Jeff Daniels tells why America isn't the greatest country in the world anymore
By Patrick Follow Fri, 6 Jul 2012, 2:43pm 18,009 views 172 comments
In Menlo Park CA 94025
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (2) Dislike (1) « First « Previous Viewing Comments 93-132 of 172 Next » Last » See most liked comments
« First « Previous comments Next comments » Last »
|
Premium member Patrick is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (2)
83 comments
Ellicott City, MD
To Patrick, WThrFrk80 & all other Obama-voters:
Here's what I wrote at 4:28 pst, 7:28 est this morning and you two semi-socialists have ignored it -- not attempted any refutation. I didn't expect a cogent, coherent, logical rebuttal -- at least you didn't embarrass yourself with a lame rebuttal. But ignoring these truths shows me something. Semi-socialist Obama-voters are not really interested in economic, historical, non-rebuttable truths. Your silence is loud and clear........
Eisenhower did not pass/sign the tax rate increases......FDR was the architect of class-warfare and federal govt power-grabs. For you to imply that high marginal income tax rates in the 1950s were a factor causing the economy to perform well in the '50s......is hypothetical, unsupported conjecture. The boom in the '50s was due to many factors (most do NOT apply NOW). And by the way, the 75% marginal tax rates for income were applied at income of over $2million in current dollars. Thus, essentially no one bothered to get crushed like that, and tax avoidance schemes were the norm at those high levels.
I did NOT set you and Patrick up with strawman arguments.
I am amused by you Obama-Dembots wanting to use and change the tax code for more 'fairness' against higher-paids... amused in a certain way that amazes me because you Progressive Libtards are suckers for Obama/Pelosi/Reid playing you like a fiddle. They could have passed any of their class-warfare agenda beginning July 2009 when the 60th Senate seat was taken by Al Franken. They could have passed any of their 'wish list' of higher tax rates. And you don't even care that they didn't, OR even more amazing, you don't wonder why they didn't. I'll tell you why they didn't....2 reasons: 1) They were not confident it would help the economy, and 2) They easily concluded that they may as well 'save' the issue for Nov 2012 election to get the votes of the masses of economic illiterates. So now they're screaming what's 'fair', why rates should be higher.....all that posturing/lying now -- when they could have put their 'fair' rates in place in late 2009 WITH EASE. They didn't for 2 reasons and YOU don't notice that!! You're still clamoring and falling for their higher rates campaign issue, and you'll vote for Obama/Pelosis/Reids/Progressives again !!!! Just as they wanted!! You don't really get it Patrick and WThFrck80 -- they suckered you!!!! The joke's on you and the rest of Obamabots dumb enough to fall for it!!! Period. That's my argument. Refute it if you can. My guess is you cannot with any logic.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
sbourg says
Actually it was Warren Buffett.
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” -- Warren Buffett.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Sbourg,
That whole post of yours is just typical far-right trolling.
There are reasonable conservatives out there. You are not one of them.
I can get the same far-right talking points from AM radio.
Follow
Befriend
13 threads
1,476 comments
Ruki says
3) Duh.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
sbourg says
Try to get you numbers right, in the Eisenhower years the top tax rate was 91% which would be about 1.5 million in today's dollars. What does no one bothered to get crushed by that mean anyway? Any documentation that tax avoidance schemes were the norm?
The high marginal tax rates were a good part of the reason that executives got paid 30 times the average workers salary in the 50's vs 500 today. Do CEO's really add almost 20 times the value to stockholders over the 1950's? Not.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
bob2356 says
Good point. Maybe CEO's should be paid purely for performance. Like the rest of us.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
wthrfrk80 says
Like the DMV and Post Office workers, paid purely for performance? It was Obama's "key economic decision maker" (Wikipedia) and director of the White House Economic Council Larry Summers, who, per the book Confidence Men, stated that the greater separation of wealth between the poorest and richest was in fact, on average, fairness in action. In other words, less wealth at the top indicated there was manipulation of the free market to limit or redistribute that wealth, so in his view, yes, the CEOs are finally getting what they are worth, and they're allegedly worth a lot more than the fungible rank and file.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
wthrfrk80 says
And in both instances there is a lot more going on behind those numbers that can be captured in just a two-axis graph, so your conclusions based on these graphs are (a) inconsistent with basic economic theory, which indicates when something costs more (e.g., because it's taxed), there will be less demand for it, and (b) oversimplified.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
44 comments
Mountain View, CA
Marginal tax rates are a meaningless number, since our tax code is so complex, that they have little bearing on tax levels. Here's a short article, and a chart showing actual tax receipts as a share of GDP, which tells you the real overall tax burden. http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2011/03/90-tax-rate-myth.html
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
@wthrfrk80
You're on a roll!
