That's not an unimportant policy point. Saw some listserv chatter the other day about proposed legislation hitting IRAs and compacting the stretch. If so, that is outrageous policy. We've got millions of people out-borrowing their repayment capacities on homes/kids/lifestyles/educations/credit they can't afford, and our solution is to punish and disincentivize....saving? Amazing.
Are liberals dumb?
- Thread starter jhmd2000
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
That's not an unimportant policy point. Saw some listserv chatter the other day about proposed legislation hitting IRAs and compacting the stretch. If so, that is outrageous policy. We've got millions of people out-borrowing their repayment capacities on homes/kids/lifestyles/educations/credit they can't afford, and our solution is to punish and disincentivize....saving? Amazing.
Oh shut the fuck up. The computer models are shit and you have never once dared to look you asshole.
New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’
'Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.'
Tornadoes: 'lowest total in several decades'
Number of wildfires: 'On pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years'
Extreme Heat: The number of 100 degree days may 'turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records'
Hurricanes: 'We are currently in the longest period (8 years) since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)' ( last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma in 2005)
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotOctober 18, 2013 12:25 PM with 618 comments
[Also see: Gore still warning of 'extreme' weather, 'increasing storms' and 'other extreme events']
#
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘Interesting from @TheSIWeather 2013 ranks as one of the least extreme US weather years ever’
According to the latest analysis of data by the The SI Organization, Inc.
18 OCT/13 FRI
11:50 AM | 2013 – a year with minimal extreme weather events in the US
There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. The table below lists the number of tornadoes in the US for this year (through 10/17) and also for each year going back to 2000.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html)
Year # of Tornadoes
2013 771
2012 1119
2011 1894
2010 1543
2009 1305
2008 1685
2007 1102
2006 1117
2005 1262
2004 1820
2003 1374
2002 938
2001 1219
2000 1072
Second, the number of wildfires across the US so far this year is on pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period (table below).
(Source: National Interagency Fire Center; http://www.nifc.gov/)
2013 Fires: 40,306 Acres: 4,152,390
2012 Fires: 67,774 Acres: 9,326,238
2011 Fires: 74,126 Acres: 8,711,367
2010 Fires: 62,471 Acres: 3,233,461
2009 Fires: 78,792 Acres: 5,921,786
2008 Fires: 80,094 Acres: 5,254,109
2007 Fires: 85,822 Acres: 9,321,326
2006 Fires: 96,358 Acres: 9,871,939
2005 Fires: 66,552 Acres: 8,686,753
2004 Fires: 63,608 Acres: 8,097,880
*2013 data through 10/16
In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records.
(Source: NOAA, USHCN reporting stations; through August)
The five summers with the highest number of 100 degree days across the US are as follows: 1936, 1934, 1954, 1980 and 1930. In addition to the vast reduction in 100 degree days across the US this year, the number of high temperature records (ie hi max and hi min records) is way down compared to a year ago with 22,965 records this year as compared with 56,885 at this same time last year.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/; through 10/17).
Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned, there have been only two hurricanes so far this season in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms. Also, the first forming hurricane this year occurred at the second latest date going back to the mid 1940’s when hurricane hunters began to fly. Overall, the tropical season in the Atlantic Basin has been generally characterized by short-lived and weak systems.
In addition, this suppressed tropical activity has not been confined to just the Atlantic Ocean. The eastern Pacific Ocean has had no major hurricanes this season meaning there has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific which only occurred one other year in recorded history – 1968. This is actually quite extraordinary since the two basins are generally out of phase with each other i.e. when one is inactive the other is active.
One of the best ways to measure “total seasonal activity” in the tropics is through an index called the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) which is a metric that accounts for both intensity and duration of named tropical storms. Indeed, the ACE for this tropical season so far in the Atlantic Basin is only 29% percent of normal (through 10/17) when compared to the climatological average from 1981-2010 and it is the 7th lowest since 1950. Elsewhere, the ACE across the northern hemisphere is only 58% of normal and global ACE is 62% of normal.
