Yeah, I’m sorry I really meant to say liberals. I’m guilty of doing something I hate in confusing political parties and ideologies.
[quote]pookie wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You do realize this housing marked mess started under Clinton and was perpetuated by the dems, right?
The “Commodity Futures Modernization Act” was technically passed while Clinton was still in power (December 2000), but was mostly the work of Republicans, working within a Republican majority Congress.
Unless you contend that Phil Gramm is a democrat, or that the Republican control of both houses and the presidency between 2000-2006 can be “blamed” on the Democrats (if they didn’t lose so often, you wouldn’t have this mess?) I fail to see how you arrive at your conclusion.
[/quote]
that’s because you’re ill informed. this has been discussed here a few times.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
polo77j wrote:
What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.
I take issue with this statement. It defies all logic, because:
Lets say as of today, you own a business that profits 10 dollars a year, and your taxed at 50%.
That means you have 5 dollars left for your pocket, or your investors pocket.
Well tomorrow you have a great, fantastic idea on how to change your business that will trim 40 dollars from your expenses. Which means your profit would be 50. Which in turn means you now have 25 for your and investors pockets. Even at the ridiculous tax rate of 50%, you still make a 4 times more money after tax.
By the above theory, you would forsake an increase of 20, because you don’t want to pay 20 more in tax? That would be the worst business decision of your life, and please don’t believe anyone with half a brain would do that.
Corporate taxes do not have the amazing, profound, end-all-be-all effect on the operation of a business that some people think and apparently spew all over every website willing to host an opinion. They have an effect, but there is quite a bit more that effects corporate decisions than 35% of profits to taxes.
Individual income tax is a whole other animal.
The real issue is the fact that government has no right to dictate to the American people how the wealth of the nation should be spread right?
Well giant corporations, regardless of how hard the government tries, are going to buy a few rules, loop holes if you will, to keep quite a bit of money in their pockets. As far as BO’s corporate tax plan goes, people are getting worked up for nothing, and politicians make too much money to shoot the hands that feed them, giant corporations. (Especially as it has been mentioned before, if the right keeps 41 seats, and I hope they do.)
You are not a business owner, are you? [/quote]
No, I work with them every day thou. Small 100,000 a year in revenues business and 15,000,000 a year in revenues, of which I’m the acting CFO, and even one, 27,000,000 in profit.
Those are my ‘big three’ clients. I have more too.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
rainjack wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
polo77j wrote:
What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.
I take issue with this statement. It defies all logic, because:
Lets say as of today, you own a business that profits 10 dollars a year, and your taxed at 50%.
That means you have 5 dollars left for your pocket, or your investors pocket.
Well tomorrow you have a great, fantastic idea on how to change your business that will trim 40 dollars from your expenses. Which means your profit would be 50. Which in turn means you now have 25 for your and investors pockets. Even at the ridiculous tax rate of 50%, you still make a 4 times more money after tax.
By the above theory, you would forsake an increase of 20, because you don’t want to pay 20 more in tax? That would be the worst business decision of your life, and please don’t believe anyone with half a brain would do that.
Corporate taxes do not have the amazing, profound, end-all-be-all effect on the operation of a business that some people think and apparently spew all over every website willing to host an opinion. They have an effect, but there is quite a bit more that effects corporate decisions than 35% of profits to taxes.
Individual income tax is a whole other animal.
The real issue is the fact that government has no right to dictate to the American people how the wealth of the nation should be spread right?
Well giant corporations, regardless of how hard the government tries, are going to buy a few rules, loop holes if you will, to keep quite a bit of money in their pockets. As far as BO’s corporate tax plan goes, people are getting worked up for nothing, and politicians make too much money to shoot the hands that feed them, giant corporations. (Especially as it has been mentioned before, if the right keeps 41 seats, and I hope they do.)
You are not a business owner, are you?
No, I work with them every day thou. Small 100,000 a year in revenues business and 15,000,000 a year in revenues, of which I’m the acting CFO, and even one, 27,000,000 in profit.
