BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events

Topic: RE: TOS to Grambling?

Topic: RE: TOS to Grambling?

Author

Message

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/21/2013 11:33:29 PM

What is excessive to you may not be to another. I know people who think there should be no taxes, I know some who believe property taxes are illegal, same with income taxes. What is excessive is a legitimate question as the nation platform of the Tea Party is not more than sounbites and cut and paste quotes.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/21/2013 11:49:15 PM

L.C.--Please tell me how much of the recent deficit increase is due to a President who told us that we could fight two wars ('raq, ghanistan) without funding them by supporting taxation--which had never been done before. And how much came from the tax cuts over the last 10-15 years. Has there ever been a tax cut that paid for itself?

To me, the immediate problem is employment, not the deficit. Raise employment and the deficit goes down.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 12:27:56 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

To me, the immediate problem is employment, not the deficit. Raise employment and the deficit goes down.

The answer to that is easy enough. Regardless of the tax rates, the taxes collected as a percentage of GDP has remained essentially constant since 1944 at about 18% of GDP. Thus, every tax cut has paid for itself, in the sense that it didn't decrease revenue, and every tax increase has failed, in the sense that it didn't produce any additional revenue. (That isn't to say that they might not have succeeded or failed in other ways, such as changing behavior to or away from certain activities). The only thing that really changed the taxes collected has been, as you point out, the state of the economy. The stock market bubble of the late 90s caused taxes to rise to over 19% for a few years, and the downturns of 2001-2 and 2008 caused it to dip to 16% or so.

Given that no tax policy has ever raised taxes collected significantly over 18%, it would seem unwise to raise spending over 18%, yet reckless spending in the 80's under Reagan, and since 2008 under Obama have done exactly that. As a result, the deficit as a percentage of GDP, which had been dropping steadily since WWII, ballooned under both Reagan and Obama.

Note that the problems in countries like Greece, Italy, and Ireland happened when government debt as a percentage of GDP rose over 100%, which is where the US is now.

As opposed to raising revenue, tax policy has historically been very effective as changing behavior, however. As a recent example, the recent tanning tax has produced little revenue, but did reduce the number of tanners nationwide by about 50%, which will reduce the number of future skin cancer cases significantly. (On the other hand, if tanning industry claims are correct, it will also mean more incidence of colon and breast cancers from less Vitamin D.) Other examples of behavior changes caused by tax policy have been increased home ownership from mortgage interest deductions, more people living together rather than being married as a result of the marriage tax penalty, decreases in charitable giving from the alternate minimum tax, increased capital expenditures whenever Investment Tax Credit is in effect, and so on. The effectiveness of tax policy in changing behavior is exactly why the tax code is so complex, and in part why tax rate changes are so ineffective in changing tax revenues - because there are so many alternatives that taxpayers can do other than simply paying the tax.

Last Edited: 10/22/2013 7:08:39 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 8:15:01 AM

To believe there is no excessive taxation is to believe government isn't wasteful. To believe that, you would have to have your head so buried in the sand that only your partisan end showed itself to the rest of us. Oh, wait...

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 8:34:06 AM

BTC,

When the dollars I make get:

Taxed when I make it
Taxed when I spend it
Taxed in perpetutity when I buy land to make a home
And when I die, 1-3 is taxed before my descendants can receive it

One of the above has got to be overkill. (regardless of rate, but on principle alone)

Even if you deem all of this essential, what about escalating factors? (">" symbolizes tax revenue generated by this one individual greater than the mean. This ">>" symbolizes way greater than the mean)

If I make more than the mean I get taxed SIGNIFICANTLY more, at an increasing rate (>>)
When I make more than the mean I'm inclined buy more (>)
When I make more I'm inclined to buy a bigger house, generating a property tax (>>)
(A growing trend in some places) I am taxed for the rain that falls on my property. But this is based on the size of my property (something I was inclined to buy on a bigger scale) (>>)
And the most excessive of all taxes, Obamacare: When I make more than the mean I pay a tax for not participating in socialized medicine (based on percentage of income). This generates more tax revenue than the mean. But even if I do participate, if I make more, I get subsized less, therefore my trip to the doctor costs more than someone who makes less. (even at the same doctor for the same service)

IF any of the above is not evidence of excessive taxation Billy the Cat, what are you comparing it to?

(Excessive, by defintion, must have a point of relativity.)