(Source: Dr. Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics; http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php)
Finally, another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5). The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005 – let’s hope this historic stretch continues. By the way, just as a point of comparison, in 1954 the US was hit by 3 major hurricanes in less than 10 weeks.
More here: http://thesiweather.com/2013/10/18/...ith-minimal-extreme-weather-events-in-the-us/
Related Links:
New Report: ‘Extreme Weather Report 2012′: ‘Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is ‘unprecedented’ or a ‘new normal’
CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report
SPECIAL REPORT 2010: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
22
inShare
0
Filed under: astrology, avg, az, factsheet, heatwave, hurricanes, mkey, new study, tornados
« Climate Depot home
Archives
Recent Articles
Climategate’s Michael Mann finally getting recognition he deserves: Fellow warmist describes Mann’s latest papers as ‘a crock of sh*t’
Flashback February 6, 1851: 1/4th of Victoria burned in one day. 12 million acres and 1 million cattle. CO2 280 PPM
Warmists go full stupid: Claim: ‘Australian wildfires put heat on climate change sceptic Abbott’ – - Rebuttal: ‘Shane Fitzsimmons, said the state was facing its worst fire conditions since the 1960s’ CO2 320 PPM In 1965
Leading scientist: Linking the bushfire disaster in NSW to climate change is ‘absolute nonsense’
Moronic: Greens MP links Australia’s NSW bush fires to climate policy
Listen Now: Interview with The Man Who Debunked the Hockey Stick – ‘Talks with Ross McKitrick who, with Stephen McIntyre, debunked the famous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph used by the IPCC, Al Gore’
Watershed…Leading German Business Weekly Declares IPCC Science A Failure: ‘Time For A New Climate Policy’ – ‘Write of scientists using ‘horror scenarios’ to scare leaders into rash policymaking’
Geologist E. Kirsten Peters new book: ‘The Whole Story of Climate’ – ‘While the typical American has the impression that climate would be stable if it weren’t for industrialization and the production of greenhouse gases from smokestacks and cars, geologic history in fact reveals a ceaselessly changing climate running back into the time thousands of years before the modern economy’
Geologist E. Kirsten Peters: She warns cold spell near? – Geologist digs deeper on climate change
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘The amount of time and funding that has been wasted by using climate models for purposes for which that are unfit, may eventually be judged to be colossal”
The age of climate alarmism is coming to an end: ‘Given the IPCC’ s five tries to convince the world that human activity is causing catastrophic warming of the planet, runaway sea-level rise and various weather disasters, the public still doesn’t buy it’
Antarctic sea ice still at record high — where is springtime melt? ‘Temperatures at the South Pole show 30 years of climate sameness’
New Report: CO2 emissions in last 50 years made us $3.5 Trillion wealthier – ‘Millions of people are alive today because the net emissions of carbon dioxide have increased’
Los Angeles Times endorses censorship with ban on letters from climate skeptics
Antarctic Ice Sets New All Time Record For Growth In October: ‘What makes the new record so astonishing is that it was set in October, on the 1st. Climatologically, the maximum extent is reached on 22nd September, so it is most unusual for the ice still to be growing 10 days later’
Global Sea Ice Makes Record Gain in 2013 – Area Above Normal, Greater Than 1979 – 44,000 Manhattans of new ice… the highest this millennium
How Science Is Going Wrong: ‘In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the second world war, it was still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to ‘publish or perish’ has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat’
Antarctica Set A Third All-Time Record While Government Was ‘Shutdown’
Sen. Sanders blames ‘hypercapitalism’ for inaction on global warming & says global warming more dangerous than al-Qaida
New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’
New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’
'Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.'
Tornadoes: 'lowest total in several decades'
Number of wildfires: 'On pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years'
Extreme Heat: The number of 100 degree days may 'turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records'
Hurricanes: 'We are currently in the longest period (8 years) since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)' ( last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma in 2005)
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotOctober 18, 2013 12:25 PM with 618 comments
[Also see: Gore still warning of 'extreme' weather, 'increasing storms' and 'other extreme events']
#
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘Interesting from @TheSIWeather 2013 ranks as one of the least extreme US weather years ever’
According to the latest analysis of data by the The SI Organization, Inc.
