Nineteen Eleven

i think its funny how guys you think putting a morality into economics ever makes the numbers pan out well.

just because its possible to live very well making 2 million a year max, doesnt mean its not even more comfortable making 10 million a year.

lets say he makes 10million a year at 35%.

hes out 350,000 dollars a mil. 3.5million dollars is supposed to be taxed from his 10million dollar income(total income preferred, everything earned not this loophole bs we have now). thats basically the equivalent of you losing 10,000 on an income of 30k. its a massive hit, lucky for him he has the money to eat that hit and still have money to live comfortably. raising his taxes lowers the amount he can save however to reinvest in his business(hiring more, giving raises to current employees, expanding to new business ventures). if this country had not enabled people to save and earn millions or billions of dollars, how would something like the private space sector ever get launched? its a very wealthy person realizing the importance and potential financial gain from investing in that field, who could not have done that if he was being taxed at a 70+ percent rate on his excess income his entire working life from the moment he made over a million a year.

warren buffet and bill gates say they are not being taxed high enough. why arent they sending the federal government what they think they should be being taxed then? notice they didnt complain about not being taxed in the 90s when the tax rates where virtually the same to current rates and if i remember correctly actually lower in some regards.

how is it the government can increase spending every year by leaps and bounds, force itself into segments of the economy it has no business dicking around it while artificially inflating the cost of that market and when it crashes its the sole responsibility of the people who made millions and perhaps billions from it? they wouldnt have had that chance had the federal government stayed the **** out of the way. school loans are a prime example, same with the housing market. both became inflated and one has already crashed due to overspending on a market that did not have the financial ability to back itself. while inflation has increased 2.5x since 1978, the cost of a college education has increased 10x that. the cost of education should be rising rather similar to inflation. why is this not so? perhaps JUST PERHAPS, its because the government started giving out loans at substantially lower rates than the market was at, and started giving more grants to people. once that happened schools said "well **** that, now we can make more money doing the exact same **** thing" and started raising tuition costs at an astounding rate. now a degree that 30 years ago cost 10 thousand to get, cost 30+ thousand to receive and nothing has changed in how the classes are taught next to perhaps the content of the courses. there is no real reason for the cost of education to be jumping like that except for inflation caused by federal involvement.

and raising the retirement age to 70 is a super idea. except for the fact that by 70 half the population isnt doing very well physically or mentally and cant work anymore.

hell, plenty of people have trouble making it to the 60s.

Your critique of student loans is fair as is your argument that raising the retirement age would be a hardship. As for social security there are 3 options: 1. Lower benefits, 2. increase taxes, 3. raise the retirement age. I think the 3rd option is the most politically feasible. Opinions can differ on that.

Where I believe you are incorrect is on your understanding of tax policy.

lets say he makes 10million a year at 35%.

First of all almost no one makes 10 Mil in ordinary income (which is what is taxed at 35%) chances are a majority of our fictions example's (lets call him Bob) income comes from capital gains which are taxed currently at 15%. This is why Warren Buffet pays 17% in tax because most of his income comes from capital gains. The tax rates which I suggested would cap ordinary income taxes at 39.6% and bring capital gains back to 25%. No one, at least not me, is advocating for taxes to return to the 1960's, 1970's era tax rates that generated stagflation. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html - This site shows tax rates from every year and you can compare.

hes out 350,000 dollars a mil. 3.5million dollars is supposed to be taxed from his 10million dollar income(total income preferred, everything earned not this loophole bs we have now). thats basically the equivalent of you losing 10,000 on an income of 30k. its a massive hit, lucky for him he has the money to eat that hit and still have money to live comfortably.

