Ah those liberals...so kind, so loving...so cheap...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Chum, now you are trying to have it both ways. What is the difference in Mac or I giving our money to charity to help people and Uncle Sam giving the money to people to help people?

I'll tell you the difference again. Mac and I believe that we can pick better ways to spend the money to help people than Uncle Sam can...

The point is that typically people don't oppose progressive taxes on the wealthy for the reason that the money is being used inefficiently toward charitable causes; generally they oppose it on the grounds that it is the wealthy who create jobs and drive the economy (so if they have to pay more taxes the economy will suffer).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn...28.6% from Mac...

what? he gave the "charity" money to "The John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation". a rather public way to donate eh?

now, I commend john and cindy mccain for sharing their wealth with others, and john mccain has given the royalties from his book to charity as well. they have a lot of wealth, and it's great they give some of it to orgaizations like the humane society, halo foundation (landmine removal) and the craniofacial org that helps afflicted children.

one's level of contributions reveal nothing about their "character", after all al capone was known to give away a lot of money, too....

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let me get this straight. How do you expect this play with the electorate? We've got high unemployment, a high rate of home foreclosures, high gas prices squeezing the economy...and you think folks are going to be impressed that Mac gives 28% of his income to charity?

I don't really understand your angle here. What, vote for the guy who is so rich that he doesn't need a very large portion of his income? 'Cause he feels your pain?

For that matter, why should the wealthy be concerned with higher tax rates, if they aren't using their wealth to create jobs and grow the economy anyway, as the argument goes, but instead are giving it away?

Those dogs will have a hard time hunting.

Quite a few people feel since they worked and earned the money, it gives them the right to disperse it in ways that they feel best. I was watching Obama's interview with O'reilly, who was asking how much of his income was a fair amount to give to taxes. There was the usual bantering followed by the normal justification of "you can afford it". Perhaps that's true, however that ignores the fact that he will also dispense it with some idea of the effort it took to earn it. For all the correctly criticized pillaging of the US robber barons prior to the introduction of the personal income tax, I wonder if all those Carnegie Libraries and Museums in towns that could never afford them otherwise would be there.

The idea that "rich" people want to hoard their money and keep it is wrong. They hate seeing it wasted by people who have no idea the of effort it took to make it. Walk into any small to midsize town hospital, school or church and the odds are high you will see plaques denoting how the money earned there, stays there. The bean counter government passing out checks that will be spent on God knows what pisses them off. Using the IRS to distribute money to people who are not paying Federal Income Tax in the first place is not "tax relief". It may be a needed thing, even noble, but be honest about it.

I heard a State politician a year or so ago complaining about not getting sales tax from online purchases. The Dude said, and I quote "We are missing out on a big share of our revenue". Kind of sums up the difference many people have with private charities and having it ripped from them under threats of imprisonment and fines. They amazing thing is needing to explain it.

[Mavdog]

there is a great history of charity by the wealthy in america. philantropy is as american as apple pie.

but let's not get too carried away here, there's a reason that we know that these wealthy individuals gave out their wealth, after all look at their names on the libraries, halls and hospital wings they funded. not very many have been anonymous.

the point made by that local politician re: online taxes not being paid, the money being spent online for goods is taken from the local merchant. first, the online merchant doesn't pay any entity sales taxes, so it is a hole, and second the purchaser would otherwise buy that product locally and pay a sales tax on the purchase, so it is a loss to both the local and state taxing authorities.

those missed taxes btw are not able to be reinvested in local police, or roads, or infrastructure.

how that has anything to do with charity or philantropy is beyond me tho...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Quite a few people feel since they worked and earned the money, it gives them the right to disperse it in ways that they feel best.

I think it's a question of how individualistic you think our society at large is. In other words, is it every man for himself?

It is certainly not every man for himself, I am sure you will agree. We all enjoy the benefit of having a military that will protect our ass. We pay something for that. We all enjoy an economy that allows us to earn good money at our jobs. We pay something for that. Folks in other countries work and earn their money, too, except many of them don't earn the same money for the same work.

The roads you drive on, the schools you attend, the libraries you visit, the polling places where you cast your vote...they all cost something.

If you think it's "your" money because "you" earned it, and you can best see fit how to dispense it, then you probably don't agree with the "Country First" theme that McCain puts forward.

Is it you, or is it your country?

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The point is that typically people don't oppose progressive taxes on the wealthy for the reason that the money is being used inefficiently toward charitable causes; generally they oppose it on the grounds that it is the wealthy who create jobs and drive the economy (so if they have to pay more taxes the economy will suffer).

People also think it's counter productive to actually penalize achievement. The idea that the government gets 50-80% of your income is abhorrent to many of us. Skipping over the assumption that the decision of what you get to keep is best made by people who keep their jobs promising bread and circuses to the people who get the benefits without the sacrifice misses a big part of the debate.

There's a whole lot of room in the definition of wealthy and what efficient is.

Going with the assumption that Republicans think the private sector is more efficient at taking your swag and getting to the people without bleeding a bunch of it to paper shufflers, then actually doing it, speaks volumes to me.

Saying you're the party who cares about the downtrodden and is willing to prove it by using other peoples money is also consistent. It doesn't mean he's selfish, or a petty human being. I'm not saying you can't do tremendous good with this method, it has and is. The number of people pouring in at great risk illegally proves it.