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
JG1 says
If you're talking about buying something (like cigarettes or sugary drinks) you are absolutely correct.
What does that have to do with tax rates?
Follow
Befriend (16)
760 threads
7,667 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Ruki says
No more revisionist history than the South normally does.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
wthrfrk80 says
That, too, and perhaps more obviously. But an income tax, as its name implies, makes marginal/overtime/extra work resulting in more income less and less appealing vs. spending time relaxing, on vacation, with family, friends, etc. At the extreme end of things back when the top rate was ~90%, once you hit that bracket, why would you bother working at all? In fact, I can't recall who - Art Linkletter? - but a Hollywood celeb from that era was interviewed and said that stars stopped making movies for the year once they had that bracket - no point in working and giving away 90%+ (not sure what state income tax levels were like back then - if it's anything like CA's 10% today, literally it would be stupid to work unless one enjoyed working, since you'd be working for free after taxes). While the effect is not as extreme in lower / current brackets, it is still a disincentive to hit AGI tax benefit phaseout levels, get into the AMT, and pay ever more tax on additional earnings. Which is why I have friends who don't work available overtime, because too much of it goes to taxes, and others who don't bother shooting for the company bonus or next highest level bonus, because 50-60% of it will be sucked up by the IRS and FTB anyway. In other words, the income tax is a drag on GDP.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
bob2356 says
Today, they have become liable for the errors and fraud of the whole organization.
Do you realize if the guy you work with sitting next to you has committed fraud or financial misrepresentation in your organization, and even if your officers and CEO was located 100s of miles from your building/operations.. your CEO will be fired and held financial/ criminal liable... no matter how ethical the CEO was it wont matter.
example... a sales person in Hong Kong books a fictitious LARGE Mega Million deal for a publicly traded SV tech company, later discovered after the sales we published to the public ... yes the CEO is liable for not having internal controls over the financials.
Yes..Due to SOX the risks have increased and so have the costs of employing a CEO.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
a more recent well publized item...regarding Steve Jobs at Apple.
In 2001, Jobs was granted stock options in the amount of 7.5 million shares of Apple with an exercise price of $18.30. It was alleged that the options had been backdated, and that the exercise price should have been $21.10. It was further alleged that Jobs had thereby incurred taxable income of $20,000,000 that he did not report, and that Apple overstated its earnings by that same amount.
As a result, Jobs potentially faced a number of criminal charges and civil penalties. The case was the subject of active criminal and civil government investigations, though an independent internal Apple investigation completed on December 29, 2006, found that Jobs was unaware of these issues and that the options granted to him were returned without being exercised in 2003.
On July 1, 2008, a $7-billion class action suit was filed against several members of the Apple Board of Directors for revenue lost due to the alleged securities fraud.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
@ thomas.wong1986 - In fairness, as part of their SOP and benefits package to directors/officers, these companies carry D&O liability insurance and generally indemnify their D&O's to the maximum extent they can.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
JG1 says
nope.. it doesnt cover everything nor can CEO escape prosecution and frankly D&O has skyrocketed.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Perhaps I'm making the mistake even talking about income taxes.
Maybe the real problem is people like Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary?
Perhaps we should just raise capital gains taxes on "ultra-high" net worth individuals?