18 OCT/13 FRI
11:50 AM | 2013 – a year with minimal extreme weather events in the US
There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
To begin with, the number of tornadoes in the US this year is on pace to be the lowest total since 2000 and it may turn out to be the lowest total in several decades. The table below lists the number of tornadoes in the US for this year (through 10/17) and also for each year going back to 2000.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html)
Year # of Tornadoes
2013 771
2012 1119
2011 1894
2010 1543
2009 1305
2008 1685
2007 1102
2006 1117
2005 1262
2004 1820
2003 1374
2002 938
2001 1219
2000 1072
Second, the number of wildfires across the US so far this year is on pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period (table below).
(Source: National Interagency Fire Center; http://www.nifc.gov/)
2013 Fires: 40,306 Acres: 4,152,390
2012 Fires: 67,774 Acres: 9,326,238
2011 Fires: 74,126 Acres: 8,711,367
2010 Fires: 62,471 Acres: 3,233,461
2009 Fires: 78,792 Acres: 5,921,786
2008 Fires: 80,094 Acres: 5,254,109
2007 Fires: 85,822 Acres: 9,321,326
2006 Fires: 96,358 Acres: 9,871,939
2005 Fires: 66,552 Acres: 8,686,753
2004 Fires: 63,608 Acres: 8,097,880
*2013 data through 10/16
In addition to wildfires, extreme heat is also way down across the US this year. In fact, the number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 is not only down for this year, but it is perhaps going to turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records.
(Source: NOAA, USHCN reporting stations; through August)
The five summers with the highest number of 100 degree days across the US are as follows: 1936, 1934, 1954, 1980 and 1930. In addition to the vast reduction in 100 degree days across the US this year, the number of high temperature records (ie hi max and hi min records) is way down compared to a year ago with 22,965 records this year as compared with 56,885 at this same time last year.
(Source: NOAA, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/; through 10/17).
Finally, as far as hurricanes are concerned, there have been only two hurricanes so far this season in the Atlantic Basin (Humberto and Ingrid) and they were both short-lived and weak category 1 storms. Also, the first forming hurricane this year occurred at the second latest date going back to the mid 1940’s when hurricane hunters began to fly. Overall, the tropical season in the Atlantic Basin has been generally characterized by short-lived and weak systems.
In addition, this suppressed tropical activity has not been confined to just the Atlantic Ocean. The eastern Pacific Ocean has had no major hurricanes this season meaning there has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific which only occurred one other year in recorded history – 1968. This is actually quite extraordinary since the two basins are generally out of phase with each other i.e. when one is inactive the other is active.
One of the best ways to measure “total seasonal activity” in the tropics is through an index called the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) which is a metric that accounts for both intensity and duration of named tropical storms. Indeed, the ACE for this tropical season so far in the Atlantic Basin is only 29% percent of normal (through 10/17) when compared to the climatological average from 1981-2010 and it is the 7th lowest since 1950. Elsewhere, the ACE across the northern hemisphere is only 58% of normal and global ACE is 62% of normal.
(Source: Dr. Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics; http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php)
Finally, another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5). The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005 – let’s hope this historic stretch continues. By the way, just as a point of comparison, in 1954 the US was hit by 3 major hurricanes in less than 10 weeks.