Those are my ‘big three’ clients. I have more too.[/quote]
Of those clients, how many of them come across a technology that will decrease costs by 80%?
You do realize that the tax increases are going to be a punitive cut in income from the beginning, right? You are trying to gloss over the upfront effects of the new baby jesus’ tax increases by making up a fictional increase in profits? Why?
My dad is a sole proprietor who will be selling his business if the new baby jesus is elected. He is at the point where he needs to add more employees - bu would rather sell the business than live under a punitive tax system.
He is not the only one I know of.
Obama will kill small business in this country. To not understand this is to not understand how business works.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Of those clients, how many of them come across a technology that will decrease costs by 80%?
You do realize that the tax increases are going to be a punitive cut in income from the beginning, right? You are trying to gloss over the upfront effects of the new baby jesus’ tax increases by making up a fictional increase in profits? Why?
My dad is a sole proprietor who will be selling his business if the new baby jesus is elected. He is at the point where he needs to add more employees - bu would rather sell the business than live under a punitive tax system.
He is not the only one I know of.
Obama will kill small business in this country. To not understand this is to not understand how business works.
[/quote]
I was actually arguing with the statement that higher taxes deter innovation. While yes it was a “rainbow world” oversimplification, I thought it still made my point, but I could be wrong.
All I’m saying is, regardless of the changes in tax laws, you have to look at which situation benefits you the best. You, outside of your vote, really have little power over the tax code, it is something you have to deal with, you can’t control it, and so it is a ‘sunk cost’ if you will, unavoidable, so should be removed from the strategic choices you have to make.
Long term, yeah you could leave the US, or invest else where, but the Global market stinks as bad as the domestic, plus BO’s idea, even if it passes, it won’t, but even if it does, won’t last too long. And the resulting boom for when his plan gets cut by a conservative in 4 years or so, should be pretty decent.
Am I a fan of BO’s ideas? Not particularly. Also not a fan of McCain’s either. I am hoping that the total mess we all call Washington can block a lot of BO or JM stupid ideas. (I actually have no issues with the way the current code is structured, minor changes are okay, but large radical changes, or retarded socialist changes are completely asinine and unacceptable.)
As far as your father, it sounds like he is successful, and I fully understand why he and others are angry about the proposed idiocy facing him, but as I and my mentors have advised before. Do the math. Even at higher taxes, if you’re going to make 10,000 more a year staying in business than working for someone else (after taxes), then I would suggest you take it for the next 4 years, because “we” hope neither of these fools makes it for 8. I just hope he isn’t shooting himself in the foot to spite someone that doesn’t give a shit about him.
I guess what I’m saying is, I’ve chalked up the next 4 years to suck. And am starting to plan on how to weather the storm, and be ready for the other side.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Obama will kill small business in this country. To not understand this is to not understand how business works.
[/quote]
Not even his effects on small business, but the fact higher taxes makes one more apt to choose a debt intense capital structure. This can lead us back into the same fucking mess we are in now.
Damn it, you ask me two questions, and I loss it. Shit I was so trying to pretend to be more liberal, damn it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
100meters wrote:
jawara wrote:
“Trickle-Up” Poverty: The New
Economics of Barack Obama
The liberal media talking heads are already proclaiming that a Barack Obama victory will be revolutionary. Revolutionary is right. The last great revolution took place in Russia. Within a year of the Russian Revolution in 1917, the communist leader Lenin brought the Russians change they could believe in. He created an economic system in which:
All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced.
Obligatory labor duty was imposed onto “non-working classes” or people who had money. Food was rationed and centrally distributed.
Military-like control of railroads was introduced.
Private enterprise became illegal.
After Stalin took over the Soviet Union, he:
Imposed a state-run system of socialized medicine
Formed a strict, centralized cultural administration and ideological control system �?? in other words, reeducation.
There is every reason to believe that some kind of socialist revolution will occur under B.O. Bush has already imposed socialism on the banks, and Obama promises to do more of the same. The Soviets put people with money to work in factories.