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
wthrfrk80 says
Capital gains.. you have to sell ownership to get taxed... we are also including equipment, buildings and other assets. Lower taxes, spurn reinvestment in new purchases be it equipment, building and other assets. As such new purchases require new inventory to be created which require labor and materials. Which creates new jobs which creates taxable income.
Income - those are simple (net) earnings after expenses from individuals and corporations, taxable when earned.
There is a fundamental difference between the two.
Perhaps we have forgotten basic macroeconomics.
Follow
Befriend (2)
83 comments
Ellicott City, MD
To WThFck80, Bob2356 and Patrick:
I knew you wouldn't refute my main arguments against you LibTards. WThFck80 called me 'unreasonable'. Really? How, specifically? AND refuted my contention that FDR was an early Presidential proponent of the class-warfare tactic, by saying Warren Buffett is the architect of class-warfare. Really WThFck80? Maybe you should read some recent books about FDR written over the last 10 years. Factual books.
Bob......really 91% ....... 75%........who cares, that's not my point and what's the difference? Almost no one paid significant income taxes on wages that were significantly over $400k/year back in the '50s.......that's like $2M now which many athletes & entertainers pay.........but they stayed below $400k in the '50s. Business owners/CEOs were paid stock options over $400k wages, to avoid the confiscatory income taxes.
But all those details are not my main point. You all are suckers. Played like a fiddle by Obama/Pelosi/Reid......who didn't do what you wanted in '09, SO THAT you'd still be whining now and ranting against Republicans. You are intellectually bankrupt. Don't see what your hero Democrats have done for your cause.....NOTHING. Because they want you to still vote for their slogans, even though they DON'T/DIDN'T DO IT. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
wthrfrk80 says
His secretary who is "rich"* according to Obama's standards, since she makes over $200K/year. And Buffett could have Berkshire Hathaway pay him salary, instead his compensation is structured to produce zero to few W-2 wages and all capital gains. Warren could also voluntarily pay more income tax, there's a box for that on his tax return, and yours, and mine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/
* Nevermind that income and wealth are two different, albeit somewhat related, concepts. This fact seems to escape Obama.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
thomas.wong1986 says
Are you saying companies aren't still paying the increased premiums? Companies generally cannot indemnify against fraud, crimes, etc., but most everything else they can and do.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
JG1 says
Oh course they have to pay! but what we are talking about is the risks for the individual CEO has gone up... They really are on the hook for every little guy down the line.. little guy screws up.. its the CEOs head.
If you understood the risks and interviewing for the CEO spot, your compensation will match that risk.
I would also agree that CEO pay is too high, even in places like SV.
Why ? we stopped promoting from within (like Warren Buffet would do) and start to seek managers from outside of tech to run SV companies or some dreadful idiots. More recent example at HP hiring a German from SAP or under-qualified Yahoo CEO (just an accountant) who inflated his resume. We certainly dont see leaders who have a passion in building an enterprise for the long term.. just a quick ticket to retirement.
You can certainly blame inflated salary is due to regulation and pure stupidity.
If you have a question why Apple CEO is paid so much.. ask Al Gore.. he sits on the Apple board. Heck wasnt he the one who promoted CEOs salary being non-deductible expense for tax when he was VP.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
JG1 says
Very expensive for the small guy!
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
thomas.wong1986 says
I know - I voted against him as a shareholder (and voter), the former to no avail. Agree on risks. Agree on some CEOs seem to be overpaid, although disagree govt regulation/tax punishment is the solution. I think shareholders need to pressure companies to see if they can find any talent at $X million instead of $XX or XXX million. Surely these are jobs everyone wants and there must be some willing to do it for less than XX or XXX who are qualified?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
sbourg says
sbourg says
sbourg says
Ok.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
JG1 says
Ditto, i would make it half $XM of that in fixed salary with the other half variable.
Follow
Befriend (2)
83 comments
Ellicott City, MD
To Thomas Wong and JG1: I want to thank you two guys for your comments -- they were VERY interesting, factual and informative in big ways. I know alot about the economy, politics, investing (be careful the next 10 years!)..........but you two know alot more about businesses and taxation. Loved reading that summary of the Apple/Jobs issue.