More here: http://thesiweather.com/2013/10/18/...ith-minimal-extreme-weather-events-in-the-us/
Related Links:
New Report: ‘Extreme Weather Report 2012′: ‘Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is ‘unprecedented’ or a ‘new normal’
CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report
SPECIAL REPORT 2010: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
22
inShare
0
Filed under: astrology, avg, az, factsheet, heatwave, hurricanes, mkey, new study, tornados
« Climate Depot home
Archives
Recent Articles
Climategate’s Michael Mann finally getting recognition he deserves: Fellow warmist describes Mann’s latest papers as ‘a crock of sh*t’
Flashback February 6, 1851: 1/4th of Victoria burned in one day. 12 million acres and 1 million cattle. CO2 280 PPM
Warmists go full stupid: Claim: ‘Australian wildfires put heat on climate change sceptic Abbott’ – - Rebuttal: ‘Shane Fitzsimmons, said the state was facing its worst fire conditions since the 1960s’ CO2 320 PPM In 1965
Leading scientist: Linking the bushfire disaster in NSW to climate change is ‘absolute nonsense’
Moronic: Greens MP links Australia’s NSW bush fires to climate policy
Listen Now: Interview with The Man Who Debunked the Hockey Stick – ‘Talks with Ross McKitrick who, with Stephen McIntyre, debunked the famous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph used by the IPCC, Al Gore’
Watershed…Leading German Business Weekly Declares IPCC Science A Failure: ‘Time For A New Climate Policy’ – ‘Write of scientists using ‘horror scenarios’ to scare leaders into rash policymaking’
Geologist E. Kirsten Peters new book: ‘The Whole Story of Climate’ – ‘While the typical American has the impression that climate would be stable if it weren’t for industrialization and the production of greenhouse gases from smokestacks and cars, geologic history in fact reveals a ceaselessly changing climate running back into the time thousands of years before the modern economy’
Geologist E. Kirsten Peters: She warns cold spell near? – Geologist digs deeper on climate change
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘The amount of time and funding that has been wasted by using climate models for purposes for which that are unfit, may eventually be judged to be colossal”
The age of climate alarmism is coming to an end: ‘Given the IPCC’ s five tries to convince the world that human activity is causing catastrophic warming of the planet, runaway sea-level rise and various weather disasters, the public still doesn’t buy it’
Antarctic sea ice still at record high — where is springtime melt? ‘Temperatures at the South Pole show 30 years of climate sameness’
New Report: CO2 emissions in last 50 years made us $3.5 Trillion wealthier – ‘Millions of people are alive today because the net emissions of carbon dioxide have increased’
Los Angeles Times endorses censorship with ban on letters from climate skeptics
Antarctic Ice Sets New All Time Record For Growth In October: ‘What makes the new record so astonishing is that it was set in October, on the 1st. Climatologically, the maximum extent is reached on 22nd September, so it is most unusual for the ice still to be growing 10 days later’
Global Sea Ice Makes Record Gain in 2013 – Area Above Normal, Greater Than 1979 – 44,000 Manhattans of new ice… the highest this millennium
How Science Is Going Wrong: ‘In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the second world war, it was still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to ‘publish or perish’ has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat’
Antarctica Set A Third All-Time Record While Government Was ‘Shutdown’
Sen. Sanders blames ‘hypercapitalism’ for inaction on global warming & says global warming more dangerous than al-Qaida
New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
The website you just linked is run by CFACT, which is an organization claiming that there is evidence that there was no nuclear disaster in Fukushima. Source: http://www.cfact.org/
Excuse me while I wipe my ass with your "study" and "evidence" from a conservative organization with a clear cut and explicit agenda.
Excuse me while I wipe my ass with your "study" and "evidence" from a conservative organization with a clear cut and explicit agenda.
Listen fuck stick, the whole GD article I pasted is filled with NOAA findings. From their GD website you cited earlier, you asshole.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Hell there's evidence in those findings (if you give them any credit, which I don't know if I do because it's impossible to sort through in the format given) that there are weather anomalies: "another interesting stat with respect to hurricanes has to do with the fact that we are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US." This could just be a coincidence, or it could be evidence that climate change is occurring...who the hell even knows? That is certainly in no way dispositive of anything.
This is from NASA: Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Is this made up?