Under Obama, the business owners in this country who drive the economy will be put to work by being forced to pay crushing taxes that will fund gold-plated healthcare for illegal aliens and welfare cases. Private enterprise may not actually be made illegal, but so many businesses will die under an Obama administration that the same goal will be accomplished. Instead of trickle-down economics, we�??ll have trickle-up poverty.
We already know Obama will impose socialized medicine �?? that is a given. And reeducation will come in the form of the Fairness Doctrine, which Nancy Pelosi will push through the Congress by stressing the need to foster unity and avoid destabilizing the markets with hurtful and unbalanced commentary.This is what the future holds under B.O.
No one votes for Republicans because they run the economy well. They don’t and haven’t. I don’t get who articles like this are meant for.
If you care about gays and abortions you vote republicans.
If you want a strong economy you vote democratic.
See modern history for evidence.
Are the centrist thinking, pro capitalists advising Obama on economics, many from the Clinton team really going to push for making private enterprise “illegal”. Of course not, but you’ll keep hearing this from factually challenged people who also think God cares about abortions and no know nothing about economics. See Mick28 for example.
You do realize this housing marked mess started under Clinton and was perpetuated by the dems, right?[/quote]
That’s your response?
Clearly more blame can be placed on Bush and Republicans, so why mention it?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
rainjack wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
polo77j wrote:
What this takes away from is incentive to produce substantially and demotivates any kind of industriousness and fiscal responsibility.
I take issue with this statement. It defies all logic, because:
Lets say as of today, you own a business that profits 10 dollars a year, and your taxed at 50%.
That means you have 5 dollars left for your pocket, or your investors pocket.
Well tomorrow you have a great, fantastic idea on how to change your business that will trim 40 dollars from your expenses. Which means your profit would be 50. Which in turn means you now have 25 for your and investors pockets. Even at the ridiculous tax rate of 50%, you still make a 4 times more money after tax.
By the above theory, you would forsake an increase of 20, because you don’t want to pay 20 more in tax? That would be the worst business decision of your life, and please don’t believe anyone with half a brain would do that.
Corporate taxes do not have the amazing, profound, end-all-be-all effect on the operation of a business that some people think and apparently spew all over every website willing to host an opinion. They have an effect, but there is quite a bit more that effects corporate decisions than 35% of profits to taxes.
Individual income tax is a whole other animal.
The real issue is the fact that government has no right to dictate to the American people how the wealth of the nation should be spread right?
Well giant corporations, regardless of how hard the government tries, are going to buy a few rules, loop holes if you will, to keep quite a bit of money in their pockets. As far as BO’s corporate tax plan goes, people are getting worked up for nothing, and politicians make too much money to shoot the hands that feed them, giant corporations. (Especially as it has been mentioned before, if the right keeps 41 seats, and I hope they do.)
You are not a business owner, are you?
No, I work with them every day thou. Small 100,000 a year in revenues business and 15,000,000 a year in revenues, of which I’m the acting CFO, and even one, 27,000,000 in profit.
Those are my ‘big three’ clients. I have more too.
Of those clients, how many of them come across a technology that will decrease costs by 80%?
You do realize that the tax increases are going to be a punitive cut in income from the beginning, right? You are trying to gloss over the upfront effects of the new baby jesus’ tax increases by making up a fictional increase in profits? Why?
My dad is a sole proprietor who will be selling his business if the new baby jesus is elected. He is at the point where he needs to add more employees - bu would rather sell the business than live under a punitive tax system.
He is not the only one I know of.
Obama will kill small business in this country. To not understand this is to not understand how business works.
[/quote]
Yes, Clinton’s same tax and spend policies clearly brought the U.S. to its knees. We can only hope things don’t get that bad again.