But if I have to chose someone to help decide the proper blend of those methods, give me someone who is actually doing both.

[chumdawg]

Bread and circuses? That's the argument? Really?

I'm pretty sure that most folks see past that.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is a great history of charity by the wealthy in america. philantropy is as american as apple pie.

but let's not get too carried away here, there's a reason that we know that these wealthy individuals gave out their wealth, after all look at their names on the libraries, halls and hospital wings they funded. not very many have been anonymous.

the point made by that local politician re: online taxes not being paid, the money being spent online for goods is taken from the local merchant. first, the online merchant doesn't pay any entity sales taxes, so it is a hole, and second the purchaser would otherwise buy that product locally and pay a sales tax on the purchase, so it is a loss to both the local and state taxing authorities.

those missed taxes btw are not able to be reinvested in local police, or roads, or infrastructure.

how that has anything to do with charity or philantropy is beyond me tho...

Good points. I'm not trying to say it's a cut and dried thing. But assuming:
The delivery company isn't buying fuel and paying taxes supporting those same roads

The company isn't needing access to power and infrastructure.

The local merchant has the ability to offer the same mix of product and price

The company isn't already paying the toll where they actually use those things

There would actually be a transaction without that structure, the RIAA logic of lost sales seems apt here.

The good consumers reap in benefits and lifestyle is less important than the amount of money government can siphon off.

The go-go 90's was running on the boom in ecommerce, an economy that could have been a shell of itself if your logic had been widely accepted.

You didn't see the relevance of my comment about the local politician because while I was irritated at a guy who thought I was a Pez dispenser of "revenue", and he was entitled to my money just because, you automatically assumed he was entitled.

If you take away the point of local merchants needing artificial barriers to compete, the rest fall apart. My video card from Newegg doesn't impact all the things you listed anymore than the fruitcake my aunt sends me UPS each Christmas.

I wasn't real clear in my post, but the tenuous and thin tie in was it illustrated the ideological difference between someone who advocates faith based, private sector action and someone who leans tax based social programs.

Pure conjecture, and probably wrong but I found it interesting.

[Mavdog]

I'm not advocating taxing on lione purchases btw, yet I see why the abscence of taxes is inequitable.

the online merchant is a parasite...they get the benefits without paying for them. they don't pay for the security the police provide, the roads that the consumer uses to get to work. they don't pay for the trash collection that takes away the refuse from the package they send to the consumer.

sure the local merchant can compete, they can offer the same goods at the same price (or maybe less), yet they cannot do what the online merchant can provide: sell the product without the consumer having to leave his house.

and they would need to discount their product 8.25% (if free shipping) or some variation to match the fact the consumer does not pay the tax online.

and no, the go go 90's was riding a boom in productivity more than anything else.

there is a huge difference in faith based social systems and the tax based systems, the tax based systems don't try to sell their faith.

[92bDad]

The problem is the very real perseption of the two parties.

The "R" are known for less taxes to all.

The "D" are known for higher taxes to all.

Where do those taxes go?

I would prefer to give less in taxes, so that our government is smaller. Spending on National Defense is perhaps the single biggest government entity and item of responsibility.

As for roads...why not privatize the roads, set up tool roads, like we see in Europe. The roads are better and the companies are profitable with the ability to keep the roads in good shape. I look around Dallas and see 190 and Nort Tollway as examples of successful private roads. They will continue to improve and profit...we the consumer will continue to have choices. As these roads profit, they can pay additional fees/taxes for use of public lands, of which that money can be used to maintain existing non-private roads.

Sorry for the side track...

At the end of the day, I want to be the responsible for re-distributing my income. My first payment each payday is my Church tithe. This is my choice, but also I have learned that if I look at a checkbook, we can see where our heart is...am I a slave to posessions or something else. I choose to make my first commitment to God.

I also give to other charitable organizations (World Vision) - panhandlers (Yes, I actually on occassion carry food in my car and give food to panhandlers) if they want cash, I refer them to a local church, perhaps other needs can be met through them. - also I give to various family needs, not as noble as WMB, but I do understand these.

What would one consider kids activities? Things that the school does, field trips etc...this is a public school...what about non-school sports - dues that are used to pay for fields, coaches and scholarships for other kids in financial needs?

I am not asking the government to pay for these things, and in some cases, I am contributing along with others to provide for other kids who are in financial binds.

What are the merits of a child getting an opportunity to play 'Club' ball?

I would rather my money go to things that I value and see as being important to make my community better.

The problem, as I see it, is in the recepient...we as people like to give, it's human nature...what we don't like is when the recepient treats us as if they expect us to give...the government doesn't act like we are a customer, they don't appreciate the Tax Donations that people give...they don't respect the people who paying taxes and they act like those in need are more valuable than those who support them.

Taxes make me feel as though I am being violated, used and abused. But giving to charity is giving out of love.

Maybe this is more difficult to explain than I thought...but I believe that someone with a servants heart will serve with their finances as well as their time. I would prefer a servent leader be the leader of our nation, than one who doesn't understand what it means to give sacrificially.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Ahem...per theOne he is definitely therich. $321,379. he'll be in for some hefty income re-distribution.

not by McCaine's definition of rich....

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn...28.6% from Mac...

yep... very generous.... its GOOD to be able to live off your sugarmomma heiress wife (whom I believe does NOT release her tax forms... but I may be wrong there)

[mcsluggo]

and one final note....

