Tax the rich

[j_b]

[video:youtube]v=htX2usfqMEs

[KaskadskyjKozak]

An interest-rate distortion fueled borrowing binge that goes into financing a bunch of McMansions, luxury condos, SUV's, vacations, and fancy home furnishings and other unproductive assets and ends in a big hangover when the bill comes due is perfectly consistent with a long period of economic contraction and joblessness afterwards.

 

Repeating drivel ad-infinitum doesn't make it true even if blaming stupidity and lust for consumer items proves to be effective demagoguery. Despite my numerous attempts at getting you to do so, you still have to answer adequately EWarren's study of middle class spending showing that large increases in prices of non-discretionary items like health care, housing in good school districts, local regressive taxes, child care, 2nd car for 2nd wage earner , etc account for spending outpacing income (and we won't even discuss the 30+ year long race to the bottom wage that you keep cheering).

 

Yeah, take that you regressive corporate shill goon!

 

And don't forget, in addition to the 2 car minimum, the middle class also need multiple smart phones with unlimited data plans and minutes, a satellite dish, the NFL, MLB, and NBA packages, ....

 

 

[rob]

Would you support lower marginal rates in exchange for fewer loopholes?

 

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED

 

A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me.

 

He wants you to kiss your mortgage deduction and child tax credit good bye.

 

Sounds good to me, in exchange for lowered rates (something like 8%, 14%, 23% maybe?) and a greatly simplified tax code that inhibits cheating. Income* x% baby! (oh yeah, and capital gains should just be straight income)

 

 

[j_b]

don't forget banning any financial activity with tax heavens

[j_b]

Yeah, take that you regressive corporate shill goon!

 

let's see if you can cite more than one significant issue on which JayB isn't aligned with corporatists.

 

And don't forget, in addition to the 2 car minimum, the middle class also need multiple smart phones with unlimited data plans and minutes, a satellite dish, the NFL, MLB, and NBA packages, ....

 

 

I was talking about published academic studies, not the gossip report from your neck of the woods.

[jon]

Would you support lower marginal rates in exchange for fewer loopholes?

 

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED

 

A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me.

 

The problem is not the long term capital gain tax. We shouldn't be heavily taxed on income that is already taxed when it's put into investments, and Buffet doesn't disagree with this. The problem is that tax rate under Bush was extended to business dividends where it's became abusive. Most businesses in the US that generate significant income (S corps) the owners are given a reasonable wage and then as a "shareholder" are taxed on their distributions at 15%. So a $30 million a year business the owner can take a salary of $25k and then take a dividend, say $1 million, at 15%. Yes, it's being taxed beforehand at the corporate rate, but so is everything else.

 

Canada has something similar, but the difference is the sky is not the limit, there is a cap on that 15%. And that is what the US needs to do. Small to medium sized business owners deserve the 15% tax break; they worked hard for it. Let them have their $250k at 15%. CEOs don't deserve a $40 million payout at 15% and that is where the abuse comes in.

 

So therein lies the problem. How many people actually knew that. I know very intelligent people who don't understand the 15% dividend tax. They will argue until their blue in the face about taxation when not even understanding it.

[ivan]

They will argue until their blue in the face about taxation when not even understanding it.

the byzantine blues?

 

i don't understand hardly shit, and am deeply paranoid that that's on purpose...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Would you support lower marginal rates in exchange for fewer loopholes?

 

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED

 

A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me.

 

The problem is not the long term capital gain tax. We shouldn't be heavily taxed on income that is already taxed when it's put into investments, and Buffet doesn't disagree with this. The problem is that tax rate under Bush was extended to business dividends where it's became abusive. Most businesses in the US that generate significant income (S corps) the owners are given a reasonable wage and then as a "shareholder" are taxed on their distributions at 15%. So a $30 million a year business the owner can take a salary of $25k and then take a dividend, say $1 million, at 15%. Yes, it's being taxed beforehand at the corporate rate, but so is everything else.

 

Canada has something similar, but the difference is the sky is not the limit, there is a cap on that 15%. And that is what the US needs to do. Small to medium sized business owners deserve the 15% tax break; they worked hard for it. Let them have their $250k at 15%. CEOs don't deserve a $40 million payout at 15% and that is where the abuse comes in.

 

So therein lies the problem. How many people actually knew that. I know very intelligent people who don't understand the 15% dividend tax. They will argue until their blue in the face about taxation when not even understanding it.