Last Edited: 10/22/2013 9:02:13 AM by The Situation

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 9:55:39 AM

Read the historical reasons for the estate tax...hello feeble/crazed heirs.

At some point, taxes are necessary. And marginal tax rates are quite low, leading to historic concentration of wealth at the top. Yes, the wealthiest have benefited almost exclusively. Then again, everybody needs multiple homes and aircraft. Hello concern for fellow man!

To cite tax revs as a % of budget--I don't get that argument as puts too much emphasis on the denominator...and doesn't answer at all the question about the great increase in the deficit due to two unfunded wars and the recent tax cuts.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 10:04:41 AM

Robert--C'mon. There is not a separate breed of person called 'Government Employee.' There's plenty of waste/stupidity/badpolicy in private in the private sector. Perhaps not as much as in government, but not materially different. In terms of programs, we have only ourselves to blame for the politicians we elect who institute those programs...hello bring home the bacon.

And if govt waste is so prevalent, how come no one's every been able to stop it or much prove it?

The assertion that govt is wasteful in a way that is markedly different from private just holds no water.

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 10:14:21 AM

Number one, I didn't make that assertion. You did. I didn't bring up the relative efficiency of the private sector at all. You did. Your assertion does nothing to disprove my actual assertion that government is wasteful.

Even still, I'll point out a significant difference: private sector waste is private sector's problem. Government waste is all of our problems.

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 10:29:45 AM

Robert, to point out govt waste certainly by inference raises private sector waste--please be intellectually honest. (If it ain't govt, please state the alternative(s).)

I'm not an advoctate of govt programs per se. I just want the bottom 20-40% to have a chance, to have a safety net.

What % of people are qualified/know enough to make well-informed healthcare or investment choices? There's a reason that social security was, and is, a popular program.

What % of people would be in crisis mode if they missed their next paycheck? Why are disability insurance rolls rising?

The answers to these questions are key.

It's sad, but indeniably true (hello catfood for dinner) that people need a base level of support. Private with it's cutting of pensions doesn't seem likely to provide it.

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 10:32:58 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

To cite tax revs as a % of budget--I don't get that argument as puts too much emphasis on the denominator...and doesn't answer at all the question about the great increase in the deficit due to two unfunded wars and the recent tax cuts.

When a country holds $17 Trillion in National Debt that continues to grow, it's only a matter of creative accounting as to what "is funded" and what "is not funded" Monroe. Period.

www.usdebtclock.org/

And talk about wasteful. I'll give you only the latest and greatest advancements in government wastefulness.

So during our governement "shutdown" we wasted millions on closing parks and monuments that a.) would not be deemed essential functions of government by a rational person and b.) cost more to protect that permit access to.

But the latest and greatest example of government waste of them all was the "back-pay" of furloughed government employees for time they DID NOT WORK. And the acceptance that 70,000 of these furloughed employees (who again were paid for time they DID NOT WORK) filed unemployment claims and will recieve an additional check ontop of the one they received (for work they DID NOT DO).

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 10:48:39 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Robert, to point out govt waste certainly by inference raises private sector waste--please be intellectually honest. (If it ain't govt, please state the alternative(s).)

I'm not an advoctate of govt programs per se. I just want the bottom 20-40% to have a chance, to have a safety net.

What % of people are qualified/know enough to make well-informed healthcare or investment choices? There's a reason that social security was, and is, a popular program.

What % of people would be in crisis mode if they missed their next paycheck? Why are disability insurance rolls rising?

The answers to these questions are key.

It's sad, but indeniably true (hello catfood for dinner) that people need a base level of support. Private with it's cutting of pensions doesn't seem likely to provide it.

That safety net creates a balancing act: on one side we have a safety net for the down-trodden. On the other, we have a loss of liberty. You can't move one direction without directly affecting the other.

Safety nets come at a price. That price is a nanny state. To a very significant degree, the U.S. is ALREADY a nanny state. The bottom 20-40% certainly DO have a chance and a safety net. Unfortunately, much of the expense for this safety net comes from the middle class, not the wealthy.

(Show me an American who is eating cat food for dinner, and I'll show you someone who is either mentally unstable, or who happens to really like cat food.)

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 11:11:54 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

And if govt waste is so prevalent, how come no one's every been able to stop it or much prove it?

The assertion that govt is wasteful in a way that is markedly different from private just holds no water.

Monroe, of course there is no difference....except in one regard. The wasteful/bad/stupid private employee either gets fired, and bankrupts his company, and they go away. The wasteful/bad/stupid government employee can not be fired.