I would imagine that the difference in "charitable giving" between liberals and conservatives can largely be explained 100% by one variable: church giving.

many liberals do not give to churches at all, many conservatives tythe to their churches


personally, I give to my church AND I give to charities... but I give more to the church, and i frankly don't really consider that as "charitable giving"

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

personally, I give to my church AND I give to charities... but I give more to the church, and i frankly don't really consider that as "charitable giving"

Until tax season, right?

I give to my church as well, and absolutely consider it charitable when I file my taxes.

[mcsluggo]

when I file my taxes...? of course!

tax law is a very poor place to search for definitions of social norms

(but I would guess that many others who give alot to the church DO view it as intrinsically "charitable"... I just don't. I think it is a unique stand alone category.)

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'm not advocating taxing on lione purchases btw, yet I see why the abscence of taxes is inequitable.

the online merchant is a parasite...they get the benefits without paying for them. they don't pay for the security the police provide, the roads that the consumer uses to get to work. they don't pay for the trash collection that takes away the refuse from the package they send to the consumer.

sure the local merchant can compete, they can offer the same goods at the same price (or maybe less), yet they cannot do what the online merchant can provide: sell the product without the consumer having to leave his house.

and they would need to discount their product 8.25% (if free shipping) or some variation to match the fact the consumer does not pay the tax online.

and no, the go go 90's was riding a boom in productivity more than anything else.

there is a huge difference in faith based social systems and the tax based systems, the tax based systems don't try to sell their faith.

Don't want to highjack this thread any further, looks like I hit a nerve.

The local merchant will not be able to offer 100,000 items in each town. Besides, most of the tears you're shedding are now for Walmart, not Bobs hardware. He couldn't compete there either. It's called economy of scale. There is no way local merchants could come anywhere close to the selection and breath, 8% surcharge or not.

Buy.com gives value far above just in home shopping. Sears and Montgomery Wards, Pennys and all the traditional catalogs got smoked just like Pete's Pedal Pushers. Let me know the next time your Sears catalog gets there.

The customer pays for waste removal on their own garbage, unless Delmonte pays for those empty corn cans you toss. Online merchants don't need to pay for all that stuff you seem to think they do, because they don't use them. People do. The trucks they deliver on pay taxes to support the roads they use. The people loading and routing pay taxes. You want to put barriers to make people pay more money to shore up a business model that's noncompetitive.

You keep skipping over the idea of the benefit to the individual consumer, and lamenting lost tax revenue. Amazon pays for all those services in places where they have warehouses and workers who do need all the stuff. They aren't parasites.

A parasite lives off a host and doesn't return any benefits. Probably not going to the the perception of most Amazon customers.

It was called the dotcom boom, not the productivity boom.

If you don't think government programs aren't pushing an agenda, you need to take a deeper look. The Salvation Army doesn't make people read a Bible verse before they pass out food. Many see the work they do as a service to whatever deity they prefer, and it's selfish in that the work brings them closer. The vast majority use attraction and not promotion.

The Golden Rule and all that. It's not multilevel marketing. Just for clarification, I'm way closer to Atheism than WWJD. That doesn't make me blind to the motivations I've seen.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think it's a question of how individualistic you think our society at large is. In other words, is it every man for himself?

It is certainly not every man for himself, I am sure you will agree. We all enjoy the benefit of having a military that will protect our ass. We pay something for that. We all enjoy an economy that allows us to earn good money at our jobs. We pay something for that. Folks in other countries work and earn their money, too, except many of them don't earn the same money for the same work.

The roads you drive on, the schools you attend, the libraries you visit, the polling places where you cast your vote...they all cost something.

If you think it's "your" money because "you" earned it, and you can best see fit how to dispense it, then you probably don't agree with the "Country First" theme that McCain puts forward. Is it you, or is it your country?

Not at all. I've never said anything anywhere near what you imply. I give blood on a regular basis. I have one of the less common types, and I hope others do the same because I might need it some day. Doesn't mean I think taking 3 pints at a time is really a good idea. Or I think the private agencies collecting the blood need to become a government agency because it would make them more efficient.

Not biting on your either or strawman. It is my money. I did earn it. I'm asked to vote for people and proposals that differentiate themselves using that criteria. Or, did you miss all the talk about tax relief in this election?


Assuming online entities automatically need to raise the price of goods to feed a local government gives no advantage to the customer might seem to make sense to some, but not me. People often chose where they live, businesses locate based on the cost of living and the level of taxation. Government is supposed to exist for the benefit of the people. You seem to think the opposite. Roads, schools and the like are paid through agreed upon contributions by each to lower the cost to all.

The fact that taxes are needed for all the beneficial things you listed is not the same as all taxes are beneficial, no matter how much you want them to be.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Not at all. I've never said anything anywhere near what you imply. I give blood on a regular basis. I have one of the less common types, and I hope others do the same because I might need it some day. Doesn't mean I think taking 3 pints at a time is really a good idea. Or I think the private agencies collecting the blood need to become a government agency because it would make them more efficient.

Not biting on your either or strawman. It is my money. I did earn it. I'm asked to vote for people and proposals that differentiate themselves using that criteria. Or, did you miss all the talk about tax relief in this election?


Assuming online entities automatically need to raise the price of goods to feed a local government gives no advantage to the customer might seem to make sense to some, but not me. People often chose where they live, businesses locate based on the cost of living and the level of taxation. Government is supposed to exist for the benefit of the people. You seem to think the opposite. Roads, schools and the like are paid through agreed upon contributions by each to lower the cost to all.

