The Fruits of Apostasy: Politcal Correctness

[_DarkHelmet]

Unlike the FLDS, the LDS church has caved multiple times to political correctness, by giving blacks the priesthood and eliminating polygamy. They have also watered down their more controversial doctrines to appear more mainstream. Since the LDS church has caved to political correctness, does that make them an apostate sect? Wouldn't it make more sense to join the FLDS? The FLDS refuse to give in to the demands of the world.

[_Jason Bourne]

Lie number one. Let's start keeping tabs on this and we can do a final tally at the end. You see, whether or not Obama actually cut taxes depends deeply upon the your definition of "tax cut."

What Kevin is not going to tell you is that Obama's "tax cuts" are not letting you keep more of your own money by cutting, in am absolute sense, marginal tax rates or income taxes, but government tax credits funded by tax revenue or fiat money and extended to American citizens, upwards of a third of which now pay no income tax at all and are net receivers of their fellow citizens money.

Who cares whether it is a cut in rate, a credit or a deduction as long as it reduces your over all taxes. The impact is the same. A tax credit is no more funded by government revenue than a tax cut is unless as you noted you are receiving more tax than you actually paid in as is the case with only a few credits- the earned income credit and child credit being the primary ones-both of which have been in place longer than Obama has been president.

There were seven such "tax cuts", including:

1. A $500 tax credit for individuals or $1,000 per couple for working couples that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

2. A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

3. A mortgage interest tax credit of 10% that would exists alongside of other, preexisting mortgage interest deductions as well as other forms of housing subsidy.

4. A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

5. An expanded earned-income tax credit

6. A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

And the most obvious scam of all, the "clean car" credit that would pay you government money toward the purchase of government approved "green" vehicles.

Yes so what? And so what if there was a credit for purchases of hybrid cars (which was not allowed for AMT purposes). It is not a new thing for the government to provide certian incentives for behavior it wishes to encourage. There was also the Cash For Clunker under Bush if I recall. Were you unhappy with that one as well?

There we have the Obama middle class tax cuts. I invite Mr. Graham to show the marginal rate tax cuts that are actually, empirically, and unambiguously cuts in actual marginal rates from higher percentages of taxable income to lower. I invite him to show the absolute cuts in income tax rates to American citizens. This should be an easy task empirically.

A cut is a cut whether in the over all tax rates or credits. Right now your FICA tax is down 2% this year. Is that not a tax cut for you? Does it not put overall more cash in you pocket? Does it not reduce the over all average tax rate you pay for all your taxes? A credit or deduction does EXACTLY the same thing. It lowers your tax bill and thus your overall average tax rate.

Further, all of the above "tax cuts" save for the clean car wealth transfer are "refundable,"

I am not sure that they are all refundable. I would have to double check.

which is a semantic obfuscation that translated means that people with no tax liability at all can receive the tax "credit." In other words, virtually all of these "tax cuts" are, in point of fact, redistributions of wealth.

Yep. And how about in NY where there is what is called a Qualified Emerging Technology Credit that is for businesses in targeted industries or that spend a certain % of their income on qualifying R&E activities. This is a refundable credit up to $250,000. Do you view this as an evil redistribution of wealth as well? Or is it a wise use of NYS taxpayers money to generate and attract companies into the state for economic development purposes?

How do we know this? Because the legislation exists, for one reason. The other is because the cost of these "tax cuts" to the federal treasury is set to rise by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion. Yes, uh...Obama's "tax cuts" are actually federal expenditures.

Even a tax rate reduction is a federal expenditure because it reduced revenue.

You say he would raise taxes if he had his way, but this is only true to the extent that he wanted to raise taxes below Reagan levels, only for the richest 5%.

