Coburn's Viagra Amendment Goes Flaccid

[nathanm]

Who pays for those tax increases?  Does the revenue to pay the additional taxes just magically appear or does it wind up factored into the cost to manufacture a device.  Who uses medical devices?
...
9 out of 10 times they won't maintain anything and the value of the property will degrade further than it would if it sat empty by willful neglect and in many cases outright vandalism.

You're seriously trying to defend Guido's argument that a tax on certain corporations is a tax on people earning less than $250,000 a year?
...
I don't think so. Even a person not maintaining the home will be better on it than having the utilities shut off and letting it rot in the summer humidity. It's shocking how quickly houses deteriorate structurally when they are not properly ventilated.

Interestingly, MBS are trading as if the loss ratio will be 80 or 90% across the board. I don't have recent numbers handy, but last year, the loss severity was around 65%.

Moody's is forecasting non-subprime Option ARM loss severity to be over 50% this year on '06 and '07 loans.

Also, I seem to remember that there was a provision in the stimulus to not treat amounts written off on a loan secured by your primary residence as taxable income. I forget exactly what the terms are, but I specifically remember that issue being addressed.

[Conan71]

I'm not defending anyone else's argument, Nathan it's a principle I've long espoused.  I'm pointing out that corporate taxes are paid by customers of the corporation by via higher prices.  Yes the corporate treasurer's signature is on the check (or in most cases of companies this large a facsimile of a signature).

A large percentage of medical device and medication users make under $250K if you want to extrapolate it that way.  No it's not a direct tax on those people, however taxes like this are regressive in nature when you look at who ultimately winds up paying the taxes.  The consumer, and typically those on fixed incomes and disability payments wind up using more devices & meds.

[nathanm]

I'm not defending anyone else's argument, Nathan it's a principle I've long espoused.  I'm pointing out that corporate taxes are paid by customers of the corporation by via higher prices.

Yes, but would you argue that someone who said "I'm not going to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year" is lying if they raise taxes on corporations?

Corporate taxes are paid by higher prices or lower profits, yes. Which it ends up being depends on the demand elasticity for a given product line. Sometimes raising prices will lose you even more money than a tax.

Let's keep in mind that the companies involved negotiated that particular tax and how it is structured.

[Conan71]

To cynics like me it's double-speak, particularly when there is a plot for systemic tax increases which "aren't tax increases".

No they did not directly agree to raise taxes on those making less than $250k but they used class envy to dupe people into believing that tax increases on greedy corporations & the rich somehow don't ultimately wind up being paid for by those who are led to believe they are unaffected by them

[guido911]

To cynics like me it's double-speak, particularly when there is a plot for systemic tax increases which "aren't tax increases".

No they did not directly agree to raise taxes on those making less than $250k but they used class envy to dupe people into believing that tax increases on greedy corporations & the rich somehow don't ultimately wind up being paid for by those who are led to believe they are unaffected by them

That is exactly my point. The higher tax will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices, most of which (statistically) earn less than $250K/year and probably are the most vulnerable since they need these devices to make their lives manageable. I cannot understand how Nate doesn't get that.  Interestingly, there were several amendments offered during reconciliation to exempt certain classes of people, such as veterans and children. Well, we know how that ended up--flaccid:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/63358

Here's the video of Obama pledging no increase in taxes (which he of course broke with the passage of S-CHIP and the tobacco tax):

[nathanm]

I cannot understand how Nate doesn't get that. 

I understand what you guys are saying, I just am not so anti-tax that I care. Every dollar has to come from somewhere, if one business chooses to raise its prices while another accepts a slightly lower profit margin, the one that is willing to take the lower margin per product will sell more stuff.

[Red Arrow]

As I approach retirement age I am trying to become a Liberal so that I can have the government support me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed. I will try my best to believe the money will magically appear.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's not so much the fried chicken remark as the fact that he is such a dipstick.  More the overall tone he sets, so that anything he says will be taken as being in that overall tone context regardless of the exact terminology.  Remember all the crap Dipstick Keating spewed during his time as Governor?  Same kind of thing.

And Gene Stipe, Jim Inhoffe, the fool woman in Oklahoma City area - can't remember her name - who wants to kill the gays or at least put them all in prison.

[guido911]

It's not so much the fried chicken remark as the fact that he is such a dipstick.  More the overall tone he sets, so that anything he says will be taken as being in that overall tone context regardless of the exact terminology.  Remember all the crap Dipstick Keating spewed during his time as Governor?  Same kind of thing.

And Gene Stipe, Jim Inhoffe, the fool woman in Oklahoma City area - can't remember her name - who wants to kill the gays or at least put them all in prison.

It's not so much the fried chicken remark as the fact that he is such a dipstick republican. FIFY

[heironymouspasparagus]

Gene Stipe wasn't a Publican.

He was probably the worst this state has ever seen.  Probably even a few points worse than Jim Inhoffe.  Kind of a southeast Oklahoma Huey Long wannabe.
Randy is a Publican, just not much of a Republican.  Page Belcher was a Republican - and a really good man to boot.  And David Boren.  There just haven't been many lately.