The fact that taxes are needed for all the beneficial things you listed is not the same as all taxes are beneficial, no matter how much you want them to be.

I just had to bold and underline what you wrote.

[dude1394]

Crap...biden's cheaper than scrooge. Last years charity was almost 3x what he's been giving. Heh..

[quote]Update: TaxProf provides a nice table summarizing Biden's tax history:

[Arne]

Isn't it the candidates business which amount of money to give to charity? Personally, I don't care.

Any candidate that would increase spending would never ever get my vote. Any candidate that would further increase the empire would never ever get my vote. Any candidate who thinks it's funny to sing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" would never ever get my vote. Any candidate who has Brezinsky on his foreign policy team wouldn't get my vote. There are lots of other things, but what these people do with their privately earned money is none of my business. It's just another distraction from the real issues.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Don't want to highjack this thread any further, looks like I hit a nerve.

oh no, not at all. as I mentioned earlier I'm not on a soapbox to change the current situation, but it is an inequitable situation nonetheless.

The local merchant will not be able to offer 100,000 items in each town. Besides, most of the tears you're shedding are now for Walmart, not Bobs hardware. He couldn't compete there either. It's called economy of scale. There is no way local merchants could come anywhere close to the selection and breath, 8% surcharge or not.

it is the small retailer that is getting hurt the most, walmart can a) provide more selection (sku's) due to their huge store sizes, b) put the goods on the shelf cheaper than anybody this side of the virtual store, and c) has already beat the snot out of the small merchant by their buying power.

ask yourself, do we really need to have a selection of "100,000 items"? nah.

Buy.com gives value far above just in home shopping. Sears and Montgomery Wards, Pennys and all the traditional catalogs got smoked just like Pete's Pedal Pushers. Let me know the next time your Sears catalog gets there.

jcpenney has done a very good job of making the changes to keep themselves relevant. sears? not so much. wards? they're history already.

The customer pays for waste removal on their own garbage, unless Delmonte pays for those empty corn cans you toss. Online merchants don't need to pay for all that stuff you seem to think they do, because they don't use them. People do. The trucks they deliver on pay taxes to support the roads they use. The people loading and routing pay taxes. You want to put barriers to make people pay more money to shore up a business model that's noncompetitive.

the homeowner doesn't cover all the costs of trash pickup, the trucks do not pay for the building or the maintanence of the local streets, nor the lighting of those streets. not for the street lights that allow for the delivery of the goods.

the local municipalities get the vast majority of their funds from sales taxes. if you take that funding away, local services and investment in infrastructure will be hurt.

You keep skipping over the idea of the benefit to the individual consumer, and lamenting lost tax revenue. Amazon pays for all those services in places where they have warehouses and workers who do need all the stuff. They aren't parasites.

A parasite lives off a host and doesn't return any benefits. Probably not going to the the perception of most Amazon customers.

I wonder where that amazon warehouse is here in dallas...what, they don't have one?

yep, they don't provide any renumeration to the cities where they pull tax revenue from.

the point is that online retailing is receiving a very real benefit from the lack of taxes on the sales the make. as online sales levels increase it will be more and more of a problem. many states, notably new york, are getting much more aggressive in attempting to collect these sales taxes. the issue is not going away, it's getting more pronounced.

[aquaadverse]

"it is the small retailer that is getting hurt the most, walmart can a) provide more selection (sku's) due to their huge store sizes, b) put the goods on the shelf cheaper than anybody this side of the virtual store, and c) has already beat the snot out of the small merchant by their buying power.

ask yourself, do we really need to have a selection of "100,000 items"? nah."

Speak for yourself. Choice means someone is going to try to improve a product to snag my money. This is the same logic of a eunuch explaining how being a harem guard has given him less distractions.

"jcpenney has done a very good job of making the changes to keep themselves relevant. sears? not so much. wards? they're history already."


Sears kicks Penny's ass in size and revenue. I could have said Speigles or other catalog company. If you want to stay local, how's CompUsa and Computer City and Incredible Universe doing? Radio Shack?

"the homeowner doesn't cover all the costs of trash pickup, the trucks do not pay for the building or the maintanence of the local streets, nor the lighting of those streets. not for the street lights that allow for the delivery of the goods.

the local municipalities get the vast majority of their funds from sales taxes. if you take that funding away, local services and investment in infrastructure will be hurt."

Maybe in Dallas. Here in my city, trash collection and all the other expenses are subbed out, with the costs borne by them. I keep waiting for the explanation of how it's different from the fruitcake I get mailed from my aunt.

"I wonder where that amazon warehouse is here in dallas...what, they don't have one?

yep, they don't provide any renumeration to the cities where they pull tax revenue from.

the point is that online retailing is receiving a very real benefit from the lack of taxes on the sales the make. as online sales levels increase it will be more and more of a problem. many states, notably new york, are getting much more aggressive in attempting to collect these sales taxes. the issue is not going away, it's getting more pronounced."

Amazon is also not using any land, electricity or any of the other items you seem to think they should be paying for. They do so in the local where they actually use them. Next time a company is looking for a state to relocate, I guess there should be a surcharge so the income tax other states have is negated as a plus. The assets they do use, like delivery services do pay. I don't see the logic in making artificial barriers and ignoring the reality that markets and goods taking advantage of the advances technology brings as a good thing. You won't see much of a traditional downtown anymore, because they can't compete with the new reality. Amazon has figured out a way to move goods without needing a local building. Dell did the same. Adapt.

