Friday Funnies

Obama and taxes

Comments

[Suki]

Cute! I see the constructive feedback from H&R has improved your work immensely.
Good morning reason!

[Brandybuck]

OMG! I actually laughed at the Friday Funny!

This hangover must be worse than it feels.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Why did they mount his teleprompter so close? He's going to put his eye out on that sharp handle.

[rather]

Hmm, a fringed flag

[Suki]

+1

[LibertarianJRT]

+2

[Doc S]

That's impressive attention to detail.

[Brandybuck]

That means he's an Admiralty President.

[a penny a day keeps Obama away]

Not bad. Almost passable. Slightly humerous. Sigh.

[Toolbag]

Wait. What?

[WTF]

That was pretty good - who is ghost-cartooning for Bok?

[rather]

Safe to say it isn't Obama 😉

[Xenocles]

Surprisingly not terrible.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Why is Bill Cosby shooting his invisible gun at that speech balloon? He looks like he's been losing weight.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Because all children have brain damage, you see...

[Brian Sorgatz]

[/half-mumble]

[Tim]

Meh.

[Mister DNA]

LOL! It's funny because it's true!

[Hank]

I'll never understand Bok's undying obesession with Martin Landau.

[sarcasmic]

I get it.
When the rich don't pay their fair share (they never do, evidenced by the fact that they are rich) it is the poor who suffer.

[Bucky]

i think Rahm said it best...
Never let a successful person go unpunished by class warfare.

[Bucky]

for another funny,
picture Biden standing at the Amtrak station named after him with his back to us. his bags all pack around him. two aids are standing nearby, one whispering two the other "He heard he's going to Libya!?"
the caption underneath
Sending in the Drones

[El Duderino]

Send in the drones will never make it on broadway.

[Darth Sally]

I said clones, not drones!

[LibertarianBob]

Or send in the clowns.

[ktc2]

Oh, I get it. We are going to increase revenue to balance the budget by taxing the homeless, the unemployed and those barely able to pay the rent.

Yeah, that makes sense . . .

[SugarFree]

45% of Americans are homeless, unemployed or unable to pay "the rent"?

[Otto]

No, that's after Obama's second term.

[Bucky]

you forgot "unable to be responsible"...

[Gilbert Martin]

No we are going to cut spending to balance the budget.

More taxes are not needed.

[Vizzini]

Cut spending? Inconceivable!

[Inigo Montoya]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Suki]

The rent is too damn high!

[P Brooks]

Needs more labels.

[kilroy]

Cue the "But FICA, and sales tax, and ..." in 3..2..

[Hobo Chang Ba]

But, FICA, the sales tax, property taxes through inflated rent value, corporate income taxes through inflated prices, the inflation tax, etc...????

Sorry to kill the humor, but this loose inacccuracy from the Right is pretty annoying. Reason needs to stop feeding Rushbots.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Also for every program in the poor's favor, there are equal programs either propping up the wealthy on the poor/middle class's fungible dollar or restricting them from gainful employment, use of their property, etc. Can we please roll back these things first and then we can talk about how poor people could more easily succeed in a meritocratic society and shouldn't need welfare?

[Gilbert Martin]

"Also for every program in the poor's favor, there are equal programs either propping up the wealthy on the poor/middle class's fungible dollar or restricting them from gainful employment, use of their property, etc"

And the proof of that would be what, exactly?

[Erin Viral]

"Save the Fungible Dollars!"

[Hobo Chang Ba]

For example, local sales and property taxes going to pay wealthy businesses to set up headquarters there or to fund community redevelopment organizations to seize poor peoples' property and give to wealthy developers.

It's kinda difficult to claim redistribution of wealth when it goes both ways - it's more like convalution of wealth, with the government skimming a bunch off the top. Whose dollar is going back to them vs. going in someone else's pocket? At the local level, it seems like the poor get education and services (which are undoubtedly expensive), while the wealthy often get actual assets extracted from the less wealthy.

[califronian]

This is pretty accurate actually.

However, it doesn't invalidate critiques against the utterly skewed income tax situation.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Eliminating both the income tax and the bulk of the welfare state and moving to a more logical system like land value taxation is preferable. I would just phase out the income taxes from the bottom up.