Moving on even if Bob did make all $10 million in ordinary income, he will not pay even close to $3.5 million. You have not taken into account any deductions whatsoever. Whether those are charitable contributions, moving expenses, home ownership credits etc. There are zounds of them and any accountant worth their salt can find them and do find them for people who make that kind of money. Moreover it is not equivalent of someone losing $10,000 from a $30,000 income. That is the whole purpose of a progressive taxation system (which has always existed in this country).

raising his taxes lowers the amount he can save however to reinvest in his business(hiring more, giving raises to current employees, expanding to new business ventures). if this country had not enabled people to save and earn millions or billions of dollars, how would something like the private space sector ever get launched?

Lastly this is also incorrect. The IRC (Internal revenue code, not internet relay chat ) is littered with deductions for businesses. Reinvesting in ones business does not create a taxable event. Employing people is an expense and therefore deductible to a business. In fact if you own a business and your business LOSES money you can carry back the loss two years to offset gains in prior years (you can amend your return from the prior year), any excess may be carried forward to offset gains in future periods as well. There are many more benefits available that I could go on and on about. But either way the system is setup so that entrepreneurs have every excuse to be able to deduct almost anything that is used for their business. This is why this job creator rhetoric is complete bullshit, its already subsidized (as it should be). Wealthy people have done fine in era's of much higher taxation. The country can't afford the current rates and should revert back to 1990's tax levels. These taxes are still lower than in the 80's,70's,60's,50's,40's and 30s.

Hope that makes sense and isn't too technical.

i said get rid of the loophole BS. i dont see a reason to give deductions on tax just because you have a kid, gave to charity or decided to install some solar lighting. i want that 35% tax to be a straight tax on your income period. not what type of income it is. income period.

stop subsidizing these things, and the market will value itself out. prices wont go through the roof, or no one will buy the product.

let's keep taxes where they are and shut down centralized government for 3 years and see where we are with the national debt woooooooooooooooo

gwolf_ wrote:The problem is the democrats are too liberal and the republicans are too conservative. The middle has been lost in the fray.

Here is how I would solve the problems:
1. Put taxes back to the exact same amount they were at in the 1990's while the economy was successful and leave them alone. Businesses need certainty, these rates have worked before and will work again. None of this 9-9-9 shit, we're talking about taxes not a **** pizza deal.
2. Get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Raise the retirement age to 70 for anyone 40 and under. (This solves social security liquidity problem)
4. Adjust Security benefit payouts so that wealthy people don't get them. Cap it for people whose estates are $2,000,000+ something like that.

Not rocket science!

Corporate taxes are bunk anyway. The cost is simply internalized to the consumer and there is no material benefit from it. Given how many qualify for tax holidays, exemptions, and other ways of not paying, then it doesn't make too much sense to keep having the tax on them.

How about we put taxes on the wealthy when we were truly the most successful - the 50s and 60s? Seriously, put cash into the system. We need to pay our debts anyway, so, the point has to be discussed.

If you really think the Democratic Party is liberal, then you're out of touch with politics. No, seriously, there isn't a serious ounce of liberal attitude in the leadership. You might have a fringe liberal in the caucus in the Here or There, but the Democratic Party is nothing akin to being liberal. It just isn't crazy like the Republican Party.


Doesn't fix the problems with social security. Social Security has been treated like a slush fund for the discretionary spending of Congress to pay for new tanks, defense contracts, and other machinations. Social Security would be fine today if the fund had not been looted by Congress since the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Expecting people to suddenly work til they're 70 is garbage too. When you get to 55 or 60, tell people who have worked their whole lives they need to work another 10-15 before than can "retire". Not buying it.

scorch- wrote:let's keep taxes where they are and shut down centralized government for 3 years and see where we are with the national debt woooooooooooooooo

Probably akin to what Somalia looks like.


Also, the biggest abusing states for welfare and government spending would suddenly be on the hook for their own problems, i.e. the American South.

Expecting people to suddenly work til they're 70 is garbage too. When you get to 55 or 60, tell people who have worked their whole lives they need to work another 10-15 before than can "retire". Not buying it.