Your own State has profited greatly as a right to work state. I don't see the state of Michigan insisting you pay the lost taxes because you aren't forced to pay the union wages and personal income tax.

No one is stopping Billy Bob's Bone Sucking Sauce from taking advantage of the same system Newegg uses. I'm not saying online retailers don't have an advantage. But it's not an unfair one. Companies with a presence in the state do collect and pay the tax. If I order online with Radio Shack, I pay them sales tax.

New York is one of the highest taxed states in the country. Perhaps the issue isn't really what you think.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Speak for yourself. Choice means someone is going to try to improve a product to snag my money. This is the same logic of a eunuch explaining how being a harem guard has given him less distractions.

"choice" is not an improvement in a product, it's an improvement of the # of products. huge difference.

choice is also inefficient.

Sears kicks Penny's ass in size and revenue. I could have said Speigles or other catalog company. If you want to stay local, how's CompUsa and Computer City and Incredible Universe doing? Radio Shack?

jcp kicks sears ass in profits...and speigels is bk. jcp also kicks amazon's ass in profits.
was there a point you were trying to make?

Maybe in Dallas. Here in my city, trash collection and all the other expenses are subbed out, with the costs borne by them. I keep waiting for the explanation of how it's different from the fruitcake I get mailed from my aunt.

so no one is paying for trash collections, or street maintanence, or the street lights, or the police in your community?
oh, it's the city who pays? and the city gets their $ from where?
uh huh, sales taxes.
but not any taxes from amazon...

Amazon is also not using any land, electricity or any of the other items you seem to think they should be paying for. They do so in the local where they actually use them.

"land, electricity"??? you're not following very well, I never mentioned those.

Next time a company is looking for a state to relocate, I guess there should be a surcharge so the income tax other states have is negated as a plus. The assets they do use, like delivery services do pay. I don't see the logic in making artificial barriers and ignoring the reality that markets and goods taking advantage of the advances technology brings as a good thing. You won't see much of a traditional downtown anymore, because they can't compete with the new reality. Amazon has figured out a way to move goods without needing a local building. Dell did the same. Adapt.

I suggest you look at the downtowns in most cities, they have come back very nicely.
these are not "artificial barriers", in fact they aren't "barriers" at all.

Your own State has profited greatly as a right to work state. I don't see the state of Michigan insisting you pay the lost taxes because you aren't forced to pay the union wages and personal income tax.

are there taxes on union wages? didn't think so...
if a texas resident earns money working in michigan, they have to pay the income tax on those earnings to the great state of michigan. seems your example supports my argument...

No one is stopping Billy Bob's Bone Sucking Sauce from taking advantage of the same system Newegg uses. I'm not saying online retailers don't have an advantage. But it's not an unfair one. Companies with a presence in the state do collect and pay the tax. If I order online with Radio Shack, I pay them sales tax.

equality and equal treatment for all.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Crap...biden's cheaper than scrooge. Last years charity was almost 3x what he's been giving. Heh..

Update: TaxProf provides a nice table summarizing Biden's tax history:

I find this chart especially funny, given what Biden said today about paying taxes....

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/.../biden_taxes_3

Based on Biden's income, he's one of the wealthy, who according to Obama/Biden, should be paying more.

[chumdawg]

You find it funny that Biden, as a wealthy person, would encourage other wealthy persons to chip in and help the government?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I find this chart especially funny, given what Biden said today about paying taxes....



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/.../biden_taxes_3

Based on Biden's income, he's one of the wealthy, who according to Obama/Biden, should be paying more.

uhm... I think you might be reading the chart backwards (?)

the higher up entries are more recent... taxes went up over time

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

and one final note....

I would imagine that the difference in "charitable giving" between liberals and conservatives can largely be explained 100% by one variable: church giving.

many liberals do not give to churches at all, many conservatives tythe to their churches


personally, I give to my church AND I give to charities... but I give more to the church, and i frankly don't really consider that as "charitable giving"

one of Brook's findings was not only do conservatives give more money, but they donate more blood as well -- that is inarguably not a churth tythe.

and I don't think that I can agree that church giving is in any sense anything other than charitable giving -- why would a $100 donation to a local art musuem be any different than a $100 donation at the church????

but I still think the more interesting finding is that higher charitiable giving is correlated with lower levels of income --> the lesson here (I believe) is that the voluntary support from the neighbor, the fellow church member, the family member is the foundation of civil society.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You find it funny that Biden, as a wealthy person, would encourage other wealthy persons to chip in and help the government?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

It was discussed earlier in this thread (or perhaps another) that Charitable Giving was done for the benefit of those in need. I believe it was you who said taxes are done for the same reason. So if taxes and charitable giving are done for the same reason, and if Biden gives so little in charity, then by his own words, he is less patriotic. That is why I find it funny.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

but I still think the more interesting finding is that higher charitiable giving is correlated with lower levels of income --> the lesson here (I believe) is that the voluntary support from the neighbor, the fellow church member, the family member is the foundation of civil society.

So then by Biden's conclusion, those who make less are more patriotic.

[12 Tone Melodies]

And don't pay well either
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...ZlZTc0MWFmYzY=
[B]How Team Obama Pays Women
Pay equity for thee, but not for me.[/B]
By Deroy Murdock

‘Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said August 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: “I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.”