[Trig]

Say goodbye to the holdout small farms if you do that... and watch food prices skyrocket.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

You need to study land value taxes a little more. The Physiocrats and Georgists who advocated for land value taxes were actually supporting small farmers, who use land productively - over monarchies and speculators, who monopolized land and drove up its cost. Land value taxes have no deadweight loss, meaning that it would only make land cheaper as unused land is allowed to return to a fallow state or purchased at the lowest value people are willing to pay land rent on. People will be encouraged to use land more productively (for instance, producing food instead of sitting around for years empty and waiting for surrounding productive development to drive up the price). Since the farmer's incomes, the customer's incomes, the farmer's products, property improvements and transportation costs would be lower and land would be more abundant, how would a land tax drive small farmers out of business?

[Hobo Chang Ba]

didn't mean "would be lower" - meant "would not be taxed".

[Tncm]

You need to study land value taxes a little more. The Physiocrats and Georgists who advocated for land value taxes were actually supporting small farmers, who use land productively

Henry George wanted to nationalize all privately-owned land.

over monarchies and speculators, who monopolized land and drove up its cost.

I have a "monopoly" on the land I own, as do you. The type of speculation you're talking about is only possible with credit expansion which causes prices to constantly rise. Moreover, buying something and then withholding it from the market is something that everyone does. I'm withholding labor from the market when I choose to spend time on Reason as opposed to working, which reduces the supply of labor in my field and makes wages higher than they'd be otherwise.

Land value taxes have no deadweight loss

Marginal land, for which costs are just covered to maintain its use as a productive resource, would be driven out of use as a result of an increased tax on land. That is the deadweight loss.

meaning that it would only make land cheaper as unused land is allowed to return to a fallow state or purchased at the lowest value people are willing to pay land rent on.

I'm not sure I follow. If land currently owned by the state was sold on the market then yes, the price of land would probably fall, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

People will be encouraged to use land more productively (for instance, producing food instead of sitting around for years empty and waiting for surrounding productive development to drive up the price).

I guess you're operating under a bastardized version of Georgeist economic theory, because he advocated a 100% tax on land. But the faults still stand. What will this do to people who use land for recreational use, or for homes, or other businesses? You're just increasing their operating costs. Who will decide the value of the land and the corresponding tax, seeing as all value is innately subjective? A committee of Georgeists with PhDs? When calculating the value of completely unused land it becomes almost completely impossible.

I don't mean to offend, but you need to seriously give your ideas another look. Saying that a tax on land will increase its productivity is like saying, well, that the income tax increases labor productivity. The land that does go into use will be doing so to cover the costs of the tax, and thus will bid away labor and capital from other sectors of the economy and increase the costs of other firms.

I'd take a look at this article by Murray Rothbard first. He explains the problems with Georgeism much better than I ever could.

[Gilbert Martin]

"For example, local sales and property taxes going to pay wealthy businesses to set up headquarters there or to fund community redevelopment organizations to seize poor peoples' property and give to wealthy developers."

In the first place middle class and up people pay sales and property taxes also - it isn't just paid by the poor. If paying those taxes is an excuse for the poor not to pay federal income taxes, it's just as much an excuse for everybody else not to pay them as well. The bulk of sales and property taxes on an absolute dollar basis are paid by the non-poor to begin with.

Second, sales and property tax going to some property development deal or business relocation does not even come close to proving that all of the "rich" or comfortably well off or whatever shifting defintion anyone wants to apply to anyone who ever moved up the wealth and income ladder got there because of some sort of government activity tipping the scales in their favor.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

First, the "bulk" of these taxes is paid by the upper and middle class because they naturally spend more. I'd agree with you. But the proportion of income is borne more heavily by the poor. Spending MORE of their income, for which each dollar has more marginal value due to scarcity, thus increasing both scarcity and self-interest in getting "return for their money", will only result in more deman for welfare programs.

Secondly, I would argue if you have gotten wealthy in part by incorporating a business, you too have benefitted from government's complicity in socializing violations of natural rights - instead of forcing business owners to assume full liability for their operations or purchase liability insurance to offset it. And for every program or tax credit for the poor, there is a green energy tax credit or homeowners tax credit subsidizing the upper and middle class (reciprocally, taxes on those who can't afford green energy products or home ownership.) There are few, if any, corporate investments a stockholder could make that were free of some form of government elevation at the expense of taxpayers.