 

There aren't enough CEO's making 40 million to make a dent in our budget deficit if taxed at 20%, 30%, or whatever the proposed change is.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I was talking about published academic studies, not the gossip report from your neck of the woods.

 

Any study that claims that a 2nd-car is a necessary prerequisite to minimal living standards for the middle class reeks of bullshit.

 

[rob]

If you have two cars, you should get taxed MORE.

[G-spotter]

the middle class also need multiple smart phones with unlimited data plans and minutes

 

 

You are overestimating.

 

"Poor folk love their cellphones." - Bruce Sterling

[j_b]

Over most of the US, the cost of housing is correlated with the availability of public transit, thus if one can't afford more expensive housing, one usually needs a car to get to work. Moreover, most of us have other essential things to do instead of commuting for several hours per day (like taking care of kids).

[glassgowkiss]

Would you support lower marginal rates in exchange for fewer loopholes?

 

sure (though not fewer loopholes, but ALL of them) -- and only if you increased the long-term capitol gains tax as well. 15% on an unlimited amount of income is RETARDED

 

A massively simplified tax code without any deductions, loopholes or subsidies in exchange for lowered rates across the boards sounds pretty good to me.

 

He wants you to kiss your mortgage deduction and child tax credit good bye.

Of course I do.

[JayB]

When central banks drive the interest rate below it's natural level, it fools societies into thinking that they're richer than they actually are and they spend more on consumption goods than they would otherwise, instead of investing it in something productive.

but weren't the same guys who said cutting taxes would create jobs also sayign that super low interest rates were good, that it would end the recession before that and keep everybody buying shit and thereby keep everybody employed?

 

Definitely some overlap there, but not 100%. Guess the author of the quote below:

 

"The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

 

It's possible to get tax policy basically right (we're a long ways from that), and totally negate any benefits from the said tax policy by distorting the interest rates.

[JayB]

An interest-rate distortion fueled borrowing binge that goes into financing a bunch of McMansions, luxury condos, SUV's, vacations, and fancy home furnishings and other unproductive assets and ends in a big hangover when the bill comes due is perfectly consistent with a long period of economic contraction and joblessness afterwards.

 

Repeating drivel ad-infinitum doesn't make it true even if blaming stupidity and lust for consumer items proves to be effective demagoguery. Despite my numerous attempts at getting you to do so, you still have to answer adequately EWarren's study of middle class spending showing that large increases in prices of non-discretionary items like health care, housing in good school districts, local regressive taxes, child care, 2nd car for 2nd wage earner , etc account for spending outpacing income (and we won't even discuss the 30+ year long race to the bottom wage that you keep cheering).

 

The above is not the sort of post that would be made by anyone that understands the role that interest rates play in shaping how much people save and borrow, and what to use the money they save and borrow to invest in.

 

The people who are convinced that flooding the economy with cheap money will be good for the economy are quite a bit more reckless and irresponsible than the people that respond to cheap credit by borrowing to fund more consumption than they can actually afford.

[ivan]

Guess the author of the quote below:

 

"The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

 

It's possible to get tax policy basically right (we're a long ways from that), and totally negate any benefits from the said tax policy by distorting the interest rates.

i'll stay away from The Google to give you the satisfaction of telling me

 

i'm running on the assumption that, regardless of the party in power, the various imps and demons that control the bells n' whistles of the economy will be doing so in order to serve the wealthy - the fed head seems to be the coke-slut that climbs into bed w/ whoever has the blow, for example

[rob]

this thread smells like balls

[j_b]

The above is not the sort of post that would be made by anyone that understands the role that interest rates play in shaping how much people save and borrow, and what to use the money they save and borrow to invest in.

 

spare me what you think you know, just stick to the facts like studies showing that non-discretionary items have outpaced wage growth.

 

and I mean studies, not propaganda by the latest Koch think tank, mkay?

Edited September 21, 2011 by j_b

[KaskadskyjKozak]

this thread smells like balls

 

That's j_b

[JayB]

The above is not the sort of post that would be made by anyone that understands the role that interest rates play in shaping how much people save and borrow, and what to use the money they save and borrow to invest in.

 

spare me what you think you know, just stick to the facts like studies showing that non-discretionary items have outpaced wage growth.

 

and I mean studies, not propaganda by the latest Koch think tank, mkay?

 

You are aware of the fact that things like interest rates, money supply, inflation, etc have a connection with the prices of things like "non discretionary" spending, correct? There's a connection there that predates the existence of the Koch brothers, but I'll leave that aside for the moment.

