A Hedge Fund Republic?

[Ducimus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html?_r=1

[The Third Man]

So many big words...........he must be smart or...hiding his not so smart.

The folks would rather be spoken to like people than pussified ivy league.

People are tired of being talked down to.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yes, if he'd only use 'refudiate'.

[mookiemookie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html?_r=1

And if you want to know why politics is the way it is, you simply follow the money.

I heartily recomment Matt Taibbi's Griftopia. Reading it now and loving it:

The financial crisis that exploded in 2008 isn’t past but prologue. The stunning rise, fall, and rescue of Wall Street in the bubble-and-bailout era was the coming-out party for the network of looters who sit at the nexus of American political and economic power. The grifter class—made up of the largest players in the financial industry and the politicians who do their bidding—has been growing in power for a generation, transferring wealth upward through increasingly complex financial mechanisms and political maneuvers. The crisis was only one terrifying manifestation of how they’ve hijacked America’s political and economic life.

[The Third Man]

Yes, if he'd only use 'refudiate'.

Or that there are 57 states.

[tater]

Pretty stupid op-ed.

One way to examine that decision is to put aside all ethical considerations and simply look at where tax dollars will do more to stimulate the economy. There the conclusion is clear: You get much more bang for the buck putting money in the hands of unemployed people because they will promptly spend it.

In contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are partly saved — that’s both basic economic theory and recent history — so they are much less effective in creating jobs.

The unemployed will spend it at walmart—your fave place. I guess that stimulates China to buy more T-bills, so maybe he's right.

The rich, he says, will "save" the money, not "spend" it. How, pray tell, will the rich save the money? Stuff it into fine linen mattresses? Cause that's what they'd have to do for it not to be spent. That MUST be what he means. If they invest the money it is spent by the companies to grow their business (you know, hire people, buy raw materials, etc). Maybe they WILL waste it by putting it someplace safe—like T-bills or munis. What else might they spend their disposable money on (it is THEIR money, after all we are talking about, just money not confiscated by the feds)? Another house? Who remodels the house? Who builds the furniture? Do they buy stuff to furnish from China at walmart? Do they buy chinese melamine cabinets at lowes? No, they hire a cabinet maker. They buy higher end stuff—the stuff expensive enough that Americans can make money doing the work—craftspeople.

That article is rubbish.

[Takeda Shingen]

Bottom line is that if that an op-ed on the problem is too difficult for you to read, you probably don't have any business discussing it. :smug:

[mookiemookie]

Pretty stupid op-ed.



The unemployed will spend it at walmart—your fave place. I guess that stimulates China to buy more T-bills, so maybe he's right.

The rich, he says, will "save" the money, not "spend" it. How, pray tell, will the rich save the money? Stuff it into fine linen mattresses? Cause that's what they'd have to do for it not to be spent. That MUST be what he means. If they invest the money it is spent by the companies to grow their business (you know, hire people, buy raw materials, etc). Maybe they WILL waste it by putting it someplace safe—like T-bills or munis. What else might they spend their disposable money on (it is THEIR money, after all we are talking about, just money not confiscated by the feds)? Another house? Who remodels the house? Who builds the furniture? Do they buy stuff to furnish from China at walmart? Do they buy chinese melamine cabinets at lowes? No, they hire a cabinet maker. They buy higher end stuff—the stuff expensive enough that Americans can make money doing the work—craftspeople.

That article is rubbish.

The idea that trickle down economics works is rubbish.

[Ducimus]

Just tossing it up here out of boredom. That and it sort of pisses on the upper 1%, which i like. Then again, i like anything that pisses on the upper 1%. :haha: (that happens when your scared, angry, bitter, and have no chance of ever owning your own place)

[tater]

The idea that trickle down economics works is rubbish.

It works just fine. That's how all economies would be naturally. Any other system is only possible at gunpoint. Black markets are "natural" economies. What do they look like?

My definition of "works" of course is likely different. I have no particular social goal in mind at all other than people get to keep what they earn.