The government has so distorted reality with a series of rewards, punishments, subsidies, credits, regulations, inflation, manipulations, etc. that it's virtually impossible to figure out who is rewarding who and who is getting screwed. It's simulaneously progressive, regressive and pro/anti-middle class, depending on how you look at the many factors. Most would argue the welfare state is progressive, but I'd say most of it is regressive because of the almost unquantifiable disincentive factor.

[DesigNate]

So the crux of your argument is proportionality?

[Hobo Chang Ba]

That's how "regressive" and "progressive" are determined, economically.

[An Educated Man]

Flat tax. No exceptions or deductions. Honest and transparent.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Secondly, I would argue if you have gotten wealthy in part by incorporating a business, you too have benefitted from government's complicity in socializing violations of natural rights - instead of forcing business owners to assume full liability for their operations or purchase liability insurance to offset it. And for every program or tax credit for the poor, there is a green energy tax credit or homeowners tax credit subsidizing the upper and middle class (reciprocally, taxes on those who can't afford green energy products or home ownership.) There are few, if any, corporate investments a stockholder could make that were free of some form of government elevation at the expense of taxpayers."

More bullshit.

You can't prove that so much a single word of any of it to be true.

[Tncm]

I guess someone forgot to tell me that April 23rd was Economics Illiteracy Today. My desk calendar says it's Ethics Illiteracy Day, and I got that impression from what MNG was saying about utilitarianism. Oh well.

First, the "bulk" of these taxes is paid by the upper and middle class because they naturally spend more. I'd agree with you. But the proportion of income is borne more heavily by the poor

In terms of dollars the rich will obviously pay more than the poor. But if we have a sales tax of, say, 10%, and Bill Gates spends $1,000,000 and poor John Doe spends $100, then the tax will take more money from Bill Gates than John Doe. But the proportion of money taken from both is the same (10%). That's the point of a regressive tax to begin with.

Spending MORE of their income, for which each dollar has more marginal value due to scarcity, thus increasing both scarcity and self-interest in getting "return for their money", will only result in more deman for welfare programs.

Interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible. Utility is ordinal, not cardinal. Warren Buffet could love money so much that his marginal utility gained from additional income is near-constant or very high. A poor Bohemian could have little or no marginal utility gained from increases in income. The former would consider it a travesty if he lost money, the latter wouldn't care nearly as much.

But I do agree that taxes make the poor poorer and causes them to go on the dole.

Secondly, I would argue if you have gotten wealthy in part by incorporating a business, you too have benefitted from government's complicity in socializing violations of natural rights - instead of forcing business owners to assume full liability for their operations or purchase liability insurance to offset it.

In Libertopia corporations would have to purchase insurance as opposed to enjoying government-granted limited liability. But the fact of the matter is we don't live in Libertopia. I have to drive on public roads even though I'd much rather use private ones. It is in the rational self-interest of businesses to utilize the limited liability that incorporation offers. If they don't they're put at a huge disadvantage in the marketplace.

And for every program or tax credit for the poor, there is a green energy tax credit or homeowners tax credit subsidizing the upper and middle class (reciprocally, taxes on those who can't afford green energy products or home ownership.) There are few, if any, corporate investments a stockholder could make that were free of some form of government elevation at the expense of taxpayers.

I don't understand the free marketeer aversion to tax credits. They reduce the tax burden on firms and individuals. This should be viewed as a good thing. I will concede that they become bad when the turn into a subsidy, i.e. you can pocket the money from the tax credit(s) that exceed your tax burden.

The government has so distorted reality with a series of rewards, punishments, subsidies, credits, regulations, inflation, manipulations, etc. that it's virtually impossible to figure out who is rewarding who and who is getting screwed.

Almost complete agreement with you here, except on tax credits.

[Charles]

and ...1

This is America. NOBODY gets out without paying their taxes. Even dead people pay taxes here.

...unless maybe, if you're GE. Then, not only do you not pay taxes, but the govt pays you a billion dollars.

...or if you're a major industry and are in financial distress, then the govt may just throw a pile of money at you far in excess of your tax liability.

...or really anyone with an army of accountants and lawyers.

[Gilbert Martin]

Indeed.

As if payment of other categories of taxes - that are ALSO paid by all the people who ARE paying federal income taxes - has some bearing on excusing the 47% from paying any federal income taxes.

