analysis of fed tax?


No. If I did it would be higher, of course. In these calculations, income is always Adjusted Gross Income (line 37 in 2015), and tax is always Total Tax (line 63), and in my case, that includes almost no self-employment tax over that entire period.

I've been doing this analysis here for years now and I'm always sorry more people don't play along. We talk so much about policy, especially tax policy, but people seem to prefer to understand it as an abstraction, rather than understanding what it means to them. I'm not talking about you, RJ, as I understand this is your business, but for everyone else, paying attention to these things can make an enormous difference in how much you get to keep.

But more than that, there's the whole discussion of the fairness and effectiveness of policy. Why do some people who make X pay 30% of their income in tax, while others who also make X pay 10%, or less. In my mind, that's nuts. It's similar to our discussion on corporate taxes, which while the US has a very high marginal rate, some corps pay very little while others pay retail. One would think that a small standard deviation (at a graduated intervals) would be ideal, but it's not that way at all.
Last edited by geojanes on 06 Apr 2016, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Apr 2016, 1:11 pm

On Panama, I heard a news story that said that there were very few Americans caught in Panama, in part, because rich Americans pay very little as a percentage of their income (and a tiny percentage as a percentage of their wealth) in income taxes, so there just isn't the need that there is in other parts of the world.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 06 Apr 2016, 3:04 pm

geojanes wrote:On Panama, I heard a news story that said that there were very few Americans caught in Panama, in part, because rich Americans pay very little as a percentage of their income (and a tiny percentage as a percentage of their wealth) in income taxes, so there just isn't the need that there is in other parts of the world.
Or they just use other tax haven lawyers. Mossack Fonseca are only no 3 in Panama. And the US has plenty of ways locally to set up such tax haven instruments.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/05/opini ... index.html

Firms in the United States play the same role as Mossack Fonseca, possibly on a larger scale, and they are doing so with the tacit blessing of our lax financial secrecy laws.

In fact, a recent study by the Tax Justice Network found that the United States is the third-biggest offender in the world when it comes to facilitating financial secrecy and tax evasion. Due to lax requirements in Delaware, Nevada and a few other states, for example, it is far easier to set up an anonymous shell company in the United States than it is in well-known tax havens such as the Cayman Islands or the British Virgin Islands.