[Ducimus]

I have to admit, i don't see how trickle down works. Not when your 401K match is stopped. You recieve no more raises, no more bonuses, no more nothing. Meanwhile, the big exec types are rolling in clover. Explain that trickle down to me again? Oh right.. i should be grateful im employed at all. I could be in a cardboard box.

[The Third Man]

Bottom line is if you don't know how many states are in the union you are more than queer. It is much worse than coining refudiate.

[tater]

In the context of STIMULUS, (the OP op-ed's point re: tax dollars), then I think trickle down is spot on. The poor will spend the money on cheap crap, disproportionately imported from China (even FOOD these days).

This doesn't help the American economy much IMO.

Maybe it's because I have friends who do work like kitchen remodels, or cabinet makers, artists, tile makers, yard work, etc. Their customer base is all people with disposable income, and they and their employees have kids to feed.

I'd be interested to see the breakdown of what % of a given dollar value spent stays in the US for given income ranges, and if it leaves, to which countries... that would be fascinating.

[Takeda Shingen]

Bottom line is if you don't know how many states are in the union you are more than queer. It is much worse than coining refudiate.

Hey, you're the one whining about big words. Refudiate that.

[Ducimus]

Maybe it's because I have friends who do work like kitchen remodels, or cabinet makers, artists, tile makers, yard work, etc. Their customer base is all people with disposable income, and they and their employees have kids to feed.

I'd be interested to see the breakdown of what % of a given dollar value spent stays in the US for given income ranges, and if it leaves, to which countries... that would be fascinating.

Goes to Mexico or China. Nobody hires craftsmen in california. They hire jose who works under the table for dirt cheap. Hell, even Governor candidates do that here. *Cough* meg whiteman *cough*

[tater]

I have to admit, i don't see how trickle down works. Not when your 401K match is stopped. You recieve no more raises, no more bonuses, no more nothing. Meanwhile, the big exec types are rolling in clover. Explain that trickle down to me again? Oh right.. i should be grateful im employed at all. I could be in a cardboard box.

Every penny earned by anyone is spent unless it is literally shoved in a hole in the ground or in a mattress.

That exec ends up employing many people outside his actual business employees, just via this spending. He has employees that mow their own lawns... he has 3 lawns, and pays people to mow all of them. The employee hires 0 people, he hires 3! His trophy wife spends a gajillion bucks redecorating the perfectly fine (super nice!) house they just bought in Aspen... the remodellers in Aspen get work redoing a house that doesn't even need to be redone. He has multiple cars. Many made in the US (even if they are a Benz, etc). He buys artisanal cheese, and overpriced organic food, grown locally. The list goes on.

The employee buys stuff fresh off the cargo container at walmart. Go china!

[The Third Man]

Well counting states and ridicule over words are different. You ridiculed word by Palins, but disregarded states by Obama. Is that not leftist?

I love your man on man love...but marraige is not a right.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well counting states and ridicule over words are different. You ridiculed word by Palins, but disregarded states by Obama. Is that not leftist?

You're the leftist. Die, pinko-commie.

[mookiemookie]

I have to admit, i don't see how trickle down works. Not when your 401K match is stopped. You recieve no more raises, no more bonuses, no more nothing. Meanwhile, the big exec types are rolling in clover. Explain that trickle down to me again? Oh right.. i should be grateful im employed at all. I could be in a cardboard box.

That's the whole point. Proponents say that giving financial incentives to the highest earners are supposed to somehow help out everyone.

If you take money away from someone (i.e. higher taxes) they work harder to replace it. Trickle down economics also relies on the idea that wages have a direct correlation to hours worked - which is not true. Wages are inelastic to hours worked. The majority of people work salaried jobs where their hours are set. A change in wages are not going to equate into a change in hours worked.