This is from NASA: Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Is this made up?
dmcheatw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,393
- Reaction score
- 143
lets talk about why it's a moral imperative that in order to least maintain our dignity as humans, our harmony domestically as a nation, and our hegemony abroad as members of the global community, that the ~2% wealthiest Americans need to have their wealth redistributed through taxes. it's a discussion that needs to be had. The word "punishment" in relation to progressive taxation betrays an ultimately self-defeating paradigm for society. It's not a punishment. It's a necessity for a lot of reasons.
Last edited:
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
You don't have to get into the 401(k)s of barely-millionaire, house-rich-cash-poor middle class old people to make a difference. The amount of wealth and income concentrated in the top 1% is staggering. 24% of all income in this country goes to the top 1%, and the top 400 people have more wealth than the bottom 150 million. "Class warfare" has been overwhelmingly, resoundingly won by the tippy top class.
When we finally grow up as a nation and sit down at the table to solve these problems, we're going to hear that raising any taxes on that 24% of income or the wealth of those top 400 will "kill jobs", but it's time to stop buying that line of crap. We have been cutting their taxes since the Reagan Revolution and calling them "job creators", and what we have got for it is sky high unemployment and lowest labor force participation rate in 35 years.
The answer here is going to involve cuts to entitlements, but those cuts are going to have to be weighted toward those with the means to take care of themselves. That may mean tough(er) choices for relatively affluent families like Chris's (and mine). Those choices are going to be a whole lot tougher if our politicians can't find the fortitude to make the top 1% pay more - substantially more - to support the country that has enabled them to build up such unimaginable wealth.
When we finally grow up as a nation and sit down at the table to solve these problems, we're going to hear that raising any taxes on that 24% of income or the wealth of those top 400 will "kill jobs", but it's time to stop buying that line of crap. We have been cutting their taxes since the Reagan Revolution and calling them "job creators", and what we have got for it is sky high unemployment and lowest labor force participation rate in 35 years.
The answer here is going to involve cuts to entitlements, but those cuts are going to have to be weighted toward those with the means to take care of themselves. That may mean tough(er) choices for relatively affluent families like Chris's (and mine). Those choices are going to be a whole lot tougher if our politicians can't find the fortitude to make the top 1% pay more - substantially more - to support the country that has enabled them to build up such unimaginable wealth.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Just at a more basic individual level, if I ever make enough money to be in the top 2% of American society I would be fine (and would still advocate) with tax increases on the top 2% to pretty high levels on money over X amount (pick the number, be it 750,00 or 1 million). This is because I want to contribute as a member of society to the host of problems that we face together: homelessness, perpetuation of class differences, etc.
A lot of people view this as the government "taking what is rightfully mine," while others view it as "giving back to society because of what I was able to accomplish through this societal structure." The reason that people think that the government is taking back money when taxing is because they want to believe that they accomplished everything 100% on their own with no assistance. People like to be recognized for their accomplishments and people like to take responsibility for what they feel they rightfully did. I'm not saying that people don't work hard or put in the time and effort to reach the top 1 or 2% of wage earners in America, I'm just positing that there are societal conditions that people don't always address which enable some people to be more successful than others due to their starting circumstances.
There is a fundamentally different philosophical starting view for people on taxation, which is why it's so difficult to find common ground.
A lot of people view this as the government "taking what is rightfully mine," while others view it as "giving back to society because of what I was able to accomplish through this societal structure." The reason that people think that the government is taking back money when taxing is because they want to believe that they accomplished everything 100% on their own with no assistance. People like to be recognized for their accomplishments and people like to take responsibility for what they feel they rightfully did. I'm not saying that people don't work hard or put in the time and effort to reach the top 1 or 2% of wage earners in America, I'm just positing that there are societal conditions that people don't always address which enable some people to be more successful than others due to their starting circumstances.
There is a fundamentally different philosophical starting view for people on taxation, which is why it's so difficult to find common ground.
Your post has a narrow view of the ways one can contribute. There is a big difference between "giving" and "taking". You'll find a lot of successful people in that top 2% who gladly give (and in fact, do with much more enthusiasm shown than, say, the Vice President of the United States) willingly and with great humility (that is, not with the misunderstanding that they did it all themselves).
