patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Helped by one-way free trade. Why? The US wanted to prop up Europeans, South Koreans, Malaysians, and Japanese economies to help them fight off their Communist parties.

Japan, South Korea or Europe had no risk of falling into some Soviet shere of influence.

Much of the High tech dumping that occured by Japan happened after the fall of USSR. Even today, So Korea has dumped Nand products below costs. We (US Govt) had nothing to do with this!

thomas.wong1986 says

Japan, South Korea or Europe had no risk of falling into some Soviet shere of influence.

That's absolutely untrue. There was a nascent Communist party that emerged in Japan right after WW2, the Communist Party was a major player in Greece, Italy, and France - even Britain had Communist Labor unions in major industries.

One of the selling points of the Marshall Plan was to entice Europeans from Communism.

Economic and Clandestine warfare against Communist Parties in Europe started in the 50s and continued into the 1980s, particularly in Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

A good overview of the history of US policies in the Cold War to assist Europe and Asian economies - including supporting the creation of the Common Market - here:
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/30/us_stuck_in_cold_war/

thunderlips11 says

That's absolutely untrue. There was a nascent Communist party that emerged in Japan right after WW2, the Communist Party was a major player in Greece, Italy, and France - even Britain had Communist Labor unions in major industries

Yes, there was a Communist party in Western European countries and in Japan as well. I never said there wasnt, but they were weak, except Italy in 1949. Chances of them falling into the Soviet block without Soviet Red Army occupation very little. And far less after the '56 Hungarian/Polish and '68 Czech uprising. After 1980 Polish Solidarity uprising that was the begining of the end of the Soviet Block in Europe.

thunderlips11 says

One of the selling points of the Marshall Plan was to entice Europeans from Communism.

Which was also (wrongly) extended to the USSR, which thankfully they rejected.

thomas.wong1986 says

What do they exactly "consume" ? The capital given to them from Venture Capitalis who in turn get it from Rich Investors..
Consumption... i already listed...

I am sorry, we are not communicating here or argument does make much sense. Let me try rephrasing this.

When you invest in a company, one that is starting out and creating jobs, you have expenses. These companies are usually created as LLCs or S-Corporations. When you do this, there expenses which are written off the taxes of the investors.

So if you invest $1M you actually get a tax break of about a $1M dollars. It actually is much more complicated than that, but it is good enough as a starting point. So a rich investor who invests in creating jobs pays no tax, not 15% or 30% but actually 0%. If the company does well, the investment becomes more valuable, but there is still no potential tax liability until the company is sold or profits materialize. Then you can covert your corporation (if you so desire) to a C-corp and avoid the personal tax liability on profits (the IRS is fine with this). So real investors creating real jobs don't need to pay much if anything in taxes.

People who want to buy fast cars and McMansions out of their earnings and profits do need to pay taxes. People engaged in financial speculation do pay taxes. If the income taxes on all earnings and income was raised to 70% you would have mad dash rush to invest in creating real businesses, because that is a legitimate way to avoid taxes.

What I am arguing is raising taxes on the rich (1%) actually helps create jobs. Is there something you feel is amiss with the above argument?

thomas.wong1986 says

bob2356 says

How about paying down the debt? Failing that just balance the budget.

I like your comment Bob, i really do.. but govt only turns around and get into larger spending programs. Would you mandate restrictions on spending and excess going to paydown all debt. Good Idea.. will it fly ?

Of course not. Even if there were balanced budget amendment there would be trillions of dollars in off budget sleight of hand. Both parties have locked themselves into impossible positions that will only increase the debt until it all blows up. It's like watching 2 little kids going I dare you, I double dare you. It's madness that has no end that I can see.

Hedge every way you can. Get your money out of the country before currency controls kick in. It's not going to be pretty.

marquismark says

So, I submit that the "wealth" which you state is "theirs" isn't. It was only made possible by the fact that they made the rules to benefit themselves and lobbied the right people.

Well said. Most real wealth isn't "earned", it's obtained via shenanigans.

omgbacon says

that's where the money is disappearing. that's why we're broke. it's not because we're spending money on old people, it's because we're spending billions of dollars to defeat two-bit dictators armed with sharp sticks.