Obama’s campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading “Fighting for Pay Equity,” the women’s issues page laments that, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act…”

Obama’s commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his United States Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. “We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible,” its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm’s official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

The most recent statistics are for the half-year from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. Excluding interns focuses one’s attention on the full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last February 29, prorating their salary up to six months’ service simplifies the analysis, since we can then double the half-year amounts to figure the annual salary of Senate employees.

Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women among Obama’s highest-compensated employees. Of Obama’s five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

On average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.

When Alaska governor Sarah Palin was named the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio, on August 31 that “she’s opposed — like John McCain is — to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Obama’s criticism notwithstanding, McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.

McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in John McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, ceteris paribus, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart — while adding $10,726 to her annual income — by leaving Barack Obama’s office and going to work for John McCain.

How could this be?

One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain’s highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women — much more than men — for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels. (For a detailed analysis of these figures, click here.)

In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama — at the expense of the women who work for him — quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

one of Brook's findings was not only do conservatives give more money, but they donate more blood as well -- that is inarguably not a churth tythe.

and I don't think that I can agree that church giving is in any sense anything other than charitable giving -- why would a $100 donation to a local art musuem be any different than a $100 donation at the church????

but I still think the more interesting finding is that higher charitiable giving is correlated with lower levels of income --> the lesson here (I believe) is that the voluntary support from the neighbor, the fellow church member, the family member is the foundation of civil society.

Yes interesting all... (I inagine that the poorer give a higher percent)

the blood drive thing IS a good proxy for what I think of as true "charitable" giving, which does indeed often get organized by and around local churches (that was where I tried to give blood the last time.. but giving blood makes me skeezy--- and the nurse sent me away when I started looking green... thus supporting the basic premise that liberals are greedy, PARTICULARY with their own blood)

but my point was that most of what I give in the main collection basket is for buildings and parking lots and priest pensions and lawsuits (it IS a chatholic church, after all) etc... most of the CHARITABLE giving from our church comes from "second collection baskets" into which we throw some loose bills (and are thus not able to deduct) and it tends to be less than we put in our regular "contribution envelope". We also give some time and money to random causes outside of church... but less all the time, i am loath to admit.

That all said, I agree with your point that giving to a new art museum, or to a campaign to stop a sewage treatment plant from moving into your neighborhood, or whatever are bad proxies for waht I think of as "charitable giving" as well...

In the end, I agree with your basic assessment that small coherent stable subsocieties really are where a big proportion of true charity is generated. In the bigger communities, with more turnover and less of a coherent feeling and more heterogeneity (read: people look and act less like each other) charity tends to fade and die off...

[aquaadverse]

The stuff you think is paid for by sales tax, is paid by utilities bills to individuals using it. Garbage, cable and light poles are paid for from the companies who got the contracts and bill me, either individually or through the municipality who skim the overhead first. I pay for the water I use, the electricity I burn, I pay for. Police, schools and the other municipal services are overwhelmingly paid by property taxes with the idea that people using them need to be paid by the ones using it.

Unions don't pay tax, but nonright to work states have laws that make it more expensive to do business there, just like needing to pay sales tax on your sales in a brick and mortar store is law.

The government has taken the stance that it is more advantageous to the overall economy and the benefit to the consumer to allow internet commerce unfettered and had a wink wink nudge nudge policy of putting the onus on the customer to report the sales and pay the tax.

Big computer and electronics stores went under because you are so wrong in the stance that choice and selection at a lower price is somehow inefficient. Some needs to tell Starbucks they could have been a lot more profitable if they only had regular and decaffeinated. I watched my Mother and her friends drive 3 hours each way to a larger city each fall to Christmas shop. Silly them.

If you want to say it's inefficient to have to stock every physical store with every item I'll agree. If you say it's unfair to not force those business who have found a better way to delivery goods and services at a cheaper price solely to prop up a money flow to my city and state coffers, I'll go with them needing to figure out how to deal with reality and not artificially remove the advantages.

If you don't think the vast majority of downtowns are trying all manner of programs and incentives to return to a fraction of what they had 40 years ago, or you can have your car serviced, shop for books and appliances and midpriced clothing, see movies and have a chance to socialize with local citizens at the same rate at the local mall, you need to travel more. For every downtown that has gentrified with little specialized shops and restaurants there are a thousand with empty storefronts and people in the line of work of giving money for your blood.

If I put money into Amazon a decade ago and you did the same with JCP, you would see the difference between profit and market cap.

As to the rest, the pretzel logic of local government having dibs on my discretionary income

[aquaadverse]

Double posted somehow. Opps.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

The stuff you think is paid for by sales tax, is paid by utilities bills to individuals using it. Garbage, cable and light poles are paid for from the companies who got the contracts and bill me, either individually or through the municipality who skim the overhead first. I pay for the water I use, the electricity I burn, I pay for. Police, schools and the other municipal services are overwhelmingly paid by property taxes with the idea that people using them need to be paid by the ones using it.

first, trash charges in the city of dallas does not cover 100% of the costs. second, the street lights, the traffic signals, the street upkeep are paid by the city. last, the number one revenue souce of cities is sales tax, not property taxes, and the online merchant doesn't pay any property taxes either.