WakeandBake
Well-known member
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Sure, people in the top 2% give, but that argument is played out. Plenty of people who are in the top 2% don't give money as well. Just because some people do it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law requiring all people to do it. In what way could this possibly decrease money? People who are currently giving to other funds might cut what they donate to that particular charity, but would not be likely to cut the total amount of charitable giving. If the percentage increased that went to the government, they would just pay the difference in the amount to the charities.
I realize the traditional counter to this is that government spending isn't as efficient or effective as private spending, but when you see organizations like the Komen fund only donating small amounts of their total amount raised to the fund they're supporting, it probably evens out worst case right?
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
No offense, but that is easy to say when you're not in that position. If/when you are in that position you realize that (a) you are busting your ass and roughly half (city, county, state, federal - especially if you own a business) of the time you are away from your family you are working for the government and not yourself; and (b) you recognize what positive effect you could have with that amount of money actually using it for productive charitable purposes as opposed to the government pissing it down a hole.
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,923
in many ways, to address the thread question, liberals are dumb for not shouting this post from the mountain top
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
I am not a big fan of net worth taxes, either, because as you say they don't always match up with ability to pay. The way to get the 1% to pay more is to chip away at the tax preferences given to capital over labor income. Capital was taxed substantially higher than it is now for wide swathes of the 20th century and people still invested money and made money just fine. Capital was taxed the same as income in the 90s. The idea that hiking capital gains rates is going to cause the economy to crash or the job creators to create less jobs is pretty much refuted by the historical trend. This is interesting reading. http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/capital-gains-lets-rumble/
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I don't think it's going to shift my viewpoint very much being in the position versus now because of what I said in my post: my mindset is that regardless of what the government is "taking" away from me, I'm content with it because of the advantages I've had to get to the point I currently am. I'm also not going to waste time moaning about the fact that 33% of my paycheck is gone because everybody understands that your income is going to be taxed in the first place. It's not like it's some big surprise. There may be some shock value at the first paycheck that has "massive" amounts of money taken away, but it's part of living in the country. It's not like you get a job for $250,000 and believe you'll keep all the money only to find out that at the end of the year the money is taxed.
As to your second point, I would just say that this again is a fundamental disagreement between two sides. I'm fine with people paying more taxes to the government if it requires that everybody contribute. I think it's likely that this approach generates just as much, if not more money, than the current structure. Obviously there would be studies about the breaking point for these taxes and contributions which hopefully would be objectively evaluated by all people. The issue of course is that there will always be people who say these studies aren't true and people who stick their head in the sand and say 'NO WAY THAT HIGHER TAXES COULD POSSIBLY HELP THE COUNTRY IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY,' so it's entirely possible that even with research conducted that people will still be at great odds on the topic.
I don't have a problem with levying sufficient taxes to pay our debts (indeed, I vehemently oppose allowing our expenses to outpace receipts, and want pressures brought from both sides to reduce that spread to less than zero), but need for revenue needs to be the driver. I do not believe a person should be taxed b/c they have too much income and it needs to be redistributed, since that is none of the government's business (and if you think taxing income is a problem, let's talk about taxing wealth and see how popular that is). She or he has as much income as she has, and if you're (royal second person, you understand) trying to "take" it for the simple sake of denying it to other people, then that's confiscation and would be illegal in any other context. The first question isn't "how much do the taxpayers have?", it should be "how much money does the government need?". We never seem to get around to asking that question in a thoughtful way (b/c as RJ Karl will tell you, there's no room to cut any programs except the ones he disagrees with. Otherwise, you hate children and first responders. Or something.)
If I was satisfied that we had done a good job pruning our expenses, then I'd be in favor of raising taxes. In truth, we need to do both and the sooner the better, but the first stop has to be cutting waste and reforming so-called entitlements. It's INSANE to take money from working families to give it to wealthy retirees or to retirees who didn't save. Screw it, ACA is the law of the land. Let's crank up the death panels and start thinning the herd.