Trickle down proponents also say that inequality is supposed to motivate lower earners to work harder to bridge the gap - that doesn't happen. Studies have shown that higher rates of income inequality lead to lower growth rates. Indeed, it's been found that higher equality leads to higher growth rates: http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2008/el0801.html

Not to metion that any metric of tax rates, both top marginal and effective (lord knows tater and I have gone round and round about that) do not have any measurable or meaningful correlation to any generally accepted metric of economic prosperity (GDP, wage growth or employment). If you want to weasel around that and use your own strange metric where tax rates do show a correlation, know that it doesn't hold water according to meaningful economic theory.

Trickle down theory fails in terms of both empirical and historical evidence, along with generally accepted economic theory.

[Ducimus]

Tater,
You do realize that illegal immigration shoots that last paragraph to hell?

[The Third Man]

You're the leftist. Die, pinko-commie.

Neo-con. Your boogie man. lol.

[Takeda Shingen]

Neo-con. Your boogie man. lol.

Communism is the very definition of failure.

[tater]

Goes to Mexico or China. Nobody hires craftsmen in california. They hire jose who works under the table for dirt cheap. Hell, even Governor candidates do that here. *Cough* meg whiteman *cough*

My lawn guy, Michael, is a friend. Our kids play together. He hires no illegals. I picked a bigger electrician that doesn't use illegals (cause my first contractor subbed out some mexican guy who did it mexican style, then I had to pay to have it redone RIGHT). The people who want to take money from the exec and give it to people who don't pay taxes would happily give it to illegals... might as well get the craftsmanship for the money instead of nothing.

The local companies I used all hire locals, not illegals, actually (I've been in all the shops).

[The Third Man]

Communism is the very definition of failure.

Socialism also....you bet.

[Takeda Shingen]

Socialism also....you bet.

Democracy is truth. Communism is death.

[mookiemookie]

Democracy is truth. Communism is death.

http://galadlinbis.blox.pl/resource/lp6.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

Damnit, don't ruin this for me mookie! :O:

[mookiemookie]

Damnit, don't ruin this for me mookie! :O:

:rotfl2: You gotta give me credit for picking up on that so fast though.

[Ducimus]

My lawn guy,.....

New Mexico must not have a big of illegal problem as California does then. All i can say is that when im not at work, only half of the people i encounter when im out and about, are speaking english. The other half, spanish. Not 1/4, but HALF.

[Takeda Shingen]

:rotfl2: You gotta give me credit for picking up on that so fast though.


:haha: I do.

I was going to use 'Death is a preferable alternative to Communism', followed by 'We will not fear the Red Menace', and ending with the venerable 'Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated.'

EDIT: Alright, that's enough fun for now. I'll stop trashing your thread, Ducimus.

[tater]

Tater,
You do realize that illegal immigration shoots that last paragraph to hell?

I'm for locking up people that hire illegals, and shoot to kill on the border, I'm for fixing that FIRST.

Mookie, "accepted economic theory" pretty much means left-leaning guys in academia.

The real question is if the money is put more effectively into the economy by being spent, or by going through the filter of the government. The government borrows so much, that the overhead just associated with interest on their spending instantly makes it inefficient. Better to not confiscate the moeny, than spend it at XX% on the dollar (even less give all the gov payroll that comes out between collection and expense).

The top 1% makes it sound like you are discussing Oprah and Bill Gates. You're in fact talking about hundreds of thousands of families where wages absolutely = hours worked. Professionals, for example. Every penny they don't pay in taxes will be invested or otherwise spent. They don't have jets, they only sometimes even have a 2d house (in fancy places like Pecos, lol—unlike back east, if someone here has a "cabin"... it's a CABIN). If they lives in CA or NY, they'd be hard-pressed to not spend every penny just to live. Housing is insane in NYC or CA, as ducimus can tell you. It's a million bucks to get a tiny place. 250k in major metro areas is hardly "rich."

[nikimcbee]

http://galadlinbis.blox.pl/resource/lp6.jpg

Wow that looks like a fantasy football matchup.:haha:

[gimpy117]

It works just fine. That's how all economies would be naturally. Any other system is only possible at gunpoint. Black markets are "natural" economies. What do they look like?