Please help us understand the incredible benefits that 8 years of conservative tax policies have brought us. I forget how many jobs have been created, how well the stock market has done, how well wages have improved, etc…if you could just take a minute and explain all of these in addition to real GDP, etc., because just looking at ANY ECONOMIC CRITERIA on paper seems to utterly debunk most of the crap being said in here.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Clearly more blame can be placed on Bush and Republicans, so why mention it?
[/quote]
how?
are you fucking joking?.. is he fucking joking?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Yes, Clinton’s same tax and spend policies clearly brought the U.S. to its knees. We can only hope things don’t get that bad again.
Please help us understand the incredible benefits that 8 years of conservative tax policies have brought us. I forget how many jobs have been created, how well the stock market has done, how well wages have improved, etc…if you could just take a minute and explain all of these in addition to real GDP, etc., because just looking at ANY ECONOMIC CRITERIA on paper seems to utterly debunk most of the crap being said in here.[/quote]
I love it when you post. Really.
Clinton was hamstrung by a conservative congress for 6 of his 8 years. The catalyst of the revolution of 1994? His tax increase, and Hillary-care.
Bush’s tax breaks increased revenue to the treasury, but the conservatives sold out, and spent way more than they brought in.
The spending exponentiated in the last year and a half. The catalyst? Liberal congress.
Bush inherited a recession as the tech bubble had burst in the last 6-months of 2000. It turned around, and the economy soared. The Dow hit it all time high inder Bush - after the recession, and after 9/11.
Clinton inherited a bull market in 1992, and rode that puppy as long as he could.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Clearly more blame can be placed on Bush and Republicans, so why mention it?
how?
are you fucking joking?.. is he fucking joking?[/quote]
Who did you think was in control the last 8 years?
I’ve been calling it trickle-down taxation, but trickle up poverty works too.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Yes, Clinton’s same tax and spend policies clearly brought the U.S. to its knees. We can only hope things don’t get that bad again.
Please help us understand the incredible benefits that 8 years of conservative tax policies have brought us. I forget how many jobs have been created, how well the stock market has done, how well wages have improved, etc…if you could just take a minute and explain all of these in addition to real GDP, etc., because just looking at ANY ECONOMIC CRITERIA on paper seems to utterly debunk most of the crap being said in here.
I love it when you post. Really.
Clinton was hamstrung by a conservative congress for 6 of his 8 years. The catalyst of the revolution of 1994? His tax increase, and Hillary-care.
Bush’s tax breaks increased revenue to the treasury, but the conservatives sold out, and spent way more than they brought in.
The spending exponentiated in the last year and a half. The catalyst? Liberal congress.
Bush inherited a recession as the tech bubble had burst in the last 6-months of 2000. It turned around, and the economy soared. The Dow hit it all time high inder Bush - after the recession, and after 9/11.
Clinton inherited a bull market in 1992, and rode that puppy as long as he could.
[/quote]
You dodged.
What devastation did Clinton’s tax and spend policies wreck in the 90’s?
“The Dow hit an all time high…” = “more people own homes than ever before” those are meaningless statements.
But again, this is a pointless argument. Nobody is voting republican for economic reasons, historically that just doesn’t make sense, better to focus on other less relevant or made up issues.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The spending exponentiated in the last year and a half. The catalyst? Liberal congress.
[/quote]
So you’re saying domestic spending “exponentiated in the last year and a half”? According to what? The Weekly Standard?
The only increase relative to the economy has been defense spending. You want to give the Democratic congress credit for that?
[quote]100meters wrote:
You dodged.
What devastation did Clinton’s tax and spend policies wreck in the 90’s?
“The Dow hit an all time high…” = “more people own homes than ever before” those are meaningless statements.
But again, this is a pointless argument. Nobody is voting republican for economic reasons, historically that just doesn’t make sense, better to focus on other less relevant or made up issues.
[/quote]
What did I dodge?
I answered your question.
What is meaningless about an economic upturn being reflected in the stock market?
I would agree that saying home ownership is at an all time high would be meaningless since many of the homes were sold to people too stupid to know they couldn’t afford them. But we only have the left to thank for forcing bad loans.
