Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Actually better than the debate we had last week. I'm only 25 minutes into it, but the winner seems to be the audience. Bill and Jon are even a bit more informative than the people running for office.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Holy wall of non-sequitur Batman.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

...Do I really have to spell it out for you? Truly?

When people are talking about small business owners in the 200K range, no one (except YOU) is talking about people netting 50K after expenses.

Rather than argue with you how about a story?

I used to work at a music store years ago. We sold used CDs. Big ol' warehouse-sized store. Too big for a handful of employees to keep tabs on everyone and too few cameras to catch everything. We'd find those annoying security cases sliced open and the contents were often stolen, dozens of them per week So I got to thinking, "Hey, I've been around a lot of used game stores, like EB and Gamestop - why not start a filing system, keep the CDS locked behind the register in some CD books?"

I pitched the idea, the manager approved and we filed everything away, locking the books away beneath the front registers

In the following month and all months following, we eliminated loss prevention on used product by 100%. It doesn't get better than that. What we lost on the CD books was made back in used sales and we were able to ship those dumb CD security cases to another store. Employee theft, however, did shoot up and the offender caught because one of the cameras was naturally situated by the front counter. She thought being pretty let her get away with anything. Turns out there's just no elegant way to pull those CD books out of view.

Has we left the system as it was - big, gross and convoluted - she would have been stealing CDs and getting away with it.

As an added bonus, the theft on new product also went down dramatically. This is because the idea was now planted in those visiting the store that we might not just keep used product off the floor - but new CDs and DVDs as well. Additionally, with all the used product under the register and off the floor, we were able watch the new product more actively, another contributing factor to the stats pointing at a reduction in loss prevention.

Sensing a libertarian analogy here?

I should point out that the powers that be were pleased with this, but they had this annoying need to meddle with how were sold things. Pre-order pushes for music people didn't want, playing music they didn't want to hear in-store. I mean, NC is Country, R&B, Rap and Bluegrass in that order, Cities have preferences and you stick to them - you don't push boy bands and Nickelback. My manager was a guy that liked taking credit for ideax - I didn't care, i just wanted good things for our store. He also had an affinity for stocking rave music - house, techno, breakbeat, electronica, trip-hop, Drum and Bass - costing the store hundreds, possibly thousands of dollars in special orders and the store got no returns on it. We were only ever supposed to special order if the customer asked and paid $5 down.

It ate into our profits. This load of product was something we couldn't sell. There was already tons of product on the floor, but he had to push for his special interest. I never aggressively pushed my own, I just sometimes slipped in a CD I burned into the player with obscure stuff I liked - Sylk 130/King Britt, Roni Size/Reprazent, Ben Harper, Fear of Pop, Bran Van 3000, The Corrs, Afro-Celt Sounsystem - sometimes it caught someone's fancy and they'd ask, I'd set up the special order and they'd pay an advance on it. That's how we were supposed to do it. Our manager created a deficit in special ordering shit he hoped people would just buy and we had to work harder to make up for his fucking failures. Everyone on staff was worth his salt except the manager.

My point here is if you simplify things, life is made easier for everyone, things are easier to regulate and bad people are easier to catch. Fair play can be maintained because people's hands aren't tied micromanaging all the other details. However, if the bad person is the person in power, the problems begin. Bad people will take credit for your good things and prioritize their special interests at the expense of the well-being of the business, community or country. Sadly, this is mostly what we have in pollitics and there are too few John McCains, Jerry Browns, Joe Liebermans and even Gary Johnsons or Jill Steins to keep them in check. We need more of them and a vote for Obamney is a vote against them.

Our system is convoluted and bloated and the solution is not to make it bigger and "better," but to streamline and trim the fat - and there's a lot of fat to trim. I do not think Obamney are up to the task regardless of what their fudged numbers say.

As for what became of that record store - my manager's continued poor, selfish decisions got to it before the iPod did. It was replaced with a mattress store a few years later.