Classic. +1

thomas.wong1986 says

Yes, there was a Communist party in Western European countries and in Japan as well. I never said there wasnt, but they were weak, except Italy in 1949. Chances of them falling into the Soviet block without Soviet Red Army occupation very little.

The Communist Parties of France, Italy, and Greece were quite substantial. In France in the 50s, Communists got the majority of votes, only France's bizarre electoral system prevented them from being the majority party. This is also why we put up with a lot of DeGaulle's behavior at the time - the alternative was Marxists running France.

Greece's Nazi resistance was led by the Communist Party, and hundreds of thousands of Greeks were members. After the war, the US and UK sent tons of money and military assistance to help the republic crush the huge communist party there.

The situation in Japan was less grave, but in all these countries the US had a vested interest in building up their economies - and buying their products tariff free. It didn't go the other way around, since we wanted our Allies to be able to finance themselves by taxing our exports to them.

thunderlips11 says

the alternative was Marxists running France.

Whoa whoa...what? Marxists aren't running France...?

wthrfrk80 says

Whoa whoa...what? Marxists aren't running France...?

LOL. The socialists will, unless Sarkozy is the recipient of a miracle.

marquismark says

Dear Abe,
I honestly would like you to consider this: Who makes the rules? The wealthy? The middle? The poor? You know as well as I do that the wealthy make the rules.

Abe likes me so much he wants to be my friend! Has he asked you? He's a secret liberal lover.

oliverks1 says

When you invest in a company, one that is starting out and creating jobs, you have expenses. These companies are usually created as LLCs or S-Corporations. When you do this, there expenses which are written off the taxes of the investors.
So if you invest $1M you actually get a tax break of about a $1M dollars. It actually is much more complicated than that, but it is good enough as a starting point. So a rich investor who invests in creating jobs pays no tax, not 15% or 30% but actually 0%.

Partnerships/LLP/S-Corp like many professional organizations set up by two or more people are a "pass through" entitiy, where taxable income (earnings, Capital Gains/Losses is passed through to the each partners tax return based on ownership interest. Prorated earning, actuaally paid or not to the partner, will be taxable at partners return.

The orginal $1M, isnt written off, since its the orginal base equity interest in the firm was already been taxed once.. why tax it twice ? The cash side of the $1M is used to pay for staff , buy inventory and equipment.

Many Partnerships/S-Corp/LLP are Engineering, Medical, Dental, Lawyers and Accounting Firms. As such the equity is "at risk".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-corp#Taxation_of_S_corporation_Distributive_Share

oliverks1 says

If the company does well, the investment becomes more valuable, but there is still no potential tax liability until the company is sold or profits materialize. Then you can covert your corporation (if you so desire) to a C-corp and avoid the personal tax liability on profits (the IRS is fine with this). So real investors creating real jobs don't need to pay much if anything in taxes.

As the entity exist and earns income and capital gains/losses those earnings are reported to the IRS like the W-2, and are taxable to the partners on a quarterly basis.

Conversion still leaves you with a taxable event being reported and liable to each partner. No free rides here...

Ask you dentist, doctor, or anyone working in a S-Corp.

thomas.wong1986 says

Ask you dentist, doctor, or anyone working in a S-Corp.

Doctors and Dentists set up S-Corps to avoid taxes. They would go to work regardless of the tax structure (within reason) because that is what they went to school to do. So these small corporations to a large extent (with some exceptions) are not creating any net new jobs. Changing the marginal rate of tax on such people would have little effect on their work habits. It should also be noted that vast majority of such professionals no longer even qualify for the 1% (which is major change from 40 years ago).

Once again your argument doesn't address why raising the tax rates is bad for job creation.

thomas.wong1986 says

The orginal $1M, isnt written off, since its the orginal base equity interest in the firm was already been taxed once.. why tax it twice ? The cash side of the $1M is used to pay for staff , buy inventory and equipment.

This is a more valid argument you are making so I want to break it down into two parts.

