Economic Reform: Why is this not common sense??

  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 10:28 PM GMT
    This thought came to me in reply to another thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread, and wanted to open things up for discussion. In terms of "fixing" the economy, my opinion is, first, that economies move slowly and take time to react, so it will be a long while before we see a massive improvement regardless of what reforms are enacted or not. But in terms of helping out individuals and businesses that are struggling in the short term, in addition to stimulating the economy and narrowing the gap between rich and poor in the long term, the following would seem like common sense to me:

    I would like to see immediate tax reform that reduces or eliminates taxes on people earning $250,000 or less, with the burden being shifted to the wealthy making $250k+. Those making obscenely excessive incomes of $500k or $1million+ should bear an even bigger brunt of the tax burden, as they have that much more unnecessary and unjustifiable income.

    This way, the government would remain operational, as would our schools, social security, and medicare systems. At the same time, middle and lower class families would have greater take-home income to spend on necessary goods and services that would serve to stimulate the economy, while (as importantly) improving their quality of life. While the more selfish of the rich would complain about their increased tax burden, I highly doubt any one making $250k+ would go hungry..... (People earning that much while others are struggling to buy food have no right to complain about their taxes, in my mind.) At the same time, the middle class would expand and the gap between extreme wealth and extreme poverty would narrow, providing continued improvement to the economy and quality of life in the U.S. over the long term.

    Obama has proposed some changes to tax code along these lines, but they are not nearly extreme enough in my mind. Greed and corruption at all levels (and loud-mouthed conservatives) will probably keep this from ever becoming a reality, but one can dream...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 11:59 PM GMT
    Some interesting thoughts.

    Also consider that those people earning the most money are the most capable of paying the least tax through creative accounting and offshore accounts. If it becomes too unattractive to be rich in the US, then they'll be rich somewhere else.

    I guess there's also the argument that those rich people are likely to be employing poorer people. If they were discouraged too much, perhaps they could set up somewhere where they don't cop it so much.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 19, 2009 12:07 AM GMT
    t0theheights said, "I would like to see immediate tax reform that reduces or eliminates taxes on people earning $250,000 or less, with the burden being shifted to the wealthy making $250k+."


    The new stimulus package passed last month provides immediate tax cuts for those making less than $250K effective 1 APR 2009. Tax increases for those making more than $250K will take effect 1 OCT 2010 (estimated) when the Bush tax cuts expire.
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Mar 19, 2009 12:31 AM GMT
    because it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.

    313_cartoon_obama_saves_large.jpg
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 12:37 AM GMT
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 12:41 AM GMT
    makeumyne saidSome interesting thoughts.

    Also consider that those people earning the most money are the most capable of paying the least tax through creative accounting and offshore accounts. If it becomes too unattractive to be rich in the US, then they'll be rich somewhere else.

    I guess there's also the argument that those rich people are likely to be employing poorer people. If they were discouraged too much, perhaps they could set up somewhere where they don't cop it so much.


    I highly doubt that any one who has the potential to earn $1mill.+ here will move offshore, to an even less stable economy and business environment, simply because of a tax increase. And there are plenty of ways of chasing down those who try to evade their taxes in this matter, even if they attempt to move offshore. Their business, if it is to remain successful, will also have remain at least partly based here.

    And as to your second point... it would be nice if those "employing poorer people" actually used their tax saving from things like the Bush tax cuts to benefit their employees, but reality has proven this to be a fantasy again and again. One can never underestimate the magnitude of corporate greed. Government must step in to make successful executives and corporations act ethically, and a big part of them is forcing them to pay their dues to the less fortunate in society via taxes and the like.
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Mar 19, 2009 12:43 AM GMT
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. on behalf of my colleagues, i thank you personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 12:46 AM GMT
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. i thank you, personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.


    He got enough from me in 2008 to help get him elected. lol My full quota of political donations is now being channeled toward the effort to reverse Prop. 8 here in California.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 12:48 AM GMT
    makeumyne saidSome interesting thoughts.