As I've already shown, and as is acutely available all over the web, in intellectual reviews and other venues for anyone interested on both sides of a political issue, Obama was set to raise all marginal rates from the lowest to the highest to a substantial degree,

Not on incomes under $250k. This is indisputable.

including dividend,

Yes from 15% to 20%. Before the Bush cuts dividends were taxed at whatever your normal rate was

corporate,

Hmmm not that I am aware of. He even has talked about lowering corporate rates to 25%, The top rate is now at 35%. Taxes on S Corps and partnerships would go up though because these are pass through entities that pay no tax. All the income is taxed on the owners Form 1040. Thus the correct accusation that in increase in top earners tax rates increases tax on small businesses. Most are S Corps or Partnerships and if say one of these has $500k of net income that lands on the owners return. He/She may only be taking a salary of say $150k but he gets taxed on $650k of income even if he/she reinvests back into the business or uses the profits to pay debt.

and and estate taxes,

How could the president increase real estate taxes? These are set locally.

but was prevented from doing so for two years by the Tax Relief Act of 2010. That act expires in 2013. As I also pointed out, the sunsetting of the Bush taxes alone would represent one of the largest effective tax hikes in U.S. history, which again gives the lie to claims of Obama "tax cuts."

Sure it would raise rates if all the tax rates were sunsetted.

Of course, one can argue, in a very broad sense, that taxes are at historic lows over a long period. When JFK entered office, the highest marginal rate was 90%. This dropped to 70% under Kennedy and then to 28% under Reagan.

In 1986 the tax reform act resulted in two rate brackets-15% and 28%. However as Kevin pointed out, the tax code was overhauled to such an extent that many deductions and other tax breaks were gone-including a lower rate on capital gains. Overall tax burdens increased for many under TRA of 1986 because of this. This is why rates are not all the matters in tax bills you or I pay as I explained above.

Its been moving upward since, to 35% now and which Obama wants to raise to nearly 40%.

It was 39.6% in top earners under Clinton.

American corporate taxes are among the highest in the western industrialized world.

Yes this is correct.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes this is true but the cuts have been nominal. Keep in mind that Obama came into office with rates over all fairly low especially for the middle class and lower. And this was a result of Bush tax rates.

Of course, but my only point is that taxes are at their lowest point since the 50's, and one of the biggest gripes against Obama continues to be the myth that we're taxed too much. It is just one of the many ways the Tea Party folks show their ignorance.

I think you know about 47% of Americans pay no tax. This again is due to the lower rates from the Bush area, an expanded Earned Income Credit from Obama and the Work to Pay Credit from Obama.

Actually, this is false. This claim was spread around in Right Wing circles for a year before it was shown to be myth. It is myth to say 47% pay no income tax, and it is even more a myth that they pay "no tax" whatsoever. That number is really around 20% for working adults. As Solon.com noted last year,

it's also false to imply that households paying no income tax escape federal taxation altogether. Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions, for example, add up to a nonrefundable 15.3 percent -- a slightly higher rate than wealthy citizens pay on income from dividends and capital gains

Besides, didn't I just point out to you that Obama lowered payroll taxes on Social Security? Everyone who works pays into this, even illegal immigrants who never stand a chance of receiving those benefits.

I might as well follow up with this article's conclusion as it hits the same points again:

Meanwhile, the gap between the super-rich and everybody else grows ever wider. According to the same study, the top .01 percent of U.S. families currently enjoy an average income 976 times that of the bottom 90 percent; in 1928, a year before the Great Depression, the ratio was a mere 892-to-1. Political democracies are hard to sustain amid such economic inequality.

The Bush/Obama TARP bailout of Wall Street banks, while necessary to salvage the financial system in the short term, was yet another example of a large wealth transfer from middle-class taxpayers to the super-rich. They don't appear particularly grateful, do they?

Anyway, still worried about those low-income lucky stiffs who paid no income tax this year?

If so, then you must be a Tea Party member, a group of anti-tax activists like Tennessee GOP congressional candidate Stephen Fincher, a dedicated fiscal conservative who the Washington Post learned receives $200,000 in subsidies from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

A cheap shot? Then check out Bruce Bartlett's fascinating Forbes article "The Misinformed Tea Party Movement." Polled, most attending a Washington demonstration overestimated federal taxes by a factor of three.

