Couldn’t of said it better myself, numi.
The tax rate on people making over 200,000 in the 50’s was over 90%. The rich today have it easy.
I guess we’ll just have to just become better asset managers to make up the difference 
Numi hit the nail on the head in terms of America’s inability to live within our means. Regarding the upcoming election, I don’t see that translating into voting for John McCain. He’s been encouraging America to keep on spending as a solution to the economic downturn. As for letting those that made poor financial decisions off the hook, well, I don’t like that either. However, Obama has sent a clear message that he believes Americans need to rethink their consumption and start “living within their means.” There won’t be a perfect solution to the mess we’re in, but I believe Obama has a better understanding and plan.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John McCain has said Sarah Palin is the most > qualified VP candidate in recent memory. That’s > either an outright lie or an indication of his > terrible judgment. Did he say that ? that’s one of the most outrageous statements I’ve heard in a long time.
I am concerned that Obama is writing checks, his administration will not be able to cash. Then they will forcefully try and cash it and that’s when property and intellectual rights will come under threat. All men (and women) are created equal but some of us work harder and play a more responsible game to elevate ourselves and reach our goals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203346.html “I think she’s most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president, tell you the truth,” McCain said, citing her experience as a small-town mayor and Alaska governor. He added: “Bill Clinton was pretty well derided when he came out of a small state to run for president of the United States,” and he pronounced himself “amazed” at the criticism. " I suppose that includes his good buddy Joe Lieberman.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John McCain has said Sarah Palin is the most > qualified VP candidate in recent memory. That’s > either an outright lie or an indication of his > terrible judgment. she’s more qualified than Edwards…but thats not saying much…
Pox Americana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Substantive: possessing substance; having > practical importance, value, or effect > > I was pointing out that there has been no > principle-based discussion of taxation. So rather > than arguing about how one guy will tax you at > this rate and this guy will tax you at that rate, > it would be interesting to hear a candidate > question whether the government should be stealing > your income at all. No major candidate other than > Ron Paul had the balls or integrity to do this. You can’t have a properly functionin society without taxation, as much as I hate taxes. Look at the Middle East… They should be low, relatievly flat, and apply to all working people in my opinion. As well, I’d prefer more consumption and carbon tax (bads) and less income tax (goods). No taxation without representation; no representation without taxation.
Pox Americana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also aspire to be wealthy one day, and one of my > goals is to be able to give back to society and > help those in need. I am a strong believer in > philanthropy - I work at a Foundation for Pete’s > sake! But I think that individuals and private > organizations are much better at accomplishing > this than a huge, blundering bureaucracy. As Jim > Rogers points out (oh sorry – is he a “paultard” > too?), the federal government struggles to run the > postal service efficiently, and yet we continue to > believe that they can run more complicated > operations, like $700B bailouts and social > security? Props for Jim Rogers quotes!!!
I can’t wait to see how people feel about “taxing the rich” when the “rich” are forced to cut their labor forces to maintain decent margins, leading to unemployment rates that we haven’t seen in a long time. It’s not all about the rich; it’s also about the small business owners that make more than $250,000 (or make $200,000 this year and $275,000 next year, etc.) and employ millions of Americans. And sure, Obama has maintained that he will “cut taxes for 95% of Americans” (which, I might add, just means increased welfare for many, because something like 40% of Americans don’t even pay income taxes), but President Clinton campaigned on cutting taxes for the middle class, too. And then what happened? He go into office, realized there wouldn’t be enough money, and raised taxes on the middle class. I’d be shocked if the same thing didn’t happen within the next 2 years.
“I’m 23, young and still in a lower tax bracket, and the impact that an extra couple hundred bucks off my tax bill now will have on my life is tenfold the extra few thousand when I’m in my mid-40s.” I think this says a lot though. The tax breaks arent going to those that will be making $250K plus in 20 years. The breaks are going to freeloaders. Its no ones responsibiltiy but your own to make the extra $200 to get by. I’m not sure why people feel so entitled. What if the system was set up so that every adult living in the US had to pay the same in fees to the government to cover the cost to build roads, bridges and paying for public schooling. Doesnt everone have equal use of these benefits? People who are for this tax increase either (1) didnt invest in themselves through education and do not possess a skill set that is valued by society (and for some reason feel entitled) (2) have already accomplished their financial goals in life and filled that hierarchical need (remember psych) and are now looking to be remembered for being charitable (buffett and celebrities that are voting for obama) (3) could potentially be succesful in the future and be the target of these tax increases down the road (5% of population), but have no understanding of the economy and, believe it or not, evolution. I am a science person and believe that what has gotten humans to where they are today, survival of the fittest, should play itself out. We are obviosly not going to walk around killing eachother, but if people cannot support themselves something needs to be done to stop the problem from getting worse. It kind of brings to mind that stupid (but somewhat interesting) movie idiocracy. If people want to ride on the backs of successful individuals, who shame on them, make lots of money, than they should be prevented from having kids, who will likely become next generations leeches of society. As a side note, I would benefit from Obama’s tax cut, but believe it is wrong.
so people that don’t make a quarter million are freeloaders??? WTF
“so people that don’t make a quarter million are freeloaders??? WTF” Not all, but you can certainly be assured some are…
What I am saying is that people who are for this tax increase are essentially that. I am not voting for obama although he would probably put money in my pocket. There is obviously a group of people that do not need this tax cut to survive (I am one of the many). Obama argues that people cant afford to live. Those that cant afford to live and will be doing so at the expense of the wealthy are freeloaders.