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

If you look at sales tax as a function of income, it makes more sense. Remember, people in the upper echelons make more money than they can spend, so their effective taxation rate from a sales tax is lower because they spend a much, much smaller ratio of their income on products that are subject to sales tax. You only get hit with sales tax if you buy something, so someone making, say $500K per year and tossing 300K into savings is going to end up paying a lot less sales tax proportionally than someone living paycheck to paycheck at $25K per year.


Icemage

Exactly, hence why it's a regressive tax. Also, in Canada we have all 3 (Corporate, Sales & Income) and ti's crushing. Hell, most of our P.M.s are just freeloading off the damn system anyway it's a complete and utter mess. You *have* to tax corporations and higher-income individuals based on what they make. How much however, is has been the fierce subject of debate as of late. I personally find myself in the camp that lowering (not eliminating, because that's too heavy a loss of revenue) the corporate rates to attract business, but also closing loopholes & deductions while also putting higher constraints on people in the upper echelon. For example, the U.S. rate is about 36% (closing in on 40 fast) and could stand to be dropped to say 25% - but the maximum rate on top earners would also need to be increased with proportion to individual incomes.

For example, a movie star who makes a few million a year could probably eat another 3~4% and not sweat it, but a CEO making 8 (or even 9 in some cases) digit incomes honestly should see their rates go up to at least 45% if not 50% (I honestly wouldn't push 60% or higher except perhaps in the cases of billionaires). The govt really needs to start cracking down on tax evasion as well. There's something like an estimated $30 trillion being secreted away by wealthy individuals and corporations in offshore bank accounts and other tax havens. A full 1/3 of U.S. corporations don't even pay any income tax, which is ridiculous.

Finally, the capital gains rate needs to be seriously looked at as well. There's no reason a guy like Romney should pay such a low rate on passive income that high. I don't care if he's "earned" it through his success, he's still essentially raking in money every year for doing nothing, while people who are busting their asses off pay much higher rates. You can not justify that. But the rate needs to be means-tested as well - it's not fair to just arbitrarily hike the rate across the board - for example if someone gets lucky on a game show or wins a small lottery jackpot, or even if it's passive income but below a certain threshold. The source of the revenue as well as the amount (and if it's recurring) needs to be factored in.

[Taskmage]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

To be fair, it seemed like Obama was scribbling notes during the debate, too.

Taking notes during the debate is fair game, what's against the rules is coming to the podium with pre-prepared materials. The Romney campaign claims the object was a handkerchief and not paper, and he is shown wiping his nose with a handkerchief later in the debate. In light of far more sweeping and heinous shenanigans committed by both parties, I'm not inclined to care much one way or the other.

[Icemage]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Interesting, because you repeated my intent;

Obama would raise taxes on everything to pay for his programs so the owner wouldn't even be taking $50k home. The point of owning a small business is gain wealth, not still be paid like wage slave.

...Do I really have to spell it out for you? Truly?

When people are talking about small business owners in the 200K range, no one (except YOU) is talking about people netting 50K after expenses.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Do you ever gut check yourself before you hit that post button? I'm literally stunned at how clueless this comment is.

Interesting, because you repeated my intent;

Someone who owns a small business who generates $200K in revenue but pays out $150K in expenses does not have 200K in income.

Obama would raise taxes on everything to pay for his programs so the owner wouldn't even be taking $50k home. The point of owning a small business is gain wealth, expand and employ more people, not still be paid like wage slave and be unable to hire people.

Also:



To be fair, it seemed like Obama was scribbling notes during the debate, too.

[Taskmage]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Assuming a linear relationship between income level and savings rate (it almost certainly isn't, but just for the sake of argument) and using a 3-member household to define the poverty level at $19,000/yr, I plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet and got the following numbers:



So it seems that in this simulation, a flat consumption tax with taxes up to the poverty level rebated would be progressive up to an income of about $150k/yr, after which point the effective rate becomes regressive as a proportion of total income.