Moreover, like most Americans, and virtually all Republicans, they opposed increased government spending in general. But when quizzed on particulars such as highways, defense, education and healthcare, they advocate more spending. On the three big deficit drivers -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- fewer than 10 percent of Americans advocate serious cuts.

So pay up, and count your blessings.

Now back to your comments,

A $400 cut may be helpful but it is not a large cut.

That is just an example of the taxes he cut, but like I said before, "size" wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Bush and Reagan. The answer is yes.

$400 for month of groceries perhaps. But keep in mind that $400 was seen in paychecks over the year. So someone who is paid bi-weekly saw $15.38 more per pay check.

Yes, and the Obama administration did this on purpose. They wanted that money to go straight back into the economy.

Well I am not sure where you come up with this. The only numbers I can see our the net change in membership from year to year and it continues to increase

Of course it does. Like any good corporation, the CEO has to present the image that all is well. The LDS year-end report is very much like a report for corporate shareholders, and while technically those numbers might hold true "on paper" the Church knows very well that it doesn't adjust those numbers according to activity. So for instance, I'm one of the "14 million" members still counted on their rolls, and so are a dozen other critics on this forum.

This birth and convert baptisms exceeds deaths and departures.

There is no way for you to know how many people have departed. Official excommunications are rare, and it is questionable how these truly factor in the final tally. But few bother to deal with the hassle involved in the formal process. Most people who leave the Church do so in silence, and typically move to other locations without informing anyone in their ward.

Of course this is information from the Church. How many go inactive and leave their names on the record that are counted still from year to year who knows.

Exactly, but I think you already conceded that activity hovers between 30-40%. This is based on the number of people who actually show up for sacrament meetings, which means a majority do not show up at all. Droopy's argument is that most who leave the faith become secularists and not Evangelicals. This is probably right, which means these people became atheists thanks to the Mormon Church. Is it really reasonable to assume these people would have become atheists anyway? Living a Mormon life, and going through the motions as a defender, missionary, apologist, etc, really gnaws at the critical faculties of the mind, and so it is hardly surprising to me that those who give up on Mormonism, give up on religion altogether. This is because they see the true power of what religion can do; it can make intelligent people believe in very stupid things.

And I was at a training session when Church membership was about 10 million and the GA said that 8%-10% of Church members are in the lost file. Thus they do not know where these people are. How many of them do not consider themselves LDS I do not know.

I think it is safe to consider them "lost" in more ways than one. It seems silly to think active LDS members would move away and not inform their previous and new ward bishops of their transfer. Makes no sense if they believe the Church is true.

[_Kevin Graham]

About corporate taxes, it should be noted that corporations very rarely pay 35% income taxes. Corporations have dozens or hundreds of tax attorneys working for them to manipulate and take advantage of every possible loophole and tax shelter available to them. This is why so many corporations today pay zero income taxes.

And this should serve to refute Droopy's belief that lower taxes is the way to go to spur investment, create jobs. Tell me, did Exxon Mobile hire more workers after it was able to retain its billions in profits without a single dollar in tax liability? What about General Electric?

How many jobs did we see created after they not only paid zero taxes, but got a refund!?!?!

None, because it was just a ruse. These folks never believed their own BS to begin with and I proved this with the Milton Friedman citation. They always knew that lower taxes mean higher deficits and few revenues. They knew this from day one, but the couldn't just come out and say that. They had to make up this BS about how lowering taxes boost economy and creates jobs. We now know this was a myth, and those responsible for it represent everything that is wrong with this country. It is all about lies and manipulation for selfish means.

When the rate is 35% and corporations can work the system to pay on average only 15-20%, then the rate needs to be raised to 60%, just so they'll finally pay around 30-35%. Figuring out how to master and manipulate the tax system is just one of the many ways the wealthy have been robbing us blind. As the article above stated, one might think they'd be grateful after getting such a huge bailout from the stimulus. Corporations sitting on record profits, banks raking in billions thanks to our bailout, and all they can think to do is push for more legislation to reduce their tax liability to zero!!

Welcome to Capitalist America, where legislation is up for the highest bidder.

