patrick.net

BUT! it’s hard to cite Irony for Obama’s fiscally reckless policies to date

What was fiscally reckless was this country borrowing $5T against the bubble values of their houses, and spending it on consumption. This money-debt was churned into cash and is now in stronger hands -- the 中国人民银行, OPEC, and all the other skimmers who got out when the getting was good 2004-2007.

This is fun to watch: 2 Liberals going at it in an all out brawl. It appears Kevin has the little Duckie Dude on the ropes, but the Duck is very effective at his "rope a dope" technique. Is Howard Cosell still alive? He should be here to call the action ... I can hear it now: "Look at these two monkeys going at it!"

sorry, even by that accounting you won't ever even get a 50 percent marginal rate. The 28 percent bracket is already beyond the ss cutoff.

But if all we care about is the gross injustice of marginal rates and want to pretend that marginal rates are what matters, why aren't you crying fowl about the fact that $5k in income is tax free but $5k in capital gains is taxed at 15 percent, and that's only at the federal level?

Let's have an honest discussion about taxes, like how the capital gains tax is lower than income priimarily to encourage business reinvestment rather than dividends, oe how big tech companies avoid paying any taxes on foreign income, or how our tax policies are actually regressive due to the flat fica rates. But please stop lying about people claiming that 50 percent of anyones income is going to the government.

RayAmerica says

This is fun to watch: 2 Liberals going at it in an all out brawl. It appears Kevin has the little Duckie Dude on the ropes, but the Duck is very effective at his “rope a dope” technique. Is Howard Cosell still alive? He should be here to call the action … I can hear it now: “Look at these two monkeys going at it!”

I just see two intelligent people on the interwebs having a discussion. But then again, I don't operate on the assumption that everything is a liberal/conservo issue.

You're mixing up your animals, rayray. Are they monkeys, or are they a duck and something else? Since my icon is a female dog, do you refer to me (privately) as a bitch? Oh- I forgot, you just skirt around this issue... So using your logic, you're a cross dresser.

yawn.

elliemae says

Are they monkeys, or are they a duck and something else?

If you knew anything about Howard Cosell, you would know he made a famous reference to a "monkey." Obviously (yawn ... again) you've missed the point. But thanks for trying to sound relevant.

I have to agree with the duck - the "hidden" FICA match is pure BS the way it is presented. If the person wasn't working, there would be no tax... What's next, they are going to tax the employee for the tax the company pays on the employee's behalf?

Depending on where you live, 50% is probably pretty accurate considering the total tax burden for "middle" income earners. FICA, the lovely state and federal income tax, property taxes, sales tax, gasoline tax, the "universal access charge" that they say isn't a tax but you have to pay, etc, etc...the list goes on forever and ever. Every time you turn around a government entity has their hand out. This IS, by the way, one thing I do agree with the Tea Party on...the average Joe already pays enough. No deductions and a flat tax is the way to go but it'll never happen as it will remove all of the social engineering capabilities of the government ... as well as ...how are they supposed to get their kickbacks if they can't massage the tax code for their buddies?

RayAmerica says

If you knew anything about Howard Cosell, you would know he made a famous reference to a “monkey.” Obviously (yawn … again) you’ve missed the point. But thanks for trying to sound relevant.

You're correct, rayray. Relevance is everything. For instance, revering a man who died in 1995 who described himself as "Arrogant, pompous, obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a showoff," gives insight into your psyche, just like your adoration of Hitler.

FYI The racist "little monkey" comment of which you're so fond ended his career on Monday Night Football.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Cosell#.22Little_monkey.22_comment

elliemae says

revering a man

Actually, you didn't have to be an a**hole to enjoy listening to Howard Cosell. He was especially famous for his coverage of Mohamed Ali.

AdHominem says

The only way to balance the budget is to cut expenses. Let’s start with DOD.

Every $100,000 you cut there will make one local job somewhere go bye-bye.

Cut $10B and that's 100,000 jobs, about what the private economy is adding right now.

And of course that's just government payouts directly. Thousands of local communities have been entirely dependent on Uncle Sugar's paychecks getting cycled into the local economy. Cut off the checks coming from DC and the slaughter will double.