Taking my money from me and giving it to some one else is as economic as it gets. How do you not understand that?
[quote]Demiajax wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The spending exponentiated in the last year and a half. The catalyst? Liberal congress.
So you’re saying domestic spending “exponentiated in the last year and a half”? According to what? The Weekly Standard?
The only increase relative to the economy has been defense spending. You want to give the Democratic congress credit for that?
http://www.cbpp.org/3-5-08bud.htm[/quote]
We could certainely save on Defense spending. Of course, by 2040 we won’t be able to afford defense spending. Entitlements will be all we can afford.
[quote]100meters wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Clearly more blame can be placed on Bush and Republicans, so why mention it?
how?
are you fucking joking?.. is he fucking joking?
Who did you think was in control the last 8 years? [/quote]
control of what specifically? You are way off here.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
otep wrote:
Whoa, stop right there. Drive the economy? Perhaps. But that’s more due to their position amidst financial institutions than any virtue on their part. And fiscal responsibility? The fact that they’re rich does NOT mean they didn’t engage in earnings fraud, or otherwise manipulate their company’s stock price.
They are not the virtuous capitalist.
Is that a fact, or are you just saying what you have been told to say?
Some links to back up your bullshit would be nice.
[/quote]
I realize this is a bit late and the discussion has gone on to other things, but I wanted to get you accurate information.
Assertion #1: top 2% of americans own or run businesses. This probably shouldn’t need defending, but if it does, take a stroll down the forbes 400 richest american persons. The take home point here is that their net worth is tied up in stock.
Assertion #2: Managers increase their stock price by artificially affecting the financial information analysts and shareholders use to value the company. This has two parts to it.
The first is obvious- accounting fraud is both old and frequent. Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat, Tyco International, HealthSouth are recent examples. Older examples include the ZZZZ Best fraud Fraud Trial Begins on ZZZZ Best - The New York Times and Miniscribe http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/subramaniam/Articles/Miniscribe-Cooking%20the%20Books.htm
Other prosecutions by the federal government towards those that take similar action with their tax information.
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=163005,00.html.
A slightly more insidious method involves the adjustment of financial information without having the business problem blown into a full-out scandal. Roughly 100-150 cases of earnings manipulation are litigated by investors in class-action lawsuits or the SEC. Roughly 400-500 firms a year during the 1990’s exactly met analyst expectations or exceeded them by a penny (both of which, while not sinister in their own right, suggest foul play). Moreover, the number of firms publically traded firms exactly on target on analysts quarterly revenues forecasts increased from around 18% in 1995 to around 25% in 2002, right before heavy suspicion arose of foul play.
The information from above comes from Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 17, Number2, spring 2003, page 42.
In a survey of CFO’s, when asked “what actions would you take, within what his permitted by GAAP, if your company might come in below the declared earnings target”, 80% would cut discretionary spending (R&D, advertising), over 50% would delay new projects even if it meant sacrificing value, and 40% would book revenues now rather than next quarter assuming they could book them for either. (JR Graham et al, Journal of Accounting and Economics, volume 40, year 2005, page 33). Once again, while not necessarily illegal, it suggests that managers manipulate accounting numbers to meet analyst expectations, thus increasing their stock price, and therefore compensation. This is at best bending the truth, and at worst lying.
The POINT, though, that I want to make, is that the OP suggests the top 2% richest are virtuous capitalists, holding up america’s economy through the strength of their ambition and tenaciousness, and that this is false. These aren’t the good guys. They’re just rich. Taxing them more is certainly acceptable.
[quote]Otep wrote:
rainjack wrote:
otep wrote:
Whoa, stop right there. Drive the economy? Perhaps. But that’s more due to their position amidst financial institutions than any virtue on their part. And fiscal responsibility? The fact that they’re rich does NOT mean they didn’t engage in earnings fraud, or otherwise manipulate their company’s stock price.
They are not the virtuous capitalist.
Is that a fact, or are you just saying what you have been told to say?
Some links to back up your bullshit would be nice.