First if the $1M dollars is post tax dollars, then you don't pay tax on it again. You only pay tax on the capital gains or excess retained earnings. So there is no double taxation. If you chose to write down your basis, which is normal in many investments, then you are getting a tax break, that will be counteracted by taxes at later. However the tax break and the taxable income is entirely symmetric. In fact, you can deliberately (and to the best of my knowledge fairly) game the system by taking your tax break during high earning years, and try to realize your gain in years of little income. You can come out ahead significantly in such cases.

The second part of this question is more complicated. The argument is why should I pay capital gains tax. The correct way to think about this is real capital gains. That is money you made after inflation, minus your tax basis. Earnings from this should surely be taxed! It is income pure and simple. You are putting your money to work for you. Why should a man's labor be taxed but your capital not? This is not paying tax twice (as people like to repeat over and over) it is paying tax on your inflation adjusted earnings. You only pay tax once on any money you make. Once you have made it, your basis is secure from the taxman.

There is a problem with the current tax code unfortunately. Capital gains is taxed on your basis, not your inflation adjusted basis. In an inflationary environment (which is most of the time), your basis is eroded and you do end up paying tax twice on part of your money. That is why the capital gains tax was introduced. It was to offset this double taxation by offering a much lower rate on capital gains. A better solution would be to have the government index your basis to inflation, and then make you declare any gains as earned income.

So the simple answer to your questions is, income from investments, be it capital gains or profits should be taxed, because it represents new income (assuming inflation adjustment for the capital basis). Why should this be free, because as I explained it has not been taxed yet. It is no different than income from labor. Even with identical taxation rates, this still gives the advantage to capital, as it has more control over when to declare tax on profits than labor does.

oliverks1 says

If you chose to write down your basis, which is normal in many investments, then you are getting a tax break, that will be counteracted by taxes at later. However the tax break and the taxable income is entirely symmetric. In fact, you can deliberately (and to the best of my knowledge fairly) game the system by taking your tax break during high earning years, and try to realize your gain in years of little income. You can come out ahead significantly in such cases.

You cannot write down or revalue your basis due to inflation. Your basis can only decline due to losses in your business. The only thing you an do is impair and capital asset and take a gain or loss accordinly, but that also triggers ordinary income taxes before considering capital gains/losses. Many businesses have a CPA that do the books and taxes, so out right collusion of fraud is unlikely. The CPA will infact turn you in the the IRS.

Is this what doctors, dentists, accountants, engineering partners think all day in their profession.. " How to swindle and game the system?" I think not !

oliverks1 says

So the simple answer to your questions is, income from investments, be it capital gains or profits should be taxed, because it represents new income (assuming inflation adjustment for the capital basis). Why should this be free, because as I explained it has not been taxed yet. It is no different than income from labor. Even with identical taxation rates, this still gives the advantage to capital, as it has more control over when to declare tax on profits than labor does.

Income from Interest and Dividends are already taxed at Individual tax rates even for S-Corp and Partnerships LLP.
Capital gains/losses are transfered and taxed accordingly as short term .. Ordinary and Long term ... I have no idea what your trying to sell.. and it makes no sense.. Take time out and learn REAL Tax Accounting at your local community college.

I have no idea what your trying to say.. and

oliverks1 says

So the simple answer to your questions is, income from investments, be it capital gains or profits should be taxed, because it represents new income (assuming inflation adjustment for the capital basis). Why should this be free, because as I explained it has not been taxed yet.

Thomas is technically correct.

There's really two types of business for tax purpose, There's taxable entity and disregard entity.

Taxable entity, mostly C corporations or other entities treated as C Corporations are taxed at the entity level. A 1M taxable income for the corporation means the Corporation pays 35% federal tax and whatever state tax. The retained earnings is net of tax. Dividends and or other release of capital (Capital gains or dividends which are essentially the same thing) are taxed at the shareholder level. The retained earnings (booked after tax is included) are already taxed at the corporate level so the release of equity represents taxation on the same income.

In theory that is why there is preferential treatment. Most of the world don't try to tax the same income twice. Without the capital gains break, 100 earned by the Corporation can be taxed at $40 at the entity level, leaving $60 retained earnings. Upon release of the $60 taxed at 40% again fed and state or $24. That means of the $100 in pre-tax income, uncle fed and Auntie State took $64 bucks. The BUSH tax cut relieve some of that.