Which it does not.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

So you likewise support removing the cap on Social Security contributions for the wealthy, right - since all things should be even? Many of these other taxes (sales taxes, corporate income taxes passed to consumers, government-caused inflation) are highly regressive taxes, naturally taking up larger shares of the poor's income than they do the wealthy's. If we could the cost of minimum wage laws, regulation and licensing, which disproportionately impact the poor's ability to find or create gainful employment - as well as dependency on bad welfare programs that discourage this - I don't believe the poor should pay taxes to prop up this system weighed heavily against them instead of keeping their money and paying for as much of their own way as possible, thus requiring less welfare. Raise taxes on the poor and see how much less government we get.

[WTF]

Valid points, but fully 45% of the households not paying any fed income tax are not poor. A lot of the objection really is to this.

[Trig]

Assuming someone is actually signed up for all those programs... but yeah it's screwed up.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

While very interesting, several criticisms of how they crunched the numbers. There's a large quality of life difference between one who has $34,000 in cash after all taxes and childcare expenses, and one who has $7920 cash after taxes and childcare (including EIC, but not the other "benefits"). The poor are still likely to spend all the remaining cash on their basic needs, whereas the middle class will likely either have money leftover or can afford a better quality of life.

That said, besides education, these welfare programs are generally no good for the poor or anyone else for that matter. Dependency is the opposite of progress, reducing the drive for education and advancement. Education ideally should reduce dependency and more than pay for itself in the long-term, so that's pretty much the only function of the welfare system I'd support beside critical care for the physically and mentally handicapped and emergency response to crises.

[Gilbert Martin]

"So you likewise support removing the cap on Social Security contributions for the wealthy, right - since all things should be even? "

Not unless their benefits are going to go up in direct proportion to their increased contribution. The reason contributions are capped now is because benefits are capped as well.

The Social Security benefit formula is already engineered "progressively" to give those lower on the income scale a larger benefit relative to what they've paid in than is the case for higher income people.

The system was never "even" to begin with.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

So should poor peoples' welfare benefits go up with increased contribution? If poor people pay more income taxes, they will be poorer. Thus more welfare cost. That's my whole point.

Cut the unnecessary, unaffordable and disincentivizing parts of the welfare state, but don't increase taxes on the poor. Eliminate the sales tax, replace property taxes with land value taxes, replace corporate income taxes with corporate liability taxes and phase out the income tax from the bottom up as quickly as possible. Cut all federal government besides the military (minimized operations), treasury, minimal state/diplomacy apparatus and courts, and let local governments experiment with good and bad welfare ideas, or provide none if they so choose.

[An Educated Man]

"Cut all federal government besides the military (minimized operations), treasury, minimal state/diplomacy apparatus and courts, and let local governments experiment with good and bad welfare ideas, or provide none if they so choose."

And install a flat tax ONLY. Zero freeloaders.

[Gilbert Martin]

"So should poor peoples' welfare benefits go up with increased contribution? If poor people pay more income taxes, they will be poorer. Thus more welfare cost. That's my whole point."

You have no point other than supporting the desire of liberals to redistribute wealth.

People on welfare are net subsidizees. Upper income people paying more into social security are still net subsidozors even if their benefits were to go up. There is no comparison.

Enough of this obfuscatory bullshit.

What should happen is that government should be cut back drastically to it's legitimate Constitutional functions. Which consist primarlily of protecting private property rights and enforcing contracts.

Everything else should be left up to a pure free market. There would be no welfare, no farm subsidies, no entitlements, no government involvement attempting to favor one business or industry over another.

There would be no presumption that people are somehow "owed" all sorts of things by other people.

You're born, you have the right to be left alone by the government unless you have actively harmed someone else. You live your life on your own and with those you can voluntarily convince to cooperate with you in some way and then you die.

That's all there is and ever should be.

There is no such thing as a "right" to receive anything from anybody for any reason ever. There is no such thing as an obligation to do anything for anybody for any reason ever.

And thats' it.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Many of these other taxes (sales taxes, corporate income taxes passed to consumers, government-caused inflation) are highly regressive taxes, naturally taking up larger shares of the poor's income than they do the wealthy's"

Which is an irrelevant calculation.

If I buy a burger at McDonald's it's a smaller percentage of my income than it is for someone who makes half as much money as I do who bought the same burger.

But that is irrelevant. We both received the same product and both paid the same price for it - just as it should be. The amount paid is based on the value of the product received.

McDonald's had nothing to do with causing my income to be twice as much as the other customer's.