    Also consider that those people earning the most money are the most capable of paying the least tax through creative accounting and offshore accounts. If it becomes too unattractive to be rich in the US, then they'll be rich somewhere else.

    I guess there's also the argument that those rich people are likely to be employing poorer people. If they were discouraged too much, perhaps they could set up somewhere where they don't cop it so much.


    I think the days of tax-free baking in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere are numbered. I can't find a citation, but I recall reading in the last few weeks that Obama planned on tackling this issue during our much need banking overhaul.

    And the rich wont get up and leave this country if they suddenly get taxed at a higher rate. Where are they going to move to where they can still operate a successful international business? Europe? China? Russia? There is no place left for them to go.
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Mar 19, 2009 12:50 AM GMT
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. i thank you, personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.


    He got enough from me in 2008 to help get him elected. lol My full quota of political donations is now being channeled toward the effort to reverse Prop. 8 here in California.


    no, moaaAAR. i'm looking to update to a junior-4. don't you want progress, my homosexual brother? he loves our kind.
    20080623%20Obama%20Bank.jpg
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 12:55 AM GMT
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. i thank you, personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.


    He got enough from me in 2008 to help get him elected. lol My full quota of political donations is now being channeled toward the effort to reverse Prop. 8 here in California.


    no, moaaAAR. i'm looking to update to a junior-4. don't you want progress, my homosexual brother? he loves our kind.


    If you want a bigger piece of the stimulus package, I don't think Obama or Congress would need any more donations to do that... they'd be happy to go a bit deeper into debt in order to take a controlling interest in your company and its future profits (as they have done via the stimulus). Just run your corporation incompetently, to the verge of bankruptcy, and then you can mortgage the entire future of your business to the federal government. Oh, and enjoy your chunk of the stimulus! (You'll be paying it back eventually, with interest. Sounds like a sweet deal for the federal gov't to me, in the long run.)

    I work in academia; my job's safe regardless of the economic climate--and I don't need any stimulus funds to keep it going, nor has any one taken a controlling interest in my company. Recessions are a sweet time to laugh at the Wall St. fat cats, actually.
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Mar 19, 2009 12:57 AM GMT
    In the "booming" 1950s people who made over $400 000 were taxed at a rate over 90%. Even under Obama's scheme, rich people are being taxed at historically low rates.

    All the people screaming "socialism" make me laugh.

    top-rates-graph.php

    Source: TruthandPolitics.org
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 1:08 AM GMT
    t0theheights saidThis thought came to me in reply to another thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread, and wanted to open things up for discussion. In terms of "fixing" the economy, my opinion is, first, that economies move slowly and take time to react, so it will be a long while before we see a massive improvement regardless of what reforms are enacted or not. But in terms of helping out individuals and businesses that are struggling in the short term, in addition to stimulating the economy and narrowing the gap between rich and poor in the long term, the following would seem like common sense to me:

    I would like to see immediate tax reform that reduces or eliminates taxes on people earning $250,000 or less, with the burden being shifted to the wealthy making $250k+. Those making obscenely excessive incomes of $500k or $1million+ should bear an even bigger brunt of the tax burden, as they have that much more unnecessary and unjustifiable income.

    This way, the government would remain operational, as would our schools, social security, and medicare systems. At the same time, middle and lower class families would have greater take-home income to spend on necessary goods and services that would serve to stimulate the economy, while (as importantly) improving their quality of life. While the more selfish of the rich would complain about their increased tax burden, I highly doubt any one making $250k+ would go hungry..... (People earning that much while others are struggling to buy food have no right to complain about their taxes, in my mind.) At the same time, the middle class would expand and the gap between extreme wealth and extreme poverty would narrow, providing continued improvement to the economy and quality of life in the U.S. over the long term.

    Obama has proposed some changes to tax code along these lines, but they are not nearly extreme enough in my mind. Greed and corruption at all levels (and loud-mouthed conservatives) will probably keep this from ever becoming a reality, but one can dream...