In the case of a disregard entity or more commonly known as pass-thru entity, there is no tax at the entity level. However, if the business earned 1M in taxable income, 100% of the taxable income is passed to the shareholder(s). It's more commonly known as getting a "K-1" which is filed with the fed so they know exactly how much you made. There is no reduced rate as that is essentially income from your share of the partnership. There is no retained earnings in a partnership, the 1M income is allocated to partners capital and can be released upon cash draw. (based on partnership agreement). But as the partners capital increased, the K-1 means the partner have to pick up the income on the reporting year. If you manage to sell your share of the partnership higher than the basis, that gain is taxed at full as well.

thomas.wong1986 says

Income from Interest and Dividends are already taxed at Individual tax rates even for S-Corp and Partnerships LLP.
Capital gains/losses are transfered and taxed accordingly as short term .. Ordinary and Long term ... I have no idea what your trying to sell.. and it makes no sense.. Take time out and learn REAL Tax Accounting at your local community college.

All I am "selling" is the idea that taxes on earning and capital gains are not unjust. You keep complaining about you get taxed for this and that and you don't like it. I can't do much about that. In terms of REAL Tax Accounting, you keep trying to introduce new subjects. Reread my post and try to find a real error.

SFace says

In theory that is why there is preferential treatment. Most of the world don't try to tax the same income twice. Without the capital gains break, 100 earned by the Corporation can be taxed at $40 at the entity level, leaving $60 retained earnings. Upon release of the $60 taxed at 40% again fed and state or $24. That means of the $100 in pre-tax income, uncle fed and Auntie State took $64 bucks. The BUSH tax cut relieve some of that.

I agree with this statement. The double taxation on C corporation earning is a problem, but I think the BUSH tax cut are a terrible solution. Now I like the Bush break as much as the next guy come tax time, but the reason the Bush break doesn't work is that big companies are not double taxed. Most large C corps pay no or little tax, via the Double Irish or other corporate structures. Hence your argument above does not hold for large publicly traded companies (and even if it did your tax rate example is wrong even for high tax states).

A better approach would be to - a eliminate the tax on C corp earnings or - b allow corporations to tax deduct any dividend payments. The former comes with a whole host of problems, because of other tax distortions, so the later is probably preferable.

However what is more important is what started this thread. Thomas was arguing about new business creation and double taxation. My argument remains that raising the marginal tax rate will not hurt new business creation, in fact I claim it might well help new business formation.

Tax the super rich...great! Right out of the Communist Manefisto!!

Like the irresponsible baffoons in DC (District of Corruption) need MORE taxpayer money to waste and squander.

Before DC was developed it was a swamp. It still is.

Abe, You have absolutely nothing to add to any discourse. I have asked you repeatedly to give me examples, detail your logic (if there is any) and you never can. Just a series of dumb, over-the-top, unsupported rants. You, my friend, are being played by Fox News (oxymoron if ever there was one) and its wealthy masters and they are laughing at you and they screw you up your red, white and blue butt. I just feel sorry for you.

Anyway, this will be the last time I ever hear from you because your are now on ignore.

Marquis, (1) You are aware "a heavy progressive income tax" is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, aren't you? If not I respectfully request you research and read it for yourself. [Tax the super rich = a heavy progressive income tax]

(2) You don't actually think the crooks in DC, with a PROVEN track record of financial mismanagement. should have MORE taxpayer money, do you?

(3) Washington does waste and squander taxpayer money, isn't that correct?

(4) DC was a swamp before it was developed.

(5) The reference to DC still being a swamp is a euphemism to the corruption that is obvious to both the 99%'rs and the Tea Party.

The only people who are not outraged about whats been going on are those who have not been paying attention.

BTW, what have you been reading lately? What are you putting into your mind. I'll bet you'll be like the rest of the "progressives" here who refuse to divulge what they read.

My guess is that they are:(1) not reading, or (2) not proud of what they are reading and therefor refuse to discuss it.

What about you Marquis, are you up to the challenge??? What have you been reading?

I have also permanently tuned-out Dishonest Abe's noise.

Honest Abe says

Tax the super rich...great! Right out of the Communist Manefisto!!

Thats all they know.. they have no idea what it takes to make a robust economy... jobs, growth, empowering the entrepreneurial spirit to go from nothing to making a better life.