Unions don't pay tax, but nonright to work states have laws that make it more expensive to do business there, just like needing to pay sales tax on your sales in a brick and mortar store is law.

uh, ok, so is there a relevant point to the above?

Big computer and electronics stores went under because you are so wrong in the stance that choice and selection at a lower price is somehow inefficient.

wow, you need to call best buy and tell them they "went under"...call fry's and tell them too.

nobody said "choice and selection at a lower price is somehow inefficient". that is the very mantra that has made walmart dominant.

Some needs to tell Starbucks they could have been a lot more profitable if they only had regular and decaffeinated. I watched my Mother and her friends drive 3 hours each way to a larger city each fall to Christmas shop. Silly them.

don't look now but starbucks HAS decreased the number of brewed coffees they have at all times, although that has nothing to do with what this discussion is about.

"3 hours each way"? and there wasn't a walmart closer? odd.

If you want to say it's inefficient to have to stock every physical store with every item I'll agree. If you say it's unfair to not force those business who have found a better way to delivery goods and services at a cheaper price solely to prop up a money flow to my city and state coffers, I'll go with them needing to figure out how to deal with reality and not artificially remove the advantages.

on the average online prices are no lower than brick and mortar store prices. is it a "better way to deliver"? depends on the product. commodity items tend to do better online, specialty products tend to do better in traditional store venues.

s for "prop up a money flow", in the case of city services it's bottom line reinbursement issue. there are costs to city services that are paid for by revenue sources such as sales taxes, and as I've shown ad nauseum those costs are not paid by online merchants while these online merchants benefit from them.

If you don't think the vast majority of downtowns are trying all manner of programs and incentives to return to a fraction of what they had 40 years ago, or you can have your car serviced, shop for books and appliances and midpriced clothing, see movies and have a chance to socialize with local citizens at the same rate at the local mall, you need to travel more. For every downtown that has gentrified with little specialized shops and restaurants there are a thousand with empty storefronts and people in the line of work of giving money for your blood.

If I put money into Amazon a decade ago and you did the same with JCP, you would see the difference between profit and market cap.

As to the rest, the pretzel logic of local government having dibs on my discretionary income

downtowns across america have had a burst of residential inmigration, and retail has followed. people like to have a place they can walk to, people like to have a place they congregate with other people. it's not the malls, those have declined in sales/sf and frequency of visits for several years.

online merchants should pay for the city servces thay use,, and today they do not. it's inequitable.

[aquaadverse]

"first, trash charges in the city of dallas does not cover 100% of the costs. second, the street lights, the traffic signals, the street upkeep are paid by the city. last, the number one revenue souce of cities is sales tax, not property taxes, and the online merchant doesn't pay any property taxes either."

Too bad about Dallas. Sounds like you need better city government. Maybe Jerry Jones can hook them up with someone from Arlington who knows how to do deals. It makes sense they don't pay property tax since they don't use property.

"nobody said "choice and selection at a lower price is somehow inefficient".

Nobody used your keyboard when you turned your back. He didn't say it perfectly, but close enough.

"choice" is not an improvement in a product, it's an improvement of the # of products. huge difference.

choice is also inefficient."

"wow, you need to call best buy and tell them they "went under"...call fry's and tell them too."
If you could ship TV's cheaply, they would be gone as well.

"3 hours each way"? and there wasn't a walmart closer? odd."

Not really. It was the 1960's in rural Northern Michigan.


"downtowns across america have had a burst of residential inmigration, and retail has followed. people like to have a place they can walk to, people like to have a place they congregate with other people. it's not the malls, those have declined in sales/sf and frequency of visits for several years."

I doubt you could find many cities of less than 25K or so that would agree with you. And that's still the majority.

"online merchants should pay for the city servces thay use,"

They do. Turn off all the traffic lights in Dallas and I doubt Amazon would be much affected. UPS, who does pay transportation related and business taxes would as part of their business.
My last post on this. I never wanted to totally hijack the thread, I doubt we can ever agree on it, so I'll agree to disagree.

[rabbitproof]

edit...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Too bad about Dallas. Sounds like you need better city government. Maybe Jerry Jones can hook them up with someone from Arlington who knows how to do deals. It makes sense they don't pay property tax since they don't use property.

gee, mayybe you need to inform the municipalities all across america that YOU know how they could do it better...like arlington, who uses sales tax as their primary revenue source too.

guess the "business property tax" is something that you're unfamiliar with, sorta like your unfamiliarity with sales tax revenues....

"nobody said "choice and selection at a lower price is somehow inefficient".

Nobody used your keyboard when you turned your back. He didn't say it perfectly, but close enough.

"choice" is not an improvement in a product, it's an improvement of the # of products. huge difference.

choice is also inefficient."

oh, so it didn't say "choice and selection at a lower price is inefficient"? didn't think so.

"choice" in retail= greater sku's= lower inventory turn=lower gross margin.

that is how it is "inefficient"?

If you could ship TV's cheaply, they would be gone as well.

that's a good joke!

I doubt you could find many cities of less than 25K or so that would agree with you. And that's still the majority.

"majority" of what? not the "majority" of people, they live in urban areas. or the "majority" of retail sales. either...just what "majority" do you mean?

They do. Turn off all the traffic lights in Dallas and I doubt Amazon would be much affected. UPS, who does pay transportation related and business taxes would as part of their business.

nah, all those deliveries that amazon sends out to people wouldn't be "affected" by gridlock, or all the streets without lights wouldn't "affect" the deliveries...