    Oh dear, talking about taxing people for being successful and ambitious. First of all the people making $500K a year plus are not necessarily greedy or making more money than they need. Secondly, you need to find out what expenses these people have that soak up their disposable income. Unlike unionized workers, or government employees, many of these people have to pay for their own benefits, pension, etc.. That can get very pricey. Sick plan? Forget it, you have to buy insurance for that to. Not to mention the fact that you might have spent 8+ years in university to get that level of income.

    If you benefit from government programs then you should contribute your fair share for paying for them. And whether you live in the USA or Canada or Europe everyone benefits to a certain extent.

    Perhaps the higher income earners should pay more, they seem to do quite well in the USA. I personally struggle with taxing people more who are working. I would take a different tack by taxing other things besides income. For example, I would not differentiate between capital gains and bank interest. I would bring in a consumption tax to encourage people to save more. I would bring in a carbon tax so the cost of fighting global warming is partially offset.

    And of course I would look at where government was spending money. The USA's days of being an empire might be drawing to a close with the budget deficit running at 11% of GDP. Even if Mr. Obama's rosy economic growth projections come true (not likely) the budget deficit going forward is still going to be hefty.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 1:11 AM GMT
    SurrealLife said
    t0theheights saidThis thought came to me in reply to another thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread, and wanted to open things up for discussion. In terms of "fixing" the economy, my opinion is, first, that economies move slowly and take time to react, so it will be a long while before we see a massive improvement regardless of what reforms are enacted or not. But in terms of helping out individuals and businesses that are struggling in the short term, in addition to stimulating the economy and narrowing the gap between rich and poor in the long term, the following would seem like common sense to me:

    I would like to see immediate tax reform that reduces or eliminates taxes on people earning $250,000 or less, with the burden being shifted to the wealthy making $250k+. Those making obscenely excessive incomes of $500k or $1million+ should bear an even bigger brunt of the tax burden, as they have that much more unnecessary and unjustifiable income.

    This way, the government would remain operational, as would our schools, social security, and medicare systems. At the same time, middle and lower class families would have greater take-home income to spend on necessary goods and services that would serve to stimulate the economy, while (as importantly) improving their quality of life. While the more selfish of the rich would complain about their increased tax burden, I highly doubt any one making $250k+ would go hungry..... (People earning that much while others are struggling to buy food have no right to complain about their taxes, in my mind.) At the same time, the middle class would expand and the gap between extreme wealth and extreme poverty would narrow, providing continued improvement to the economy and quality of life in the U.S. over the long term.

    Obama has proposed some changes to tax code along these lines, but they are not nearly extreme enough in my mind. Greed and corruption at all levels (and loud-mouthed conservatives) will probably keep this from ever becoming a reality, but one can dream...


    Oh dear, talking about taxing people for being successful and ambitious. First of all the people making $500K a year plus are not necessarily greedy or making more money than they need. Secondly, you need to find out what expenses these people have that soak up their disposable income. Unlike unionized workers, or government employees, many of these people have to pay for their own benefits, pension, etc.. That can get very pricey. Sick plan? Forget it, you have to buy insurance for that to. Not to mention the fact that you might have spent 8+ years in university to get that level of income.

    If you benefit from government programs then you should contribute your fair share for paying for them. And whether you live in the USA or Canada or Europe everyone benefits to a certain extent.

    Perhaps the higher income earners should pay more, they seem to do quite well in the USA. I personally struggle with taxing people more who are working. I would take a different tack by taxing other things besides income. For example, I would not differentiate between capital gains and bank interest. I would bring in a consumption tax to encourage people to save more. I would bring in a carbon tax so the cost of fighting global warming is partially offset.

    And of course I would look at where government was spending money. The USA's days of being an empire might be drawing to a close with the budget deficit running at 11% of GDP. Even if Mr. Obama's rosy economic growth projections come true (not likely) the budget deficit going forward is still going to be hefty.


    The objections you mention are what things like tax deductions are meant to take care of. Perhaps I should have said people with excessive DISPOSABLE income should be paying higher taxes; I assumed this was implicit, but thanks for clarifying. I do like your ideas about further taxing luxury purchases and other measures that would both better fund the federal gov't and help fight global warming.
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Mar 19, 2009 1:12 AM GMT
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. i thank you, personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.