Okay then. What are you going to do with it then? SS is not sustainable as going concern forever at present. You either have to raise SS taxes or reduce benefits if you don't increase the retirement age. (a combination of all three would be acceptable as well, perhaps retirement 68, ss taxes up 2% benefits removed for wealthy individuals, raise the cap on social security taxes, right now you don't pay into social security beyond $106,000) I've somewhat taken this idea from http://kpcb.com/usainc/ Don't forget that SS was developed decades ago when life expectancy's were much lower.

I agree with you that the democrats are far more moderate than republicans. I should've said their problem is that they're lousy politicians and have no balls more so than they are too liberal. The republicans are whacky though. The only candidate with a brain for the presidency has 1% in the polls (Jon Huntsman)

Doesn't fix the problems with social security. Social Security has been treated like a slush fund for the discretionary spending of Congress to pay for new tanks, defense contracts, and other machinations. Social Security would be fine today if the fund had not been looted by Congress since the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Nope not really. The massive baby boomer generation that was previously paying into social security is about to take out of social security, that is the long term issue. SS was designed to be self sustainable with its own taxes. This is why the federal income tax doesn't contribute to it only the payroll taxes.

Probably akin to what Somalia looks like.


Also, the biggest abusing states for welfare and government spending would suddenly be on the hook for their own problems, i.e. the American South.

yep

How about we put taxes on the wealthy when we were truly the most successful - the 50s and 60s? Seriously, put cash into the system. We need to pay our debts anyway, so, the point has to be discussed.

Taxes don't need to go that high. The funny thing about supply side economics and the Laffer curve (stating that tax revenue goes up as tax rates go down) is it was all developed in the 60's-70's when taxes were very high. These conditions created stagflation in the 70's. The problem with supply side economics is the logic was then applied further in the early 2000's when taxes had already been low in the 90's. Now republicans want to take taxes even lower. Putting them back to pre bush tax cut era levels will do just fine.

Corporate taxes are bunk anyway. The cost is simply internalized to the consumer and there is no material benefit from it. Given how many qualify for tax holidays, exemptions, and other ways of not paying, then it doesn't make too much sense to keep having the tax on them.

Actually the corporate tax code prevents money laundering and all sorts of scams. It would take pages and pages for me to explain all of this but essentially it prevents people from funneling money to and from entities and hiding it from tax with offshore accounts and such. Unless you believe in Ayn Rand fairy tales its not smart. It is complete nonsense that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Its true that we have one of the highest rates (35%) but the base of which the tax is calculated is far smaller than other countries due to deductions and exemptions. Also that rate only applies to large corporations. Small businesses don't pay that much. Phasing out some deductions and lowering the rate to 30 or 28 would probably be reasonable.

i personally wouldnt mind a slight increase in the SS tax, as long as people stop using the SS fund to pay other shit. i also dont think its fair to exempt people who have a nw of 2million or higher, they paid into it same as anyone else. i think they should be allowed to chose if they wish to collect that money, or perhaps donate the yearly amount to a lower tier bracket of SS recipients.

the only tax i really despise in this country is the direct income tax. SS tax should be voluntary, i can imagine most people would still pay into it if we reworked the system to make is sustainable.

Okay then. What are you going to do with it then? SS is not sustainable as going concern forever at present. You either have to raise SS taxes or reduce benefits if you don't increase the retirement age. (a combination of all three would be acceptable as well, perhaps retirement 68, ss taxes up 2% benefits removed for wealthy individuals, raise the cap on social security taxes, right now you don't pay into social security beyond $106,000) I've somewhat taken this idea from http://kpcb.com/usainc/ Don't forget that SS was developed decades ago when life expectancy's were much lower.

You cut discretionary spending and defense budget and refill the pot. SS wasn't never unsustainable until the USFG decided to use it as a free checking account. Man, imagine what you could do with $200 billion a year from the DOD's budget. I'm like 99% sure that'd make SS sustainable.