All they can say is nanananana ! im not hearing you as our industries start to crumble.

Big Business crushes the entrepreneurial spirit just as much as Big Government does.

The fight is not between "Socialists" and "Capitalists." Quit falling for that particular "us vs. them" trap.

The real fight is between the Crony Capitalists (Mega-Corporations and other special interests that own our Big Government) and the rest of us who are totally skrewed by this unholy alliance.

Wthfkr80, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Big Government crushes the entrepreneurial spirit.

In a survey I recently heard about, when asked the question: "Is government helping, not helping, or hurting your ability to get ahead" [From memory - not necessarily an exact quote] Only 33% said government was helping...whereas 67% said big government was either not helping, or actually hurting their chances of getting ahead. Big, constantly growing, intrusive government is not the solution - its the problem.

Limited, constitutional government would go a long way in solving our countries current problems.

wthrfrk80 says

I have also permanently tuned-out Dishonest Abe's noise.

Is his still yapping even after I put him ignore? He's like a turd that just won't flush...

Hahaha, you very vocal, but weak minded liberals love to hurl your derogatory (often sexual) slurs at those who are mentally and emotionally superior to yourselves. Hahaha.

Your crude remark reveals you to be my inferior. Go ahead, block me all you want. Hahaha.

BTW, what have you read lately? Or are you too chicken to say. I double dog dare you. You won't, coward, will you?

Big hat, no cattle. Big wind, no substance. Big head, no mind.

And just to be clear, you sir, are in the minority. The very vocal minority.

Nomo, why do you constantly play the "Am talk radio" card? Is that all you got?

Todays book: The Anti Capitalist Mentality, by L.V. Mises

BTW, no matter how you attempt to disguise it, A HEAVY PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX is one of the planks of THE COMMUNIST MANEIFSTO...COMRADE.

Oh no. Abe is using the Chewbacca Defense!

Honest Abe says

Hahaha, you very vocal, but weak minded liberals love to hurl your derogatory (often sexual) slurs at those who are mentally and emotionally superior to yourselves. Hahaha.

Flushing turds is a sexual slur? I really don't want to know what goes on behind your bedroom door.

Bob, having trouble reading? I said "weak minded liberals love to hurl derogatory (often sexual) slurs".

Then you end with another dig, hahaha, is that all you got?

When only one entity has a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce rules, funded by taxpayer dollars, it is called government.

Have a good day.

thomas.wong1986 says

Chances of them falling into the Soviet block without Soviet Red Army occupation very little.

Not just Soviet Block, electing a Socialist or Trotskyite party that would drop out of NATO and kick out US troops and close US bases. This was the danger with Greece and Italy in particular.

Honest Abe says

Bob, having trouble reading? I said "weak minded liberals love to hurl derogatory (often sexual) slurs".

Then you end with another dig, hahaha, is that all you got?

When only one entity has a monopoly on the use of violence to enforce rules, funded by taxpayer dollars, it is called government.

Have a good day.

I might as well do digs. You have never in all the years I've read Patrick.net actually offered any type of suggestions how things could be better. You have only one trick, government is bad. But no suggestion whatsoever what would be good. Not that you ever answer other than to spew anti government am radio regurgitations, but what is your vision of how society should function?

Bob, my vision is stated in my book: "Is Government the Problem?" but I won't publish it. I don't want to be on the government kill list, but I probably am already.

All of my suggestions get trashed because they are based on freedom, liberty, sound money and the constitution. All the things necessary for a healthy society.

Government is like fire, a necessary evil. If you don't contrtol it, it will destroy you.

Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won't work.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wi-D24oCa10&feature=related

Patrick, If I get LESS when the 1%'rs make MORE, do I get MORE when they make LESS?

I'm going to buy stock in those companies who financially rape and pillage America, then I'll have the right to complaign how much the CEO makes. My stock profit wouldbe directly related to expenses (salaries), right?

Otherwise its none of my business (I'm not a lib, and as such I don't have a busy-body, entitlement mentality).

Honest Abe says

If I get LESS when the 1%'rs make MORE, do I get MORE when they make LESS?

Historically speaking, yes you do.