    He got enough from me in 2008 to help get him elected. lol My full quota of political donations is now being channeled toward the effort to reverse Prop. 8 here in California.


    no, moaaAAR. i'm looking to update to a junior-4. don't you want progress, my homosexual brother? he loves our kind.


    If you want a bigger piece of the stimulus package, I don't think Obama or Congress would need any more donations to do that... they'd be happy to go a bit deeper into debt in order to take a controlling interest in your company and its future profits (as they have done via the stimulus). Just run your corporation incompetently, to the verge of bankruptcy, and then you can mortgage the entire future of your business to the federal government. Oh, and enjoy your chunk of the stimulus! (You'll be paying it back eventually, with interest. Sounds like a sweet deal for the federal gov't to me, in the long run.)

    I work in academia; my job's safe regardless of the economic climate--and I don't need any stimulus funds to keep it going, nor has taken any one taken a controlling interest in my company. Recessions are a sweet time to laugh at the Wall St. fat cats, actually.


    in the enchanting M&A of nassau street & washington dc, do you really expect dc to come out the parent company, and the former it's subsidiary? sweet, gay child. i won't even go into my base without bonus/stimulus (personal record for 2008, thank you, literally); it would be insulting to those affected. i'm not bragging, just sharing in awe of the apparent and skewed nature of it all, and the continued support using social 'progression' as recompense. enjoy academia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 1:16 AM GMT
    Yeah Kacciato but you have to live in NYC where the cost of shelter is still sky high. No thanks, NYC is an exciting city but the congestion and the prices are too much.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 1:20 AM GMT
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. i thank you, personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.


    He got enough from me in 2008 to help get him elected. lol My full quota of political donations is now being channeled toward the effort to reverse Prop. 8 here in California.


    no, moaaAAR. i'm looking to update to a junior-4. don't you want progress, my homosexual brother? he loves our kind.


    If you want a bigger piece of the stimulus package, I don't think Obama or Congress would need any more donations to do that... they'd be happy to go a bit deeper into debt in order to take a controlling interest in your company and its future profits (as they have done via the stimulus). Just run your corporation incompetently, to the verge of bankruptcy, and then you can mortgage the entire future of your business to the federal government. Oh, and enjoy your chunk of the stimulus! (You'll be paying it back eventually, with interest. Sounds like a sweet deal for the federal gov't to me, in the long run.)

    I work in academia; my job's safe regardless of the economic climate--and I don't need any stimulus funds to keep it going, nor has taken any one taken a controlling interest in my company. Recessions are a sweet time to laugh at the Wall St. fat cats, actually.


    in the enchanting M&A of nassau street & washington dc, do you really expect dc to come out the parent company, and the former it's subsidiary? sweet, gay child. i won't even go into my base without bonus/stimulus (personal record for 2008, thank you, literally); it would be insulting to those affected. i'm not bragging, just sharing in awe of the apparent and skewed nature of it all, and the continued support using social 'progression' as recompense. enjoy academia.


    80% ownership is 80% ownership, like it or not. It may not affect you personally, especially since you are one of the young Wall St. pawns and not one of the big wigs who are chiefly responsible. However, plenty of the greedy leeches on society are getting their just desserts right now, with much, much more to come.

    I remember when I was receiving my graduate degree, many of my college friends urged me to pursue a career in finance or consulting. They went for Citigroup and the like; I went for what I loved to do. One guess which of us now has a job which is more stable, more enjoyable, and, incidentally, also pays better... (And I'll give you a hint, it ain't them!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 1:25 AM GMT
    I find it odd that we punish those who are able to make a lot of money. The great thing is that this group will find a way to make their income fit whatever tax model exists.