It’s true that higher corporate taxes and higher taxes will have a similar effect as raising the cost of capital (by reducing earnings), and this means that fewer projects will be profitable at the margin. This will likely result in a marginal increase in unemployment over what would have happened without the tax increase. Now, the real question is whether the funds raised by the extra three percent on profits over 1/4 million will be enough to provide a safety net for those displaced by the marginal changes in employment. If the funds are more than enough, then it is not necessarily a bad thing to do. If the constriction of economic activity is sufficiently large, it is not a good idea. Remember also that we are talking about businesses with a profit of more than a quarter million, not businesses with a quarter million in revenues. There are a plenty of small businesses that provide jobs for people and do not make more than a quarter million in profits. Also, if you look at the most successful businessmen/women, they are only marginally driven by the goal of higher profits. They are driven by the desire to build a business and make it grow faster than the competition. Profits are good for them, but it’s the accomplishment of building something that drives them. It will be harder for marginally profitable businesses to expand rapidly with a higher tax cut, but there is at least a quarter million dollar profit cushion where taxes are higher than they are now. If a business is truly marginally profitable, it will likely fall in this neutral area. Finally, for businesses that don’t cater primarily to the wealthy, it’s important to have customers with disposable income. This is where tax cuts for the middle class are most useful. Joe the Plumber needs customers that will call a plumber, rather than try to do it themselves or barter with John-whose-brother-was-a-plumber. The question about how efficiently taxes are spent on government programs is an important consideration, and I agree that large bureaucracies can be inefficient. But the solution to that is to make bureaucracies more efficient and accountable, not simply give up on the idea that there is no public interest that public institutions can serve.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John McCain has said Sarah Palin is the most > qualified VP candidate in recent memory. That’s > either an outright lie or an indication of his > terrible judgment. I think it is just political BS. He is stuck with her now so he has to make the best of it.
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can appreciate the argument about how the “rich” > folks tried to capitalize on a situation gone bad > to make themselves richer, but greed is > omnipresent no matter what country or government > you’re under and I actually would put more of the > blame on the circumstances than the outcomes. What > I mean by “circumstances” are that some of these > very same people that appear most well positioned > to benefit from the proposed taxation situation > are those that made the most economically poor > decisions, namely the type of people that are too > much about living for the moment and spending > beyond one’s means. Of course there are going to > be people of status trying to exploit the > situation, but that type of thing could happen > anywhere. What I think is really necessary is a > basic re-education about human consumption and > living within one’s means. > > Now, I have no fundamental misgivings about > re-distribution of wealth – I for one hope that > I’ll eventually be rich enough to take better care > of others – but there is a problem of fiscal > irresponsibility and spending beyond one’s > resources that seems way too pervasive in the > average American culture. I’m not even talking > about most of the people on this forum, who, by > very nature are trying to further their own > education or professional well-being every day, > are well beyond the “average” person out there. > I’m talking about all the folks out there that > levered themselves to the hilt in order to buy > houses that were five times larger than what they > needed, or took out a massive loan to buy a > Corvette or Escalade when they should have been > driving a Pinto. > > As such, I think the bigger issue at hand is not > about how much taxes for whom, but establishing a > system of accountability for people irrespective > of their income. As things go, I worry that too > many people who made bad financial decisions are > going to be “let off the hook” at the expense of > those that did not – and remember, it’s not only > going to be the upper class that has to bear the > burden of taxes, even if they are in fact taxed at > a higher rate. Numi, good arguments here (as usual). In other conversations, I sometimes take the unpopular view that consumers themselves have to face up to their own part in the blame. Living beyond ones means is definitely something that we as a nation have done and now need to pay for. However, “the circumstance” is unusual. I think that what has happened is that cheap credit terms over an extended period of time has made it very difficult to see where the downside of living beyond one’s means begins. For almost 20 years, people who may have started out being careful not to leverage themselves have found themselves feeling less successful as their neighbors got nice cars, nicer houses, sent their children to nicer schools, etc… For a few years, maybe 5 or even 10 years, the economically virtuous find themselves falling further and further behind in comparison to leveraged folks, and there didn’t seem to be any downside. How long can a family hold out against this, especially when spouses are asking why we can’t do what the Jones’ have done, ones’ housing wealth year after year seems to increase, etc. Most of America doesn’t have a CFA, hasn’t taken economics in college, hasn’t even gone to college. All they see is year after year, a bunch of people have leveraged up and are more successful (by external appearances) than they are. Maybe they start to use a little debt, tiptoe-ing in, discover that they can manage their payments with the new job provided by the company that got a cheap small business loan, etc… I’m not saying that these people have no responsibility for their problem, because clearly they do, but they don’t have the same level of responsibility as those whose job it was to figure out what an appropriate risk premium is given a level of assets and income, and whose main incentive is to originate more loans and pass them on to other people. So, yes, we need an accounting where people pay in proportion to 1) how responsible/irresponsible their financial decisions were, 2) the degree to which they benefited from irresponsibility in the past, 3) the degree to which they should have known they were doing something dumb. Those are the key principles: I certainly think that intelligent people can disagree on how one actually implements a policy reflecting that.
Her voice sort of reminds me of the principle of South Park Elementary… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg
numi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > As such, I think the bigger issue at hand is not > about how much taxes for whom, but establishing a > system of accountability for people irrespective > of their income. As things go, I worry that too > many people who made bad financial decisions are > going to be “let off the hook” at the expense of > those that did not – and remember, it’s not only > going to be the upper class that has to bear the > burden of taxes, even if they are in fact taxed at > a higher rate. Lying to shareholders, investors, etc - people should definitely be accountable for these things. People made bad financial decisions and companies fell. Can people be accountable for making a bad call on an investment, a company’s financials, etc? I’m not sure if they can unless they lied or broke the law. It is on the shareholder if he wants to keep a certain stake in a company, the board’s fault for not pushing harder to make certain decisions, etc. How can these people be accountable? And how will that be different than today?