[Guest]

But according to Loran, Obama was going to increase taxes on everyone! He says the legislation for this "exists" so I guess he should be able to reference it, right?

http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-t ... tory-a5370

http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?fu ... wn&id=3646

As you will notice, Kevin cannot back up any of his arguments with any documentation or facts. All he can do, as is usual for him, is call names and flair his nostrils.

All of the facts I've mentioned in the above posts have been taken from leading think tanks who take their raw data from official government sources.

The Tax Relief Act of 2010 set aside the across the board tax increases and preserved the Bush tax cuts until 2013, at which time new legislation will have to be brought to the table to stop the return of those increases.

As I've already mentioned umpteen times, the Obama tax increases are widespread and broad based. Income taxes are only a small tip of an iceberg encompassing much of the economy, and even when we are done looking at that, state, local, and a vast plethora of other federal taxes involving much of that which we consume, use, or rely upon in our daily lives, is all set to skyrocket.

Obamacare, if it survives the courts, will require massive tax increases (unless its paid for through inflation). The EPA's endangerment ruling, if allowed to see the light of day, will destroy the economy, period.

http://www.atr.org/obamacare-taxes-final-tab-a4744

Roughly fifty percent of the cost of every gallon of gas purchased is tax.

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes ... 0pages.pdf

Graham is cornered, nothing more.

The Facts: Obama's tax plans, as stated on his Web site and as discussed by various analysts, would increase individual tax rates for the two highest tax brackets to pre-Bush administration levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent.

Wrong. Obama's 2011 budget would have imposed tax rate increases from the bottom to the top marginal rate, as well as the plethora of other taxes mentioned had the compromise Tax Relief Act of 2010 not stopped it.

That would apply to families with income greater than $250,000 or singles with income greater than $200,000, affecting about 2 percent of taxpayers. That tax increase - or repeal of Bush tax cuts, depending upon one's perspective - would affect a portion of small businesses because many small business owners pay their taxes through personal income tax.

Up to 1.3 million small businesses, to be precise.

The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire by 2011. Obama has said he would let them run out for people in the top two brackets, while giving new tax cuts to people making less.

This is a calculated lie by the President. As already shown, the Obama tax cuts were nothing more than wealth transfers, or tax credits, disguised as "cuts."

Obama's tax plan would leave the corporate tax rate at 35 percent and, according to Obama's Web site, taxes would remain the same or be reduced for families with less than $250,000 in income, whether that income came from a small business or wages or other sources.

Yes, after the relief act and no, he never had any intention of any actual cuts in marginal rates. If so, show me.

So let's see if Loran can provide the legislation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... /11msr.pdf

http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?fu ... wn&id=3646

My fault for having said that the legislation "exists." Obama proposed such legislation, and the Tax Relief Act of 2010, which modified his original proposals, did indeed become legislation.

[_Droopy]

According to Droopy, the view that tax cuts do not boost revenues is a minority view held only by "leftists."

Its an empirical and historical fact, not to mention logically implied by the very nature of free market economics itself (human beings tend to respond to incentives in certain invariable and predictable ways given human nature and the surrounding economic and political environment).

For example, Milton Friedman in Wall Street Journal 1/19/2003, admits that tax cuts result in deficits, and that this is a good thing because it would force government to spend less.

Of course they do...for the first year or so, and then the economy takes off, as it did in the 20s, the 60s after the Kennedy tax cuts, and in the eighties (the longest peace time economic expansion in history at the time). That the reasons for this escape you - but could easily be taught to a ten year old, is much more fascinating than the economic principles themselves.

This goes along with Dick Cheney's remark that "deficits don't matter" when Democrats were urging the Bush administration to reduce spending.

How can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.

Friedman, 9/16/03, admits that Government revenues can only be reduced by cutting taxes:

The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?" … The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.

So the real reason they seek to reduce taxes is to "starve the beast" they fear; and of course that beast is government.