I agree with you that the democrats are far more moderate than republicans. I should've said their problem is that they're lousy politicians and have no balls more so than they are too liberal. The republicans are whacky though. The only candidate with a brain for the presidency has 1% in the polls (Jon Huntsman)

Huntsman represents corporate interests. He might not be a batshit insane fundamentalist, but he's definitely a problem when it comes to the neo-liberalism slant. He's part of the problem. Social issues are a mask to the real thing - the economy. If you got people to stop going back and forth on such miniscule issues like gay marriage and abortion, then the middle class would get a **** clue as to the looting and pillaging the mega-wealthy have done to this country.

James Carville said it right, "it's the economy, stupid."

Neo-classical liberalism has a stranglehold on our economics because it makes the rich much richer at the expense of everyone else. People who went to Harvard, Yale, Penn, etc. are all the same children sucking from the same tit.

The one thing "The Inside Job" does is underscore how bankrupt the entire academic to professional system for finance is in the United States. Until the moral turpitude is fixed, we're ****.

Nope not really. The massive baby boomer generation that was previously paying into social security is about to take out of social security, that is the long term issue. SS was designed to be self sustainable with its own taxes. This is why the federal income tax doesn't contribute to it only the payroll taxes.

No, actually it has been. Even Ron Paul has introduced legislation to stop this kind of shit. It's that bad. SS was never in a liquidity problem until the early 1990s when the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats decided it was a checking account for them to use.

Social Security has paid for everything BUT social security.

Taxes don't need to go that high. The funny thing about supply side economics and the Laffer curve (stating that tax revenue goes up as tax rates go down) is it was all developed in the 60's-70's when taxes were very high. These conditions created stagflation in the 70's. The problem with supply side economics is the logic was then applied further in the early 2000's when taxes had already been low in the 90's. Now republicans want to take taxes even lower. Putting them back to pre bush tax cut era levels will do just fine.

The bigger problems in the 1960s and 1970s was a strangulation on trade and cartels on energy. Taxes had been historically high since the 1930s. If you want to make a case that 60% marginal tax rate was too high, then sure. However, reality seems quite different when you look at it.

The only president the last 30 years who had the balls to say taxes had to be raised was Bush Sr. He got stuck with Reagan's reckless spending and late 1980s Yuppie Burst. The thing he suffered from was a campaign promise - "read my lips" - However, Reagan's supply-side theory is complete bunk. It presumes corporations, not wealthy individuals, will infuse the system with growth. Companies pay more to ALL of their employees, who in turn demand MORE from the economy. Except, the managmeent just reward themselves with bigger money.

The Laffer Curve is one of the most contentious issues in economics OUTSIDE of the United States. European and Asian modeling shows it largely to be complete junk. Even in the States they make alternative theories to "make it work" even though the facts behind it don't add up. In truth, the system adjusts. I don't really worry about our economy if 1% of the population isn't spending. I worry about 99% not spending money.

Actually the corporate tax code prevents money laundering and all sorts of scams. It would take pages and pages for me to explain all of this but essentially it prevents people from funneling money to and from entities and hiding it from tax with offshore accounts and such. Unless you believe in Ayn Rand fairy tales its not smart. It is complete nonsense that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Its true that we have one of the highest rates (35%) but the base of which the tax is calculated is far smaller than other countries due to deductions and exemptions. Also that rate only applies to large corporations. Small businesses don't pay that much. Phasing out some deductions and lowering the rate to 30 or 28 would probably be reasonable.

I'm not talking about laundering money. I'm talking about the cost being internalized into the final price. If Wal-Mart pays $X amount of tax on income, they never actually pay that cost. Wal-Mart puts that tax into the prices for the products it sells.

Funny story, Wal Mart is turning in its highest profits ever and yet it is cutting benefits and pay.



The system is broken. Executive pay needs to be reigned in. The fact shareholders and management are largely indistinguishable is a problem in and of itself in the United States. Until that delineation is underscored and clearly marked, we're not going to see an improvement in the system.