And the federal government had nothing to do with it either.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

Ah, but it is relevant. If prices will always burden the poor more than the wealthy, then straight sales taxes will as well. The tax takes up a bigger percentage of the poor person's income, therefore it is regressive. I don't see how that's any less relevant to the conversation than the argument that income taxes take up a bigger percentage of rich people's incomes.

I argue the sales tax has a bigger effect on poor families' required spending for survival than the income tax does on rich families'. If taxes cross over into that territory, you're going to generate demand for welfare programs.

[Gilbert Martin]

It is not relevant at all.

The only relevant calculation is what is the dollar value of services received by the specific individual taxpayer vs the dollar amount of taxes he or she pay to the government in exchange for those services.

No one's income is a "service" provided to them by the federal government.

[Almanian]

My fucking GOD you're an idiot. Give it a rest.

[Episiarch]

I see Bok hasn't changed his talent level. It makes me miss the Friday Funnies...wait, no it doesn't.

[R C Dean]

i think Rahm said it best...

Never let a successful person who isn't paying tribute to the Party go unpunished by class warfare.

[Bucky]

smells like Union Spirit...

[Free2Booze]

Where can I buy the t-shirt?

[Dennis Moore]

"This income redistribution is trickier than I thought"

[Mr. Smite]

I'll have to improvise.

[joshua corning]

The blond guy in the bottom left corner is a racist depiction of the Irish.

[Confederal_Republic_by_2030]

I want to buy a huge American flag and walk through Berkeley with it. See how many thousands of people there'll be to form a lynch mob for me.

[Almanian]

If I were Sage, I would say:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Louis Vuitton 1904 Monogram Be]

Thans for nice sharing....As a professional IT certification bibles provider, enjoys a wide rang of reputation among the IT learners and candidates. With the extension of its businessadopted series of innovative movements, some of which are the promotion of Points for gift and the marketing strategy of Affiliate Prsogram of it http://www.louisvuitton.be/lou.....-p-24.html
Great article and I agree with you that young generation spend a lot of time on social networking sites as now people are quiet interested in sharing their views with other people and there you can get your own group who are interested on the same topic that you are interested in...

[comwenj]

720p HD porn

[granite countertop]

Every day we face with countertop,you can have a high quality of life with granite countertop of yalitongstone,but we will also very pleased if you can see Huaxingstone's granite countertop.

[forensic psychology salary]

Wash your palms with just a little soap on them (not also wet) and rub your hand on the glass to dampen the surface area. If you tilt the glass and water runs off, it is as well damp. Increase the paper very carefully to steer clear of trapping air bubbles between the glass and the paper.

[cc]

If you grew up like I do using a romantic eyesight of what my wedding party ought to be like, then no make any difference how quite a few issues there are to request yourself, you're positive of a single thing, it requirements being perfect. these days not everybody seems as worried about discovering the great Wedding Dresses, but for the vast majority of us - deep within - it actually does matter.

As quickly when you start preparing or even the large day, deciding on your wedding party attire gets an urgent require for most brides. Nobody would like to wait. even though dealing with wedding party strain and preparations, be positive to enable your self a lot of time to attempt on completely different designs and discover the a single who says "you".

The theme of your wedding party would be an significant place when choosing that unique dress. have you been obtaining married for the beach? If so, you may pick a gentle airy style. Have you made the decision on the formal affair? Then by all means, go all out and put on a light attire covered in silk and lace. what ever kind of celebration your wedding party will be, your attire will perform among the most significant roles in it!With the cost of weddings, some couples attempt and minimize back again by creating their personal flowers, or purchase some wedding dress in a specialized dress shop at a high price, but why don't you try to buy a cheap wedding dresse online directly. Where you can also purchase your ideal wedding dress and some new fashions. whatever style, colour or cost variety you sooner or later choose on when deciding on your wedding party dress, don't neglect that it's you your fianc? fell in adore with, not your dress. The attire adds towards ambiance from the day, however it isn't the genuine centerpiece.

After you have selected your wedding party attire hang it inside bag it arrives in and don't display it to everybody. Give company a thing to start looking forward to once they see you for your initial time walking along the aisle. And unless it is really unavoidable, don't allow your potential husband see your attire whatsoever prior to the wedding. They say it's poor luck as well as if that's merely a superstition, it definitely does spoil his surprise!