I think I'm kind of an expert on how the Democrats try to get votes, and the damaging effects on our country that result from their tactics on cities, states and federal economies! But that's not hard to see! If you want to read a GR8 book about the tactics of Dems and economic-illiteracy of Dems, FDR and his 'advisors', read:
"FDR:New Deal or Raw Deal" One of the best books I've ever read, actually frightening what was done, and even more frightening how Democrats thought all that stuff was good, even doing the same now.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
http://ftmdaily.com/2012-elections/new-executive-order-gives-president-power-to-control-the-media-during-a-crisis/
Sbourg - hold on, the full frontal assult by the libs will occur any second. But thanks for the book recommendation. I've listed many books but get attacked each and every time. I've REPEATEDLY asked libs for book recommendations and have gotten NOTHING, repeat - nothing.
Hey you pinko libs, what book recommendations ya' got today? Ha-ha-ha.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
487 comments
Alameda, CA
Honest Abe says
Er, I liked "Moby-Dick"...
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
OK, see what I mean? Don't liberals read books they aren't ashamed to name?
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
487 comments
Alameda, CA
Honest Abe says
OK, you caught me. The last book I read was "Misquoting Jesus". Don't particularly recommend it unless you are really interested in the history of the New Testament.
Follow
Befriend (2)
83 comments
Ellicott City, MD
Hey, Honest Abe: Thx for the warning about the Libtards......they are certainly out in full force on this site. And they never directly respond to an argument.
Yes, absolutely you should get/read "FDR New Deal or Raw Deal". Brilliantly researched and factually fascinating. He even explains how & why the history books painted glowing accounts of FDR's greatness.......history profs at the Ivy League schools in the '40s, '50s, '60s were stacked with super-libs and they didn't know much about economics. Anyway, FDR was unbelievable and no wonder the Depression lasted 14 years, until he died! Then Truman announced certain changes to the business leaders, etc. :)
Follow
Befriend (12)
140 threads
1,355 comments
Emeryville, CA
Honest Abe says
Ours have big words in them, and less pictures of choo-choos.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
243 comments
Los Angeles, CA
CL says
Like this?
http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/0440508649
Follow
Befriend (2)
83 comments
Ellicott City, MD
JG1: Brilliant ! Books by liberals actually defy comprehension.
Incomprehensible, economic-illiteracy...pretty much describes all the Democrats who've been elected to office in the past......well....80 years since 1932.
In fact, I'd hazard to guess that Al Franken is even MORE clueless than FDR, and that's saying alot.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
sbourg says
So what you're saying is you've never read it, but you're pretty sure it's Incomprehensible, economic-illiteracy based on the title.
Right?
What defies comprehension is how you can comment on a book you've never read.
Follow
Befriend (7)
22 threads
325 comments
wthrfrk80 says
There are zero 'reasonable conservatives' left in the GOP. They have all been kicked to the curb years ago.
Follow
Befriend (2)
83 comments
Ellicott City, MD
Hey Iwog: I wasn't referring to ONE book in particular. I was talking about MANY books, that I HAVE read or perused at the book stores, not buying the doltish books by Libtards. Many. Listen, I DID recommend a fantastic book above, one of the greatest books about one of our Presidents, FDR, who did MAJOR financial damage to our nation......and in fact Democrats since then have copied many of his damaging principles and actions at the federal, state and city/county level. In fact they have taken him ONE BIG STEP FURTHER.....they started unionizing govt workers in the 1950s and '60s.......something even FDR said should NEVER be done.
So what lib-writer book do you recommend we on the fiscal conservative 'side', read ?
I'm talking economics.
Follow
Befriend (2)
83 comments
Ellicott City, MD
Hey Buster: Define 'reasonable' conservative. Does anyone come close? I'm talking economic issues, fiscal issues, governmental involvement, obviously.
And give us an example of a 'reasonable' liberal on the economic issues .
You won't be able to do it and support it.
But give it a shot. Be specific about economic issues. Good luck.