 

The major unstated premise of Warren's claim, and yours by proxy, is that spending on classes of goods and services that fall into the "non-discretionary" category is entirely non discretionary. That's quite a silly claim, and it's strange that you'd persist in defending it.

 

If all people could eat were a homogeneous nutrient paste, the only clothing available was Kim-Jong Il style jumpsuits in a single size and color, and the only housing available were completely identical units in a Breshnev era housing block and all of them were priced and distributed on a strict per-capita basis by a central rationing authority - then the spending would be truly non-discretionary.

 

I know for certain that you can choose to rent a smaller, older place instead of borrowing multiples of your income to buy a large home in an expensive neighborhood. Etc, etc, etc, *10^999999999999999.

 

Boring.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The above is not the sort of post that would be made by anyone that understands the role that interest rates play in shaping how much people save and borrow, and what to use the money they save and borrow to invest in.

 

spare me what you think you know, just stick to the facts like studies showing that non-discretionary items have outpaced wage growth.

 

and I mean studies, not propaganda by the latest Koch think tank, mkay?

 

You are aware of the fact that things like interest rates, money supply, inflation, etc have a connection with the prices of things like "non discretionary" spending, correct? There's a connection there that predates the existence of the Koch brothers, but I'll leave that aside for the moment.

 

The major unstated premise of Warren's claim, and yours by proxy, is that spending on classes of goods and services that fall into the "non-discretionary" category is entirely non discretionary. That's quite a silly claim, and it's strange that you'd persist in defending it.

 

If all people could eat were a homogeneous nutrient paste, the only clothing available was Kim-Jong Il style jumpsuits in a single size and color, and the only housing available were completely identical units in a Breshnev era housing block and all of them were priced and distributed on a strict per-capita basis by a central rationing authority - then the spending would be truly non-discretionary.

 

I know for certain that you can choose to rent a smaller, older place instead of borrowing multiples of your income to buy a large home in an expensive neighborhood. Etc, etc, etc, *10^999999999999999.

 

Boring.

 

j_b is so full of shit, it oozes from his ears

 

 

[JayB]

Guess the author of the quote below:

 

"The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

 

It's possible to get tax policy basically right (we're a long ways from that), and totally negate any benefits from the said tax policy by distorting the interest rates.

i'll stay away from The Google to give you the satisfaction of telling me

 

i'm running on the assumption that, regardless of the party in power, the various imps and demons that control the bells n' whistles of the economy will be doing so in order to serve the wealthy - the fed head seems to be the coke-slut that climbs into bed w/ whoever has the blow, for example

 

1. Rhymes with Tall Lugeman.

 

2. Not sure if that's their intention - quite often I suspect that it's the opposite - but that seems to be the way things work out in practice.

 

 

[jon]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/millionaires-the-middle-class-and-taxes-actual-numbers

[j_b]

You are aware of the fact that things like interest rates, money supply, inflation, etc have a connection with the prices of things like "non discretionary" spending, correct? There's a connection there that predates the existence of the Koch brothers, but I'll leave that aside for the moment.

 

The major unstated premise of Warren's claim, and yours by proxy, is that spending on classes of goods and services that fall into the "non-discretionary" category is entirely non discretionary. That's quite a silly claim, and it's strange that you'd persist in defending it.

 

If all people could eat were a homogeneous nutrient paste, the only clothing available was Kim-Jong Il style jumpsuits in a single size and color, and the only housing available were completely identical units in a Breshnev era housing block and all of them were priced and distributed on a strict per-capita basis by a central rationing authority - then the spending would be truly non-discretionary.

 

I know for certain that you can choose to rent a smaller, older place instead of borrowing multiples of your income to buy a large home in an expensive neighborhood. Etc, etc, etc, *10^999999999999999.

 

Boring.

 

Non-discretionary spending for someone who is part of the middle class and not money spent on consumer items like those you listed in an attempt to demonize those in debt, and who happen to be mostly families with children hit by illness and unemployment. I guess it means that you finally acknowledge that the middle class is in serous trouble if you imply that housing, health, and transport is discretionary spending.

 

Like the demagogues who blame the welfare queens, JayB always tries to paint those who are poor as having made those choices to pass off the last 30 years of growing household debt due to stagnant wages, and higher cost of fundamentals necessities (except food) as the result of character flaws.

 

btw, you still haven't addressed EWarren's study, that is a blatant denial of your propaganda.

Edited September 22, 2011 by j_b

[j_b]

j_b is so full of shit, it oozes from his ears

 

 

here comes douchebag who'll soon be "whining" about having been insulted or so other bullshit. Pathetic moron.