[aquaadverse]

"guess the "business property tax" is something that you're unfamiliar with, sorta like your unfamiliarity with sales tax revenues...."

Since I mentioned business tax in my last comment, hardly. I'm well aware of sales tax revenue. The city I live in gets a higher amount of revenue from property tax. We are a bedroom community with a comparative small amount of retail operations.

""majority" of what? not the "majority" of people, they live in urban areas. or the "majority" of retail sales. either...just what "majority" do you mean?"

Number of cities. Since I said 25K and cities, and never mentioned sales, I didn't figure it was that tough.

"oh, so it didn't say "choice and selection at a lower price is inefficient"? didn't think so.

"choice" in retail= greater sku's= lower inventory turn=lower gross margin.

that is how it is "inefficient"?

It's not when you don't actually need to stock them, as in a website. with Just in time and fulfillment warehouses filling orders. Amazon is not charged until they actually order in many cases. And they have already been paid before ordering. They keep some inventory on fast turn items, many are actually dropped /directly shipped from the manufacture or their agents. Choice is only a negative issue on the fulfillment side.

"nah, all those deliveries that amazon sends out to people wouldn't be "affected" by gridlock, or all the streets without lights wouldn't "affect" the deliveries.."

It wouldn't hurt Amazon much. You can make as good of a case for people who live in the suburbs and bring their lunch to work being parasites, more actually since that number dwarfs whatever deliveries from online sales are.

By the way, according to this : http://tinyurl.com/47m8v9
General Revenue was $720,868,734
Sales tax $184,234,503

Hardly most of the revenue.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Since I mentioned business tax in my last comment, hardly. I'm well aware of sales tax revenue. The city I live in gets a higher amount of revenue from property tax. We are a bedroom community with a comparative small amount of retail operations.

too bad, that's a wreck waiting to happen. you should move before your tax burden goes thru the roof

Number of cities. Since I said 25K and cities, and never mentioned sales, I didn't figure it was that tough.

what? is 25K poulation really a "city"? nah, that's a town.

btw was there a point to that insignifigant item?

It's not when you don't actually need to stock them, as in a website. with Just in time and fulfillment warehouses filling orders. Amazon is not charged until they actually order in many cases. And they have already been paid before ordering. They keep some inventory on fast turn items, many are actually dropped /directly shipped from the manufacture or their agents. Choice is only a negative issue on the fulfillment side.

oh yeah, you mean when you try to order and the website says "will be shipped in 7-10 business days"?

guess what, you can place a telephone call to any retail store and they'll order it for you too. it will get to you in about the same timeframe.

only the retail store pays for the the services they use to deliver the product, like streets and such. unlike merchants such as amazon.

it wouldn't hurt Amazon much. You can make as good of a case for people who live in the suburbs and bring their lunch to work being parasites, more actually since that number dwarfs whatever deliveries from online sales are.

no, people who bring their lunch purchase those products in stores that contribute to the sales tax revenue. pretty poor example.

and if "it wouldn't hurt amazon much", you're being absurd.

By the way, according to this : http://tinyurl.com/47m8v9
General Revenue was $720,868,734
Sales tax $184,234,503

Hardly most of the revenue.

great, 2003 data. nothing like being current...

btw, you have a very dishonest habit of mistating what people write. "most of the revenue" is not the same as "number one revenue source". try to do better.

[aquaadverse]

"no, people who bring their lunch purchase those products in stores that contribute to the sales tax revenue. pretty poor example."

If you're complaining people who purchase items outside of Dallas are depriving the city of sales tax revenue and driving on Dallas streets, stopping at Dallas stoplights, calling Dallas Police and using all the other resources unfairly and without contributing, it isn't a poor example. The food they buy in the suburban store to make the lunch, to bring in the car they bought in the suburban dealer filled with gas from the suburban gas station doesn't contribute to the Dallas sales tax as they make money they couldn't make if they didn't use the same resources. As a matter of fact, cities have imposed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_tax

"and if "it wouldn't hurt amazon much", you're being absurd."

If you think not delivering to Dallas would hurt Amazon in any significant way pertaining to either sales or profit you're being absurd.

"what? is 25K poulation really a "city"? nah, that's a town.

btw was there a point to that insignifigant item?"

Yeah. You wrote:

"I suggest you look at the downtowns in most cities, they have come back very nicely.
these are not "artificial barriers", in fact they aren't "barriers" at all."

Most cities in this country are under 25K in population and their downtowns have certainly not come back nicely. I suggest you stop splitting hairs over city and towns, since they call themselves cities as does every government entity.

"oh yeah, you mean when you try to order and the website says "will be shipped in 7-10 business days"?

guess what, you can place a telephone call to any retail store and they'll order it for you too. it will get to you in about the same timeframe.

only the retail store pays for the the services they use to deliver the product, like streets and such. unlike merchants such as amazon.

Now who's being absurd. Yeah, that's the same business.

"btw, you have a very dishonest habit of mistating what people write. "most of the revenue" is not the same as "number one revenue source". try to do better."

You should try to remember what you type:

"the local municipalities get the vast majority of their funds from sales taxes. if you take that funding away, local services and investment in infrastructure will be hurt."


And you have a very condescending way of having a discussion with all the use of quotations around grammatical errors and trying to belittle when you get called on incorrect logic. "try" to do better.