    The bailout's biggest problem is that the government GAVE the money away. WTF? It seems so irresponsible that there were no recovery measures included or that the govt didnt take owner/trusteeship with the firms they are giving the money to. While everyone basks in the glow of Obama, the US is going to continue on its downward spiral, the interuption of the market correction that is currently happening is dangerous. If an industry is not viable, let it fail. Economics is a complicated issue guys, are there any economists on here who can support why the bailout is a bad idea and generally just political optics?
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 1:28 AM GMT
    hotshotcdn saidI find it odd that we punish those who are able to make a lot of money. The great thing is that this group will find a way to make their income fit whatever tax model exists.

    The bailout's biggest problem is that the government GAVE the money away. WTF? It seems so irresponsible that there were no recovery measures included or that the govt didnt take owner/trusteeship with the firms they are giving the money to. While everyone basks in the glow of Obama, the US is going to continue on its downward spiral, the interuption of the market correction that is currently happening is dangerous. If an industry is not viable, let it fail. Economics is a complicated issue guys, are there any economists on here who can support why the bailout is a bad idea and generally just political optics?


    Taxing people with excessive income isn't "punishing" them. It's making them pay their due to society by providing a safety-net for the less fortunate. As someone posted earlier, the rich have historically been taxed at a much, much higher rate than they are now (up to 90%). The idea that the rich are being punished by marginally higher tax rates is beyond absurd.

    And the bailout didn't give money away: Most of it was loans that must be paid back with interest. Every one wins, in the long run: The businesses stay alive, and the government gets a big piece of their future profits.
  • kaccioto

    Posts: 284

    Mar 19, 2009 1:38 AM GMT
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. i thank you, personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.


    He got enough from me in 2008 to help get him elected. lol My full quota of political donations is now being channeled toward the effort to reverse Prop. 8 here in California.


    no, moaaAAR. i'm looking to update to a junior-4. don't you want progress, my homosexual brother? he loves our kind.


    If you want a bigger piece of the stimulus package, I don't think Obama or Congress would need any more donations to do that... they'd be happy to go a bit deeper into debt in order to take a controlling interest in your company and its future profits (as they have done via the stimulus). Just run your corporation incompetently, to the verge of bankruptcy, and then you can mortgage the entire future of your business to the federal government. Oh, and enjoy your chunk of the stimulus! (You'll be paying it back eventually, with interest. Sounds like a sweet deal for the federal gov't to me, in the long run.)

    I work in academia; my job's safe regardless of the economic climate--and I don't need any stimulus funds to keep it going, nor has taken any one taken a controlling interest in my company. Recessions are a sweet time to laugh at the Wall St. fat cats, actually.


    in the enchanting M&A of nassau street & washington dc, do you really expect dc to come out the parent company, and the former it's subsidiary? sweet, gay child. i won't even go into my base without bonus/stimulus (personal record for 2008, thank you, literally); it would be insulting to those affected. i'm not bragging, just sharing in awe of the apparent and skewed nature of it all, and the continued support using social 'progression' as recompense. enjoy academia.


    I remember when I was receiving my graduate degree, many of my college friends urged me to pursue a career in finance or consulting. They went for Citigroup and the like; I went for what I loved to do. One guess which of us now has a job which is more stable, more enjoyable, and, incidentally, also pays better... (And I'll give you a hint, it ain't them!)


    here's a little tip. the majority of job losses were backoffice; cut regardless of the economy. there's this little thing called technology & the interwebs (oh hai nasdaq). what better excuse to stimulate the bailout (yes pun) than have execs provide pity reports using those axed (b/c of tech) as bait to dc? they bit, and ultimately you, and your neighbors did. thanks, again.

    oh, and you're extremely delusional to think there's any close alternative even in the same stratosphere to making this amount of money in your 20's, recession taken to account. academia? c'mon brah, why limit yourself to observing from the sidelines? buddies are here. drinks on you, again. ciao, mate.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 1:41 AM GMT
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto said
    t0theheights said
    kaccioto saidbecause it's easier to just raid your family's 403(b) via the bailout.

    the stimulus wasn't created to jumpstart the economy. other way around boy; the economy was halted to justify the exodus of coin from middle america to my colleagues. print, print.
    />


    That's a bit too conspiracy theory-ish to be credible. While complex, there are tangible bad decisions at all levels of government and the private sector that clearly caused the current recession. These bad decisions were partly aimed at benefiting the fat cats on wall street, but there was certainly much more to it than that. And all of those execs. whose jobs are in the shitter now certainly shot themselves in the foot if this was really their plan.


    you know what, i just thought about it, and you are absolutely 100% right. it's not perfect, but we have to keep hope alive. we're in it together. i suggest all my gay brothers click the link below. i thank you, personally, for your continued excessive patronage.