My definition of "works" of course is likely different. I have no particular social goal in mind at all other than people get to keep what they earn.

Trickle down works if you assume that everyone is generous, and will share their government "freebies" on the people with less money. As we all know, this is not how the world works. I'd say that just about all of this money ends up accruing interest in an account somewhere (maybe not even in the us) instead of where it should go according to the theory: Main street.

I'm sure the republicans know this, they're not dumb, But they have us just where they want us. Trickle down is just a cover word; an excuse so they can give tax breaks to the rich and powerful who have a huge influence in Washington, but still make it seem like they're helping the average american.

ps.
POST 2000!

[nikimcbee]

Trickle down works if you assume that everyone is generous, and will share their government "freebies" on the people with less money. As we all know, this is not how the world works. I'd say that just about all of this money ends up accruing interest in an account somewhere (maybe not even in the us) instead of where it should go according to the theory: Main street.

I'm sure the republicans know this, they're not dumb, But they have us just where they want us. Trickle down is just a cover word; an excuse so they can give tax breaks to the rich and powerful who have a huge influence in Washington, but still make it seem like they're helping the average american.

ps.
POST 2000!

:har: You spilled red koolaide all over your shirt.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/31/kool_aid_2.gif

[Ducimus]

Tater, I believe id be more agreeable if i did not think that the middle class is vanishing.

[tater]

New Mexico must not have a big of illegal problem as California does then. All i can say is that when im not at work, only half of the people i encounter when im out and about, are speaking english. The other half, spanish. Not 1/4, but HALF.

No, we have a huge illegal problem. HUGE. I just don't hire them if I can possibly avoid it. Michael is originally from NJ. He hires assistants, but never illegals. I pay more, but I'm not a hypocrite.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do. Reroofed, for example. If I picked a roofer without illegals... it would still be raining INSIDE my house. Nothing I could do, it was impossible.

Bottom line is that I would be interested to see the path $1000 takes in the hands of people at the average income for each tax quintile.

BTW, sorta OT, I was listening to a freakanomics podcast today, and they had an interesting study mentioned. They polled people and asked if they could get $2000 in 30 days if they needed to. By any means, borrowing from family, from savings, using a credit card, etc. They picked 2k because that's a typical "emergency" expense (new tranny for car, bonded plumbing fix, need to fly at no notice for sickness or death, etc). Over 50% can't. Only 25% between 100-150k a year income said they could afford that. Oddly, they ended up talking about the lottery, and it turns out that the average lottery player spends... $1000 per year on the lottery.

Think about THAT.

[tater]

Trickle down works if you assume that everyone is generous, and will share their government "freebies" on the people with less money. As we all know, this is not how the world works. I'd say that just about all of this money ends up accruing interest in an account somewhere (maybe not even in the us) instead of where it should go according to the theory: Main street.
]

LOL.

What freebies? Paying money out of pocket to save poor people's lives because government healthcare MUST be taken, and it pays below cost? Is that a freebie again?

Money sitting around earning interest...

Serious question, do you have any idea how money earns interest?


Hint: Do you have to buy on Main Street (local business tends to be higher end, BTW, cause they cannot compete directly with walmart) to support it? If Ma and Pa on Main Street need credit so that they can pay suppliers on delivery so they can make sales (and pay the money back they borrowed as a bridge), where does the money come from? The bank... where does the bank get the money? How do they pay interest to account holders?

[mookiemookie]

I'm for locking up people that hire illegals, and shoot to kill on the border, I'm for fixing that FIRST.

Mookie, "accepted economic theory" pretty much means left-leaning guys in academia.

The real question is if the money is put more effectively into the economy by being spent, or by going through the filter of the government. The government borrows so much, that the overhead just associated with interest on their spending instantly makes it inefficient. Better to not confiscate the moeny, than spend it at XX% on the dollar (even less give all the gov payroll that comes out between collection and expense).