The PAYGO system inherited by Clinton and held to by the Republican Congress of the 1990s worked reasonably well. Hold gov't spending nearly constant (Fed spending grew by ~$50B per year in the 1990s). Raise taxes on the wealthy until things come into balance. Then have some bad operators get elected and watch them tear the whole thing down in four short years.

I can name several ceos who only get paid in the form of capital gains. Eric schmidt, steve jobs, larry ellison are all obvious examples.

What's wrong with the system though is not the tax rates, its the income disparity. Want to make my ceos income a more modest 200x mine or so? You're going to need a tax rate of 96 percent. That just isn't going to happen.

No, what we need is to stop free trade with countries that don't give a shit about long term consequences of their actions. We need to tear down industries that are controlled by one or two companies (who are colluding most of the time anyway).

Big corporations inevitably will do what is in their best interest financially. Occasionally that aligns with what is good for people, but the rest of the time the only thing keeping them in check is government regulation.

marcus says

elliemae says

revering a man

Actually, you didn’t have to be an a**hole to enjoy listening to Howard Cosell. He was especially famous for his coverage of Mohamed Ali.

I recall listening to Cosell calling an Ali fight, he said something to the effect of, "This is the most exciting fight I've ever seen..." in his deadpan voice. The words didn't mesh with the delivery, and it was hilarious. We used that line for years.

My point was that rayray used the most controversial quote that Cosell made in an attempt to rile the masses. It was a discussion, certainly not a fight. I'm not sure that he knows the difference.

BTW, if my recollection serves me, Howard Cosell had the rare blessing of possessing a photographic memory. The ability to pull up facts on the spot made him great.

Nomograph says

Kevin says

Companies like microsoft, google, and apple are all sitting on $30b a piece, unwilling to spend it out of fear, unwilling to pay dividends because it isn’t what investors want. That is a totally broken model.

At first I was tempted to agree, but then I realize that would entail calling three of the most successful companies in American history “totally broken”. I can’t bring myself to call Google’s business model “broken”.

The business models aren't broken, but it is broken that these companies are sitting on so much cash and not putting it to productive use. people at these companies are generally in agreement about this. I'm not saying that they need to change their business models, only that something needs to change to encourage them to spend more.

Troy says

We shouldn’t tax assets in transfer, just actual cash incomes.

Why? What economic benefit is there in large sums of money simply changing hands through generations?

The worst possible state of an economy is for wealth to sit idle. This is exactly what happens in a recession. When factories aren't producing goods, when people are putting money under a mattress instead of buying things with it -- this is all idle wealth.

Me giving a million dollars to my child serves no economic benefit for anyone but my child. The economy as a whole is much better off if a large portion is redirected to productive use.

I definitely think it's better to let the person who earned the money voluntarily decide what to do with the money (employing people, investing in new technology, etc.), but when that isn't happening I see nothing wrong with letting the government decide how to deal with it.

Taxing rents is too indirect. For most building types (particularly residential), "property" is an extremely wasteful use of wealth. A house provides shelter, and intangible emotional value (I'm not saying the value is irrelevant, just that it's intangible). A factory, on the other hand, produces new goods, and provides employment.

There are a finite amount of resources available to us. It makes much more sense to discourage the hoarding of them, and to encourage making better use of them. Inheritance does neither of these things.

we have $X
what amount over $X will be "RICH"
what amount under $X will be "POOR"
now, once we have those amounts we can find out what $X is.
What is $X?
See why forced wealth transfers between citizens are wrong?

ofcourse there will be a big,huge,monster sized issue when Politico-"A" decrees that $X is $A. For the obvious reasons of it being absolutly ridiculous to use a forced wealth transfer system to take for +$X and freely give to -$X and the arbitrary whim of Politico-A...... and it doesn't matter if $X is $A or $B or $C .... it is a very stupid system.

Hahaha, "taxing the rich" always end's up soaking everyone. So ever their lies are lies. Many of you should keep your nose out of other peoples business, AND NOT TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES. Cooperation NOT force. Opps, that doesn't fit into your incessent need to manipulate and control others. Sorry if I stated the obvious, my bad.