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dnc08main

    hope and change, my brotherly homos.


    He got enough from me in 2008 to help get him elected. lol My full quota of political donations is now being channeled toward the effort to reverse Prop. 8 here in California.


    no, moaaAAR. i'm looking to update to a junior-4. don't you want progress, my homosexual brother? he loves our kind.


    If you want a bigger piece of the stimulus package, I don't think Obama or Congress would need any more donations to do that... they'd be happy to go a bit deeper into debt in order to take a controlling interest in your company and its future profits (as they have done via the stimulus). Just run your corporation incompetently, to the verge of bankruptcy, and then you can mortgage the entire future of your business to the federal government. Oh, and enjoy your chunk of the stimulus! (You'll be paying it back eventually, with interest. Sounds like a sweet deal for the federal gov't to me, in the long run.)

    I work in academia; my job's safe regardless of the economic climate--and I don't need any stimulus funds to keep it going, nor has taken any one taken a controlling interest in my company. Recessions are a sweet time to laugh at the Wall St. fat cats, actually.


    in the enchanting M&A of nassau street & washington dc, do you really expect dc to come out the parent company, and the former it's subsidiary? sweet, gay child. i won't even go into my base without bonus/stimulus (personal record for 2008, thank you, literally); it would be insulting to those affected. i'm not bragging, just sharing in awe of the apparent and skewed nature of it all, and the continued support using social 'progression' as recompense. enjoy academia.


    I remember when I was receiving my graduate degree, many of my college friends urged me to pursue a career in finance or consulting. They went for Citigroup and the like; I went for what I loved to do. One guess which of us now has a job which is more stable, more enjoyable, and, incidentally, also pays better... (And I'll give you a hint, it ain't them!)


    here's a little tip. the majority of job losses were backoffice; cut regardless of the economy. there's this little thing called technology & the interwebs (oh hai nasdaq). what better excuse to stimulate the bailout (yes pun) than have execs provide pity reports using those axed (b/c of tech) as bait to dc? they bit, and ultimately you, and your neighbors did. thanks, again.

    oh, and you're extremely delusional to think there's any closer alternative to making this amount of money in your 20's, recession taken to account. academia? c'mon brah, why limit yourself to observing from the sidelines? buddies are here. drinks on you, again. ciao, mate.


    Again, too conspiracy theory-ish to be taken seriously. It's nice when people defeat their own arguments by 1) failing to provide any facts or sources and 2) making their claims so outlandish no sane person could take them at all seriously. You've presented no evidence at all--not a single reliable source or citation. That's a checkmate for the other side before the match has even begun.

    I'm living in Europe over summer break this year, not buying the "boss" drinks. (He'll still be working his ass off, as will you I'm sure.) Cheers! This "argument," if one can call it that, is long past done.
  • allatonce

    Posts: 904

    Mar 19, 2009 1:51 AM GMT
    While I'm a fan of more progressive tax rates I would say that isn't politically feasible to implement in the United States at this point in time. That's the problem with democracy, its just mob rule.

    We should also take into account as some have pointed out that the rich got rich by finding ways to keep their money. They are always thinking of new creative ways to keep as much of their money as possible and that is pretty hard to prevent.

    I'm also a part of the Pigou club, carbon taxing and taxing other goods with negative externalities is a much better rate to go. Along those lines, consumption taxes are a better way to tax the rich than other forms of taxes, especially luxury goods, etc. If we tax things that they buy, instead of their income itself, it looks a lot less like "socialism" or the dreaded "spreading of the wealth". Unfortunately economic policy has to take political feasibility into account and this is I think the best solution to do that.