The top 1% makes it sound like you are discussing Oprah and Bill Gates. You're in fact talking about hundreds of thousands of families where wages absolutely = hours worked. Professionals, for example. Every penny they don't pay in taxes will be invested or otherwise spent. They don't have jets, they only sometimes even have a 2d house (in fancy places like Pecos, lol—unlike back east, if someone here has a "cabin"... it's a CABIN). If they lives in CA or NY, they'd be hard-pressed to not spend every penny just to live. Housing is insane in NYC or CA, as ducimus can tell you. It's a million bucks to get a tiny place. 250k in major metro areas is hardly "rich."

I work in the financial business. We deal with factual and data driven analysis, not theory. If someone is going to propose theory, it needs to be backed up by empirical data. I have never seen one piece of data driven analysis for trickle down economics. All that is ever offered in its defense is idealistic thinking and anecdotal evidence. That doesn't hold water. Therefore, it doesn't work.

[Ducimus]

Only 25% between 100-150k a year income said they could afford that.

That's because they were idiots and starting buying bigger toys they didn't need. Living within ones means. Novel concept i know. I never jumped on the credit gravy train.

[mookiemookie]

Wow that looks like a fantasy football matchup.:haha:

Yes, it's Show Me Your TDs vs The Rest of the Season!
:arrgh!:

[nikimcbee]

No, we have a huge illegal problem. HUGE. I just don't hire them if I can possibly avoid it. Michael is originally from NJ. He hires assistants, but never illegals. I pay more, but I'm not a hypocrite.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do. Reroofed, for example. If I picked a roofer without illegals... it would still be raining INSIDE my house. Nothing I could do, it was impossible.

Bottom line is that I would be interested to see the path $1000 takes in the hands of people at the average income for each tax quintile.

BTW, sorta OT, I was listening to a freakanomics podcast today, and they had an interesting study mentioned. They polled people and asked if they could get $2000 in 30 days if they needed to. By any means, borrowing from family, from savings, using a credit card, etc. They picked 2k because that's a typical "emergency" expense (new tranny for car, bonded plumbing fix, need to fly at no notice for sickness or death, etc). Over 50% can't. Only 25% between 100-150k a year income said they could afford that. Oddly, they ended up talking about the lottery, and it turns out that the average lottery player spends... $1000 per year on the lottery.

Think about THAT.

Good point (regarding the lottery) I'll bet these people have more than enough money for cable tv and a 50 inch tv. I think people have their personal ,economic priorities screwed up. People just aren't as responsible as they used to be.

[nikimcbee]

I work in the financial business. We deal with factual and data driven analysis, not theory. If someone is going to propose theory, it needs to be backed up by empirical data. I have never seen one piece of data driven analysis for trickle down economics. All that is ever offered in its defense is idealistic thinking and anecdotal evidence. That doesn't hold water. Therefore, it doesn't work.

So, in your opinion, which economic system works best?

[tater]

That's because they were idiots and starting buying bigger toys they didn't need. Living within ones means. Novel concept i know. I never jumped on the credit gravy train.

Yeah, I agree. Everyone now "lives large" compared to when I grew up in the 70s. My dad was president of a publishing company based in NYC. We lived in a really nice town (Wilton), but our house was pretty normal. Yeah, it was 4 bedrooms in CT, but it was smaller than MY house now. The kitchen was not fancy like mine. Straight 70s. When the house needed painting, we painted it. We had not enough window AC units for all the rooms, so summer my pro and I shared the one in his room. We didn't run the all the time, either. We had American cars, and kept them a long time.

Dunno how you'd rank such spending vs now... the lifestyle was FAR simpler though. I can see it in everything I do now vs as a kid. Heck, phone costs. 1 phone (land). No extras, just the phone, and long distance by the minute. We have phone, DSL, 2 cells. One cell bill in constant dollars costs more than the worst phone bill my folks ever saw I'm sure. TV? Broadcast, period. (free). The difference is huge. Correct for that and all the wages now vs then disappear, and everyone would suddenly be up a notch or two I bet.