Government waste can't be stopped or eliminated so long as that policy remains in force.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 11:34:03 AM

Robert Fox wrote:

Even still, I'll point out a significant difference: private sector waste is private sector's problem. Government waste is all of our problems.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 11:51:57 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

....

I'm sorry if you don't understand the significance of taxes and expenses as a percentage of GDP. You can't just look at dollars for the precise reason that you mentioned yourself - so much is dependent on the health and size of the economy.

To try to blame the deficit on "wars" is a nice try, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The fact is that Federal Spending has ballooned from 18% of GDP to about 23% of GDP. Yes, military spending is up. It averaged 3.54% of GDP under Clinton, 3.81% of GDP under Bush, and so far 4.68% under Obama. Even if defense spending were the same under Obama as under Clinton, it would barely dent the deficit, since government spending would still be 22%.

You do raise an interesting question, though, Monroe. Why has the reduction of taxes increased the wealth concentration? Is it just because the 1950-60s tax code, with tax rates as high as 90% so severely handicapped the wealthy that they were doomed to fall behind? Perhaps. Yet, if you look at the who is making the money, you find that many that were in the top 25% of earners have dropped out of that group, and many that weren't have moved into it. The decrease in marginal rates hasn't stratified wealth.

My explanation is very different than yours. The problem is that we have applied one solution to high income people - increasing the percentage of wealth that they can retain from earning more to the wealthy, but we haven't applied that at all to those in lower income groups. In fact, we've gone the other way. We've turned welfare into a roach-motel, trapping the poor at the bottom. We provide so much benefit that if they earn additional money, their spendable income actually goes down! So, how are these people supposed to get ahead - if they work more, they have less to spend.

No doubt you doubt that this can be true. Please examine this graph. It shows the welfare benefits available to a single mother at various different income levels. With no income at all, she has spendable income of $45,000 once you add in negative income tax, cash payments, food stamps, housing subsidies, energy assistance, childcare benefits, and medicaid. At first the effective "tax rate" is low. If she earns $9000, her spendable income rises to $53,000. Yet, after that, the effective "tax rate" is horrible. If she raises her income from $9,000 to $60,000, her spendable income actually drops to $50,000. Above that, she can starts getting to keep some of the money she makes. It may be even worse, once you consider charity. With no income, she may also get other benefits from charity, while it is doubtful she would receive any with $65,000 in income.

Effectively the system traps people with low income. They have no incentive to leave the system. They have no realistic hope of going from <$10,000 income to >$70,000, so why try? There is nothing to be gained from the effort.

I read somewhere that there are something like 200 separate programs to benefit the poor. They each are independent, and they don't work together. The net effect is the bizarre chart above. If allowing them to keep some of the proceeds of their work caused the rich to work harder, why is it hard to believe that allowing the poor to keep some of the proceeds of their work would motivate them to work harder, too, in which case you'd see the bottom 25% accumulating more wealth.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 12:05:19 PM

The Situation wrote:

....But the latest and greatest example of government waste of them all was the "back-pay" of furloughed government employees for time they DID NOT WORK. And the acceptance that 70,000 of these furloughed employees (who again were paid for time they DID NOT WORK) filed unemployment claims and will recieve an additional check ontop of the one they received (for work they DID NOT DO).

State law requires them to repay any unemployment benefits they received when they receive their back pay. They still are being paid for work they did not do, but they are not getting double payment.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 12:06:57 PM

Monroe, voting to change the problem at this point is like voting to stop the wind and water from eroding a sea side cliff.

The biggest road block to the sustainable operation of our state and federal governments are the unchallenged opinions of Americans who live quite comfortable lives.

Comfortable Americans from both political extremes waltz around with the patently false ideas of what is everyone's problem (and their corresponding fairy tale solutions).

But why do these ideas run unchecked?

Well like the continuing resolutions of Congress, We the People have passed the buck on contentious topics:

� We can't talk about them in the classroom
� We cant' talk about them in the bar
� We can't talk about them at dinner
� We can't talk about them with the public at large (including most friends, co-workers) on the bus, at work, or the game, or even the message boards

And we have a generation of Baby Boomers who were nice (naive) enough to respect that request. I do not.