Bap33 says

we have $X
what amount over $X will be “RICH”
what amount under $X will be “POOR”
now, once we have those amounts we can find out what $X is.
What is $X?
See why forced wealth transfers between citizens are wrong?
ofcourse there will be a big,huge,monster sized issue when Politico-”A” decrees that $X is $A. For the obvious reasons of it being absolutly ridiculous to use a forced wealth transfer system to take for +$X and freely give to -$X and the arbitrary whim of Politico-A…… and it doesn’t matter if $X is $A or $B or $C …. it is a very stupid system.

It's not that complicated really. We have that problem today. It will be no different if we return to a more progressive tax structure like we had until Reagan took over...

And I've said this before--you don't do this out of any sense of fairness. You do it because you can't have a strong economy with a huge wealth disparity.

I've noticed over and over again that liberals never advocate what is really needed; a drastic reduction in government spending. Their only answer is the same old "tax the rich" blah, blah, blah. Why not got to the root of the problem which is the bloated, spending machine that is government (government as in ALL levels)?

RayAmerica says

I’ve noticed over and over again that liberals never advocate what is really needed; a drastic reduction in government spending. Their only answer is the same old “tax the rich” blah, blah, blah. Why not got to the root of the problem which is the bloated, spending machine that is government (government as in ALL levels)?

Really? I don't consider myself a liberal, but I'm pretty sure you do. And I have advocated a substantial reduction in military spending on several threads here. I'm pretty sure that many others have as well.

tatupu70 says

I have advocated a substantial reduction in military spending

Is that the only area you would recommend a "substantial reduction in .... spending?" If there are others, please list them.

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

I have advocated a substantial reduction in military spending

Is that the only area you would recommend a “substantial reduction in …. spending?” If there are others, please list them.

I'd also advocate a substantial reduction in campaign finance. It's not direct government spending, but it will inevitably lead to a reduction in Federal spending.

Kevin says

I definitely think it’s better to let the person who earned the money voluntarily decide what to do with the money (employing people, investing in new technology, etc.), but when that isn’t happening I see nothing wrong with letting the government decide how to deal with it.

In ancient Israel the Israelites understood that land was a finite resource and how valuable it was to have control over it. So they divided the land roughly equally between all the families. Then they let the free market take over (people were free to buy and sell) but at the end of every so many years they had a Jubillee where all the land had to be returned to the original owner (or his descendants). This system would be way more productive than simply having government confiscate wealth. Because as you said Kevin idle or misallocated wealth is the bane of an economy. We need to put wealth to work in order maintain prosperity as a nation. Unfortunately most every allocation of funds by the federal government and intervention in markets is either wasteful, unproductive/detrimental to the economy or both.

tatupu70 says

You do it because you can’t have a strong economy with a huge wealth disparity.

I don't agree ... but not like you think ... you see, I think that the very nature of winning and losing is what creates wealth ... so, we cant really have growth without some poor sap taking a beating on a bad gamble (insert country for sap as needed). There is very little logic in our desire to have more piles of green paper, or gold rocks, or diamonds, than anyone else. In the actual process of life those things have zero natural value. And yet we kill each other for more and more and the divide gets bigger and bigger between those that are willing to kill themselves for more green paper and theose that are happy to live on whatever the GOV can take from the workers and hand over to them. The system relies on failures. I would guess this is why God suggested a national "reset button" every generation (50 years I think it was) - as mentioned by AH it was called Jubilee. A time when all debts were forgiven and all personal property returned. Plus, folks turned in old clothes and blankets and such for those that had none. That would keep everyone kinda close. And it takes away "some" of the drive to gather as much $X as possible, without destroying the drive to succeed and without "rewarding" those who are less productive or have bad luck. It limited greed by limiting the value of being lucky/agressive/gambler (wall streetish) and it limited how far down the crap chute a lazy puke would slide. I don't know how we could get this going, but after it was set up it would work pretty well. With my luck, I'd get a chunk of land as hard as granite in northern Idaho .. it would be my chunk, but dang it.