It is Democrats AND Republicans that are running this state into the ground.  As well as the rest of the country.  That's why I adhere to the philosphy of voting out any and all incumbents.  Newbies will take some time to learn how to do the graft and corruption, which buys us a little breathing space.  By the time they figure it out, we then vote them out and get new ones.  Simple.

[nathanm]

The consumer, and typically those on fixed incomes and disability payments wind up using more devices & meds.

Pretty soon, it'll be their insurance companies paying the bill, adding yet another layer of indirection.

Philosophically, I just can't get behind your position, as the only logical conclusion is eliminating all corporate taxation, which I consider an absurd result.

[Conan71]

Pretty soon, it'll be their insurance companies paying the bill, adding yet another layer of indirection.

Philosophically, I just can't get behind your position, as the only logical conclusion is eliminating all corporate taxation, which I consider an absurd result.

Nope, not at all.  You've reached a false conclusion about my philosophies.  What would be logical about eliminating all corporate taxation?  You made that up, not me.

I want a smaller, less deft government which doesn't need as much money to operate as it does now.  We waste far, far too much money in areas the government should not be involved in.  The problem, as I see it, between your philosophy (and is generally the difference between fiscal libs and cons) and mine is you seem to think a large government is normal and acceptible.  Liberals typically believe that government offers the fairest solution to just about any issue or social deficiency.  I think a lot of liberals like you have either thrown your hands up and figured the system is the way it is so leave it alone, or you want someone else to solve every problem instead of taking personal accountability to solve your own problems.  An example would be twenty-somethings changing personal priorities and buying health insurance in place of expecting the government should provide it so they can afford a slightly bigger house or a new BMW instead of a second-hand Toyota. (yes, I know gross generalization)

I don't have a problem providing for myself nor paying for my own retirement, keeping myself employed at a level I can afford my health care.  I don't have a problem paying for my fair share of government services and even a portion of my productivity going to help educate others and to provide a hand up for those who are struggling.  I don't have a problem with that at all.  I realize government has to exist to prevent society from lapsing into anarchy and to help provide certain common services like national defense, highways, safe food products, police protection, fire protection, promote commerce so that business can thrive, clean water, safe sewage disposal, nice green spaces I can enjoy on my bicycle, clean water ways I can enjoy with human, wind, or mechanical power, etc.  And I wouldn't have a problem directly paying for those benefits on a per use basis, if necessary, to keep them that way.

But, I believe the Federal government has become too big, costly, and deft to properly serve the people it purports to serve in an efficient manner and I believe the government tries to be too many things to too many people.  I see our country becoming a nanny state where people are becoming overly dependent on government to solve every problem for them, instead of trying to provide their own solutions.  I also see too many limited special interests dipping their beak in the treasury who have no business being there.  "Community organizing groups" have no business being funded on any government level.  I think the general aviation (this coming from a pilot) airports should be pay-to-play by the users and tenants- plenty more examples of that exist.  Every conservative and every liberal accepts graft and creates waste to pay back their best donors.  Bloated government is the result of decades of systemic corruption which must end.  Earmarks need to go away permanently.  We need to quit cloaking more government handouts (corporate and individual), more bureaucracies, and more needless pet projects into un-related bills.  The only way to bring transparency to Federal legislation is to end the practice of 500, 1000, or 2000 page mega-bills. We should not put up with this practice any more.

We don't need lower taxes so much as we need less government spending, fewer government agencies, and better decision-making as to where the resources of government are best placed and serve the best interests of the public.  Our government has become like the "Blob".  Started out small but gradually keeps creeping and consuming and becoming ever bigger to the detriment and fear of people.

The difference is Nathan, you seem to be content with simply raising taxes to pay for all the waste and un-needed services of government instead of simply scaling back the function and size of government.  I suspect strongly that health care for every US citizen could be done without raising any taxes at all if we went through and cut out every un-needed service and un-needed "project" the government gets suckered into paying for.

/long, windy conservative hack diatribe

[nathanm]

The difference is Nathan, you seem to be content with simply raising taxes to pay for all the waste and un-needed services of government instead of simply scaling back the function and size of government.  I suspect strongly that health care for every US citizen could be done without raising any taxes at all if we went through and cut out every un-needed service and un-needed "project" the government gets suckered into paying for.

Actually, I completely agree that we could pay for health care by cutting waste. I doubt we agree on what in the federal budget is waste, however! 

I do think that if I were to take the position that corporate taxes are necessarily individual taxes just by dint of the way corporations work, I would be unable to find logical support for continuing corporate taxation. After all, what's the point of pretending to take money from one group when you're really taking it from someone else? The only reason to do it is obfuscation.

Thankfully, I do find a distinction there, so I don't have to take that position.

[Gaspar]

Thankfully, I do find a distinction there, so I don't have to take that position.

Great!  I've always wondered what that distinction is, but none have been able to describe it yet. 

It sounds like you understand the distinction between taxes on businesses and increased cost to the consumer.  Please let me know how that works.

[nathanm]

It sounds like you understand the distinction between taxes on businesses and increased cost to the consumer.  Please let me know how that works.

In a competitive market, it will sometimes or even often benefit the corporation to not pass through increased taxes through increased sales prices of their goods, as profits will be reduced further than the tax alone causes due to pricing some of the demand out of the market.

It all depends on the amount of competition and the demand elasticity of the good.