Incredible! After years of fuming, ranting, and hair pulling tantrums, Graham finally lurches, like a blind squirrel finally coming upon a nut just as the first snowflakes of winter alight upon his nose, right into the truth of it. It took him a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears, but he finally stumbled upon the reality that the fundamental, overarching reason for cutting taxes, and cutting them substantially, is not to raise government revenue. No conservative has ever, indeed, made such an argument. The eventual rise in government revenue that occurs as the tax base expands is a side effect; an unintended and, indeed, unfortunate consequence of unshackling the creative and productive capacities of American entrepreneurs and workers.

The fundamental reason to cut taxes is to cut government; it is to defund the vast matrix of irrational, incompetent, invasive, intrusive, extraconstitutional activities the government engages in at the expense of our freedom, dignity, and the rule of law.

The battle against excessive taxation is a battle against excessive government. It is a battle against tyranny and the power inebriated madness of the political class to preserve liberty. Precisely, exactly, and indubitably.

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/a ... &type=cttf


The above is an excellent, short and concise recapitulation of supply side theory and a bit of its history. Milton Friedman is free to disagree with it, as are other economists on the right. The fact of the matter remains that the size of the federal treasure almost doubled during the years between 1983 and 1989, as did the size of the American economy. Charitable giving also roughly doubled during the 80s.

Graham's continued tactic of playing conservative and libertarian scholars off against each other is belied by the lack of his own arguments and inability to articulate a coherent theoretical structure supporting his own views.

All is as it has always been.

[Guest]

Just as a quick heads up, the effective corporate tax rate as a % of GDP in the US is one of the lowest in the world. The satutory rate is quite high against world standards, but there are so many loopholes, deductions, and qualified rebates/subsidies, and tax shelter schemes, that on balance it's quite low. This all varies from industry to industry, business to business, but you have situations where companies earning obscene profits not only pay nothing, but get money back from the government. I favor reforming the system by slashing the baseline rate and closing down the complicated web of exceptions, but as it stands, the US still has a corporate-friendly tax policy.

[_Blixa]

Droopy, the plural of anecdote is not data.

You are under the impression that Political Correctness causes with Apostasy or Apostasy causes political correctness. I presented you with some data that correlates.

Do you not understand the difference?

I follow a veritable vomit of posts of the Mormon internet, from Mormon anarchists to the Mormon Worker. Every single point you put down in your OP can be reconfigured to point to the same issues on the Mormon Right. Indeed, the right wing consensus in Utah seems to be fraying a little with the Church's repeated statements on immigration. There is plenty of discussion on the Mormon right about the occasional visit from a bishop over 'Talking too much about Ezra Taft Benson'.

I would instead posit that the Church is primarily concerned with 1) publicity and 2) extremism.

Now note the form of this argument Droop. I am not trying to prove that apostasy biases one towards the right. I'm calling into doubt your entire premise that right v. left matters to Mormon leaders. Mormon leaders primary concerns are conformity, obedience and dependability.

Hallelujah! Thank you. Please never leave.

[_Morley]

Droopy, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Hereby nominated for the award of The Best Line in This Thread.

[Guest]

Who cares whether it is a cut in rate, a credit or a deduction as long as it reduces your over all taxes.The impact is the same.
A tax credit is no more funded by government revenue than a tax cut is unless as you noted you are receiving more tax than you actually paid in as is the case with only a few credits- the earned income credit and child credit being the primary ones-both of which have been in place longer than Obama has been president.

The impact is monumentally different. As I pointed out above, all of the Obama "tax cuts" aren't tax cuts at all, but wealth transfers. Tax credits that send you a check from the federal treasury are not productive as tax cuts (and they aren't tax "cuts" in any cogent sense at all, which should not be lost sight of) because they do not create wealth, across the entire economy. They may be a windfall for you, (if the government sent every man, woman, and child in the country a check for $1 million dollars, everyone would be far wealthier, but no wealth whatsoever would have been created (and the economy would implode) but the recession is national, and is not just hitting your household or your town.