[gimpy117]

freebies as in tax breaks etc. "Trickle down" its the term used when the government uses tax breaks etc. to give extra money to the rich saying "it will stimulate the economy" when the theoretically spend it.

Money gets interest when a bank "pays" a client for it's use. I'm sure you're going to say "well that stimulates growth". Ehh I beg to differ, because the uber rich won't put their cash in some little credit union, but a huge bank that ost of the profits will stay in the bank, not it's employees. Now if the bank turns around and gives all that trickle down money to it's employees...great...but what incentive do they have.

[tater]

I work in the financial business. We deal with factual and data driven analysis, not theory. If someone is going to propose theory, it needs to be backed up by empirical data. I have never seen one piece of data driven analysis for trickle down economics. All that is ever offered in its defense is idealistic thinking and anecdotal evidence. That doesn't hold water. Therefore, it doesn't work.

That sounds very scientific.

I can predict specifics about a star very far away more accurately than you can predict the economy a month in the future. Economics is not science, sadly. So all the talk about empirical data is great, but all the models are so terrible that the data doesn't make much of a difference. If the top marginal rate went up 1%, what will the tax revenue be the next year? How accurate can you be? How about not accurate at all—say to the nearest dollar (if it was a physics thing I'd want it out in the deep decimal places).

Nope, they'd have error bars larger than the 1%.

[tater]

freebies as in tax breaks etc. "Trickle down" its the term used when the government uses tax breaks etc. to give extra money to the rich saying "it will stimulate the economy" when the theoretically spend it.

Tax breaks are a freebie? Let me get this straight. Some family of 4 pays $200,000 in income taxes last year, and then the rate drops, and they only pay 190k the next year. They just got a "freebie." Meanwhile another family of 4 pays ZERO in income tax, and the next year gets $3500 back (negative taxes). Yet another family of 4 pays $5,000 in income tax, and their tax bill the next year is the same.

The people that shelled out 190k somehow "got something" from the government because they paid 10k less than 40X the last family for the same use of government? (can't even say with the deadbeat family since they paif INFINITELY less tax than either of the taxpaying families)

[nikimcbee]

I think the problem is gov't spending. They're wasting money on so much fluff, it's not even funny. Take the city of Portland (ore-gone). The uber liberal mayor has no money for police, but magically finds $600k for bike paths (taken from the city sewer-water management fund). Now there's not enough money for the big sewer project (surprise), so the answer...raise taxes on water rates.:har:

...and on a side not, Portland doesn't have"police" anymore, they're "peace enforcers."


:har::har::har::har:

[nikimcbee]

Tax breaks are a freebie? Let me get this straight. Some family of 4 pays $200,000 in income taxes last year, and then the rate drops, and they only pay 190k the next year. They just got a "freebie." Meanwhile another family of 4 pays ZERO in income tax, and the next year gets $3500 back (negative taxes). Yet another family of 4 pays $5,000 in income tax, and their tax bill the next year is the same.

The people that shelled out 190k somehow "got something" from the government because they paid 10k less than 40X the last family for the same use of government? (can't even say with the deadbeat family since they paif INFINITELY less tax than either of the taxpaying families)

Charly Rangel knows all about the tax breaks, so does, Kerry:shifty:.

[gimpy117]

Tax breaks are a freebie?

no, but giving more tax breaks under the guise of "the trickle down" is in my mind.

[tater]

no, but giving more tax breaks under the guise of "the trickle down" is in my mind.

Who deserves a 1% tax break, a family of 4 paying 200k a year, or a family of 4 paying 5k a year?

All trickle down says is that the higher income family will spend in in ways that more positively impact the economy at large. I tend to agree, since american workers cost more, and hence our local products cost more—a cost the affluent are more able to pay.

[gimpy117]

depends....what family could use it more? what family would probably put it back into the economy? or use it to pay off their house loan so they don't lose it?

[mookiemookie]

Who deserves a 1% tax break, a family of 4 paying 200k a year, or a family of 4 paying 5k a year?