[Icemage]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

And the guy pulling in $500 is still going to pay more taxes proportionally. They do now. Obama defines "rich" as making $200k, which is why small businesses are hurting. They might make $200k a year, but they're paying other people, too. $200k is not what they take home.

Do you ever gut check yourself before you hit that post button? I'm literally stunned at how clueless this comment is.

Someone who owns a small business who generates $200K in revenue but pays out $150K in expenses does not have 200K in income. You "could" make the case for a sole proprietorship, but even that would be a dubious claim and no one in their right mind would consider even a sole proprietor with $200K business revenue and $150K expenses to have "$200K of income" except in the broadest use of an accounting definition.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

If you look at sales tax as a function of income, it makes more sense. Remember, people in the upper echelons make more money than they can spend, so their effective taxation rate from a sales tax is lower because they spend a much, much smaller ratio of their income on products that are subject to sales tax. You only get hit with sales tax if you buy something, so someone making, say $500K per year and tossing 300K into savings is going to end up paying a lot less sales tax proportionally than someone living paycheck to paycheck at $25K per year.


Icemage

And the guy pulling in $500 is still going to pay more taxes proportionally. They do now. Obama defines "rich" as making $200k, which is why small businesses are hurting. They might make $200k a year, but they're paying other people, too. $200k is not what they take home.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

It's much more fair for one thing. Taxing only consumption hurts the poor and middle class worst because overall we spend the most and comprise the bulk of the tax base.

How does it hurt it more if everyone is taxed at the same rate? If the rich have more money they spend more and are taxed more. Your spending would likely remain in proportion to what is now, its just under a plan like this everything would seem more expensive for a short while because you're ALL of you money home.

I don't think that's what Ontario is doing unless corporate and income tax have been abolished. Given how Canada can be, I somehow doubt they just altruistically gave that up if they're still run the parties they have.

[Icemage]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

How do you figure that the poor and middle class spend more than people who have several houses and fucking jets?

If you look at sales tax as a function of income, it makes more sense. Remember, people in the upper echelons make more money than they can spend, so their effective taxation rate from a sales tax is lower because they spend a much, much smaller ratio of their income on products that are subject to sales tax. You only get hit with sales tax if you buy something, so someone making, say $500K per year and tossing 300K into savings is going to end up paying a lot less sales tax proportionally than someone living paycheck to paycheck at $25K per year.


Icemage

[Taskmage]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

How do you figure that the poor and middle class spend more than people who have several houses and fucking jets?

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

Those are talking points, Firewind. Non-answers. What's more is none of it answers why corporate and income tax are good and fair tax is bad. Its just the usual political fire and brimstone because you differ from conservatives. I'm not talking about something conservatives are proposing.

And lets be clear. "Republicans" in America are fiscally liberal and socially conservative and Democrat is fiscally liberal and socially liberal (HINT; Why we're up Shit Creek without a paddle, because Republicans and Democrats work together, just like your liberals and conservatives do).

A Libertarian is fiscally conservative, socially liberal and has real ideas. The Green Party is liberal except, like Libertarians and unlike Democrats they have ideas. And they like trees.

What's NOT working here is just letting the pendulum swing hard left and hard right all the time. We have a very clear history all over the world through business, politics and religions that over regulation is a consistent problem and more regulation is not the solution. It is, in fact, why people settled in America and why we had the Revolutionary War in the first place. The church and monarchy had too much reach, we didn't like it so we left them and late drove them off the land. You will be amazed how many conservatives and liberals in America can tell this story, but live like they don't understand it in the way the govern.

[Malacite]

Re: Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

It's much more fair for one thing. Taxing only consumption hurts the poor and middle class worst because overall we spend the most and comprise the bulk of the tax base.

The Ontario govt recently put in the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) which is essentially a flat 13% across the board on everything and it sucks.