Shifting wealth from one place to another is not wealth creation, even though it appears to have "created" wealth for you (you have money in your hands you didn't have before). One provision, a $500 per worker tax credit, cost the federal treasury $150 billion. A tax credit to assist you in buying a Prius or a Volt is taken out of the private economy and transferred to you. This appears to you as "wealth creation" (for you, as in individual) but represents a net loss to the economy.

This is wealth shifting, not wealth creation stimulated by cuts in marginal rates that incentivize work, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship.

All the other provisions, including the the $4,000 tax credit for college tuition, the 10% mortgage interest tax credit, the savings tax credit of 50% up to $1,000, the expanded earned-income tax credit, the child care credit, and the "clean car" credit, are government subsidies. They cost the American taxpayer money. They are wealth transfer programs like any other wealth transfer program. They do not create wealth, they do not incentivize work , and they have nothing to do with job creation and economic expansion. They are a net cost to the economy.

Yes so what? And so what if there was a credit for purchases of hybrid cars (which was not allowed for AMT purposes). It is not a new thing for the government to provide certian incentives for behavior it wishes to encourage.

1. Calling it a "tax cut" is a bald deception.
2. Such measures have nothing to do with job creation and economic expansion.
3. By definition, if the state needs to subsidize a technology or industry, that industry is, ipso facto, economically unviable (save for certain industries that have no inherent or viable private market by their very nature, such as, for example, cruise missiles).
4. It is none of the state's business to encourage or discourage what kind of car I drive.

There was also the Cash For Clunker under Bush if I recall. Were you unhappy with that one as well?

It was a major boondoggle. Not even worth mentioning.

A cut is a cut whether in the over all tax rates or credits.

Dead wrong.

Right now your FICA tax is down 2% this year. Is that not a tax cut for you? Does it not put overall more cash in you pocket? Does it not reduce the over all average tax rate you pay for all your taxes? A credit or deduction does EXACTLY the same thing. It lowers your tax bill and thus your overall average tax rate.

Why are you changing the subject?

Yep. And how about in NY where there is what is called a Qualified Emerging Technology Credit that is for businesses in targeted industries or that spend a certain % of their income on qualifying R&E activities. This is a refundable credit up to $250,000. Do you view this as an evil redistribution of wealth as well? Or is it a wise use of NYS taxpayers money to generate and attract companies into the state for economic development purposes?

I have no problem with it if it is a tax cut in the rates they will pay to relocate. If it is a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the company, then it is corporate welfare, which I am against.

Even a tax rate reduction is a federal expenditure because it reduced revenue.

Oh come on Jason, this is inside-the-beltwayspeak. If you lose a few days of work due to sickness, do you call that an "expenditure" or a net loss of income, and curtail your spending for the time being accordingly?

Not having a certain amount of revenue does not "cost" the government any money, and forgive me for saying so, but this claim embroils one in the nakedest of sophistry. All it means is that they can only spend what they have. The hidden assumption of this argument, that the government has a preemptive claim on any quantity of your money it so desires, and is the actual owner of your paycheck until it decides what you shall be allowed to keep, is a bit...disturbing, don't your think?

As I've already shown, and as is acutely available all over the web, in intellectual reviews and other venues for anyone interested on both sides of a political issue, Obama was set to raise all marginal rates from the lowest to the highest to a substantial degree,

Not on incomes under $250k. This is indisputable.[/quote]

Wrong. That was a later emendation.

http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-t ... tory-a5370

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... -Americans

The Tax Relief Act of 2010 was passed in December of 2010. The details you see in the second source here reflect resistance to his original plan, as well as further tax increases retained in the compromise. The provisions of that act expire in 2013.

Yes from 15% to 20%. Before the Bush cuts dividends were taxed at whatever your normal rate was

So, why should divident tax rates be raised? Why not lower, or abolish them?

Hmmm not that I am aware of.

Not necessarily corporate income taxes, but numerous other forms, including Obamacare (unless waivers are granted, which seems to be the wave of the future, McDonald's having just been exempted).

How could the president increase real estate taxes? These are set locally.

No, the estate tax...the "death" tax.