All trickle down says is that the higher income family will spend in in ways that more positively impact the economy at large. I tend to agree, since american workers cost more, and hence our local products cost more—a cost the affluent are more able to pay.

Except it doesn't work that way. Trickle down economics has never ever been shown to increase any measurable aspect of the economy. If you're so confident in your theoretical increase in spending, then prove it by showing a positive correlation between tax cuts and consumer spending, or tax cuts and GDP, or tax cuts and employment, or tax cuts and business investment, or tax cuts and anything.

You keep harping on the same theory without any evidence. Unless you can show any, it's absolute bunk. Theory is just theory until you can show it to be true through data.

[Ducimus]

:hmmm: Next time i post a link, ill try and pick something not so controversial.

[mookiemookie]

:hmmm: Next time i post a link, ill try and pick something not so controversial.

This is GT. You can post "Ghengis Khan was a bad dude" and get arguments. :O:

[tater]

depends....what family could use it more? what family would probably put it back into the economy? or use it to pay off their house loan so they don't lose it?

Why should I care? People being irresponsible isn't my problem. The only question is that if there is to be a tax cut, it should go first to the people overpaying.

A fair share of taxes is the budget divided by the taxpayers. Anyone paying MORE is overpaying. Anyone paying less is underpaying. The people overpaying the MOST need money back first, IMHO. That means drop the top tax rate.

I think anyone arguing in favor of some arbitrarily high marginal rate should have to explain why that rate is fair. Not that it collects X dollars, but why is 39% fair, and not 38.9%. That is what they are doing, they claim that the fair rate on 250,000 is X, and that on 250,001 is X+Y. I've read the Constitution, and I try to deal with people fairly in RL, but I'm not seeing the tax laws as anything but arbitrary.

A flat tax would STILL "soak the rich" (someone making 40k would pay 10X less taxes than someone making 400k even though the lower income guy likely uses MORE government), but at least it feels fair, and is simple, and perfectly predictable making long term planning easy.

[nikimcbee]

This is GT. You can post "Ghengis Khan was a bad dude" and get arguments. :O:

no he wasn't

[nikimcbee]

NOW this is the GT forum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[frau kaleun]

This is GT. You can post "Ghengis Khan was a bad dude" and get arguments. :O:

Ghengis Khan was not bad, he was just... misunderstood. And I'm personally offended that anyone would imply otherwise. :stare:



Now, John Wayne playing Ghengis Khan... THAT was bad. :nope:

http://pics.livejournal.com/glockgal/pic/001960t9

"We have prepared some special entertainment for your enjoyment, oh mighty one."

"Yes, I see that. My agent, on a spit. Very nice."

[mookiemookie]

NOW this is the GT forum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

:rotfl2: A Glen Beck coin for you!

[Sailor Steve]

The problem I have with the whole thing is people discussing who should be taxed at all. The sole purpose of taxation is that government has no means of producing revenues besides taking it from the citizens. This is a necessary evil, no more and no less. The people who want to make the rich pay "their fair share" are misusing the concept of taxation, period. They tend to hate the businessmen and entrepreneurs for what they have, yet won't hear anything bad said about the congressmen who waste money which isn't even their own. If it was possible for the government to survive with no income tax at all they would still insist we needed them just to keep the rich from "getting away with it".

Refudiate that.
I think you misconscrewed the whole point. :O:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://i.imgur.com/cLYyl.jpg

[Armistead]

http://i.imgur.com/cLYyl.jpg

Hehe, the GOP still believes in trickle down. Why it worked a little in the 80's, it doesn't work in a global economy. Corporations use lack of regulation, unfair trade laws, tax code to build massive wealth, but the US citizen sees nothing from it anymore. The only trickle down effect is the fact we're building two strong middle classes in India and China, why a few percentage of CEO's obtain multibillionaire status. The GOP today doesn't believe in capitalism, they believe in elitism. The Dems want socialism and both have failed miserably.

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mZtdI7-hY

[gimpy117]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-mZtdI7-hY

do work Greyson!