    I don't know that I'm a fan of anyone under $250 000 not paying taxes, as it kind of removes civic responsibility away from the vast majority of the nation. It could also lead to large levels of emigration and outsourcing to other countries.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 1:55 AM GMT
    lovinglife4 saidWhile I'm a fan of more progressive tax rates I would say that isn't politically feasible to implement in the United States at this point in time. That's the problem with democracy, its just mob rule.

    We should also take into account as some have pointed out that the rich got rich by finding ways to keep their money. They are always thinking of new creative ways to keep as much of their money as possible and that is pretty hard to prevent.

    I'm also a part of the Pigou club, carbon taxing and taxing other goods with negative externalities is a much better rate to go. Along those lines, consumption taxes are a better way to tax the rich than other forms of taxes, especially luxury goods, etc. If we tax things that they buy, instead of their income itself, it looks a lot less like "socialism" or the dreaded "spreading of the wealth". Unfortunately economic policy has to take political feasibility into account and this is I think the best solution to do that.

    I don't know that I'm a fan of anyone under $250 000 not paying taxes, as it kind of removes civic responsibility away from the vast majority of the nation. It could also lead to large levels of emigration and outsourcing to other countries.


    I like your ideas a lot. Note, though, that I said people making under $250k should have their taxes reduced once the rich pick up more of their fair share--reduced, not eliminated entirely necessarily (except for the extremely poor).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 2:11 AM GMT


    This would make sense if the country's top earners didnt already pay more than their fair share. Based on actual statistics and not an editorialized opinion of what constitutes an excessive income, here is the reality of who pays what.

    The top 1% of earners, those over $388k, pay 40% of all personal tax revenue
    add in those that make up the top 5%, incomes over $150k, and the total hits 60% of all personal tax revenue. add the next level to top 10%, those over $110k, and you get 70% of all personal tax revenue.


    So 10% of American earners pay 70% of the total amount raised by the government through personal taxation. I guess the other 90% are all ready being taken care of by the "fortunate" because they only pick up 30% of the tax bill as a group.

    Not to mention the vast amount of sales tax high earners pay compared to lower income earners, how many jobs are created by high earners who can currently pay for yard care, child care, maintenance work, car care etc?

    Charitable donations etc will all be reduced. You are advocating a socialization of your country is that what you think is best?

    These figures are from the IRS, so I will assume they are correct.

  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 2:24 AM GMT
    hotshotcdn said


    This would make sense if the country's top earners didnt already pay more than their fair share.

    The top 1% of earners, those over $388k, pay 40% of all personal tax revenue
    add in those that make up the top 5%, incomes over $150k, and the total hits 60% of all personal tax revenue. add the next level to top 10%, those over $110k, and you get 70% of all personal tax revenue.


    So 10% of American earners pay 70% of the total amount raised by the government through personal taxation. I guess the other 90% are all ready being taken care of by the "fortunate" because they only pick up 30% of the tax bill as a group.

    Not to mention the vast amount of sales tax high earners pay compared to lower income earners, how many jobs are created by high earners who can currently pay for yard care, child care, maintenance work, car care etc?

    Charitable donations etc will all be reduced. You are advocating a socialization of your country is that what you think is best?

    These figures are from the IRS, so I will assume they are correct.



    Yes, the rich pay a large portion of overall tax, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to how much more they earn compared to the average person--even after taxes are factored in. Forcing the Bill Gates-es of the world to deal with 2 summer homes, rather than 3, is a far cry from socialism. As has been noted, tax rates on the rich were previously more than DOUBLE what they are now. It wasn't socialism then, and it isn't now.

    Why is it that when conservatives can't shoot down a good progressive idea, they throw out some utterly unrelated buzzword like "socialism" or "terrorism" to scare people into taking their side?? McCain pulled the same BS during his campaign. Thank God America finally seems to have figured out their tactics.