You've got otherwise respectable people like Monroe who think people objectively needs more than rice and beans. Or people like the Grambling football team who think they have a right to a football team, despite the clear fact necessary funding does not exist.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 12:17:10 PM

And why does that necessary funding not exist? We want to brow beat education in this country, however we do not want to fund said education. The model of education in the South is deplorable, has always been deplorable, and yet, other areas of the country want to follow that broken model because it's a cheaper model and can allow for lower taxes.

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 12:26:04 PM

L.C. wrote:

The Situation wrote:

State law requires them to repay any unemployment benefits they received when they receive their back pay. They still are being paid for work they did not do, but they are not getting double payment.

A disconnect between the federal and state governments will undoubtly ensure the entire balance of funds are not returned. (to an appreciable extent)

A quote from the spokesman for the U.S. Labor Department:

"States will have to use the guidance we provide and apply it to their own state (unemployment insurance) laws. Some will make them pay it back, some will allow them to keep it," Kuruvilla said.

www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Some-furloughed-U-S-workers-may-double-dip-on-pay-4914534.php

By the way L.C., I really enjoy reading your informative posts on this topic and pretty much everything else you post about.

Last Edited: 10/22/2013 12:26:39 PM by The Situation

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 12:43:29 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Ah the modus operendi of an argument without a foundation: Distract, Attack, Blame.

Grambling does not have the money to field a football team (and likely many, many other curricular and extra-curricular activities). Bottom line.

So rather than talking about your ideals on how the whole country should be educated, why don't you agree that in fact, the money does not exist?

Spending beyond your means is a proven approach to changing your social/economic standing if executed properly (ie taking out a loan for a marketable education or profitible business opportunity). When you're talking about Grambling football, you're talking about a guy on food stamps with a cell phone and a satellite radio subscription.

P.S.

BTC,

I'd still love to hear your thoughts on excessive taxation as I outlined in an earlier post.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 1:27:34 PM

The Situation wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Ah the modus operendi of an argument without a foundation: Distract, Attack, Blame.

Grambling does not have the money to field a football team (and likely many, many other curricular and extra-curricular activities). Bottom line.

So rather than talking about your ideals on how the whole country should be educated, why don't you agree that in fact, the money does not exist?

P.S.

BTC,

I'd still love to hear your thoughts on excessive taxation as I outlined in an earlier post.

Nothing about my post that is Distract, Attack, Blame. It's a basic fact that Lousiana has slashed their spending on education. Who am I blaming? Not sure I've blamed anyone! Yet as a collective group our leaders want to berate the educational system then at the same time they want to defund the same said system. The money does exist, the issue is more the priority of where they spend the money. The future of this country lies in the youth, and when we deprive the youth of opportunities and resources what are we doing to the future of this country?

States like Arizona and New Hampshire have cut funding for higher education by 50%, what is the ramifications of this? Are we turning out qualified and educated workers? Many studies and industries say no.

So please refresh my memory by telling me how I am distracting? Attacking? Blaming? (I'll give you this, I am blaming policy makers for making choices that are tearing education in America apart).

And, I am off topic in that I am no longer talking specifically about Grambling Football, but rather the entire state of Higher Ed, especially in the South.

Last Edited: 10/22/2013 1:34:11 PM by BillyTheCat

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 1:31:16 PM

My thoughts on excessive taxation, are the same, show me where we have excessive taxation. I will give you that you are taxed when you make it, spend it, etc....but do you not see value when you use the tools of our civilization? Do you not drive on paved roads, do you not have police and fire protection, basic emergency services? Public transportation, schools that benefit your communities.

I never said the tax system was ideal, but no one has yet explained what excessive was, I see in everyday life the benefits of tax dollars at work. Is there waste? yes, but where is there not waste? Should we work to trim waste? YES, if that can be done without creating another layer of waste.

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 1:34:39 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Is there waste? yes, but where is there not waste? Should we work to trim waste? YES, if that can be done without creating another layer of waste.

Good to see you've come around.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 1:35:26 PM

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 1:36:03 PM

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,478

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 1:40:25 PM

Robert Fox wrote:

BillyTheCat wrote:

Is there waste? yes, but where is there not waste? Should we work to trim waste? YES, if that can be done without creating another layer of waste.

Good to see you've come around.

I never once said anything to the contrary, but I do not get the entire excessive taxation of the Tea Party, which is where I started in on this.

Showing Replies:	51 - 75 of 130 Posts
Jump to Page:	< Previous 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 Next >

View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics

There are 269 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

268 Guests
1 Registered User:
	GraffZ06

There are no other users looking at this page.