I realize this is a bit late and the discussion has gone on to other things, but I wanted to get you accurate information.
Assertion #1: top 2% of americans own or run businesses. This probably shouldn’t need defending, but if it does, take a stroll down the forbes 400 richest american persons. The take home point here is that their net worth is tied up in stock.
Assertion #2: Managers increase their stock price by artificially affecting the financial information analysts and shareholders use to value the company. This has two parts to it.
The first is obvious- accounting fraud is both old and frequent. Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat, Tyco International, HealthSouth are recent examples. Older examples include the ZZZZ Best fraud Fraud Trial Begins on ZZZZ Best - The New York Times and Miniscribe http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/subramaniam/Articles/Miniscribe-Cooking%20the%20Books.htm
Other prosecutions by the federal government towards those that take similar action with their tax information.
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=163005,00.html.
A slightly more insidious method involves the adjustment of financial information without having the business problem blown into a full-out scandal. Roughly 100-150 cases of earnings manipulation are litigated by investors in class-action lawsuits or the SEC. Roughly 400-500 firms a year during the 1990’s exactly met analyst expectations or exceeded them by a penny (both of which, while not sinister in their own right, suggest foul play). Moreover, the number of firms publically traded firms exactly on target on analysts quarterly revenues forecasts increased from around 18% in 1995 to around 25% in 2002, right before heavy suspicion arose of foul play.
The information from above comes from Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 17, Number2, spring 2003, page 42.
In a survey of CFO’s, when asked “what actions would you take, within what his permitted by GAAP, if your company might come in below the declared earnings target”, 80% would cut discretionary spending (R&D, advertising), over 50% would delay new projects even if it meant sacrificing value, and 40% would book revenues now rather than next quarter assuming they could book them for either. (JR Graham et al, Journal of Accounting and Economics, volume 40, year 2005, page 33). Once again, while not necessarily illegal, it suggests that managers manipulate accounting numbers to meet analyst expectations, thus increasing their stock price, and therefore compensation. This is at best bending the truth, and at worst lying.
The POINT, though, that I want to make, is that the OP suggests the top 2% richest are virtuous capitalists, holding up america’s economy through the strength of their ambition and tenaciousness, and that this is false. These aren’t the good guys. They’re just rich. Taxing them more is certainly acceptable.
[/quote]
This is what you said originally:
[i]Whoa, stop right there. Drive the economy? Perhaps. But that’s more due to their position amidst financial institutions than any virtue on their part. And fiscal responsibility? The fact that they’re rich does NOT mean they didn’t engage in earnings fraud, or otherwise manipulate their company’s stock price.
They are not the virtuous capitalist.[/i]
You didn’t qualify your statement by saying “some of them”, or “many of them” - but that is what you are providing proof for.
Your problem is that you included the entire segment of the top 2%, and painted them with the same brush.
You do know that there are over 5 million people in this country who fit into the top 2% segment, right?
If you are going to pass judgement on the entire group - perhaps you need to bring more proof than what Enron did.
I am part of the top 2%, and I would suggest that you don’t know nearly enough about that segment to be passing judgment on them.
I have a client who is a pharmacist. Him and his wife clear 300K per year. They are hard working honest folks with no ties to wall street beyond what is in their 401K’s.
I have several other clients who make well over 250K through farming and ranching. They are not Enron. They pay their taxes and play by the rules.
My uncle makes over $1 million a year, and spends about 40% of his after tax income on charities, and other philanthropic endeavors.
Do you understand that out of the 5 million-plus people who are in the top 2% there are several million of them that are in direct conflict with the way you have characterized them?
Somehow I doubt it because you want their money, and you want them to be evil. That is truly sad.
[quote]Otep wrote:
rainjack wrote:
otep wrote:
The POINT, though, that I want to make, is that the OP suggests the top 2% richest are virtuous capitalists, holding up america’s economy through the strength of their ambition and tenaciousness, and that this is false. These aren’t the good guys. They’re just rich. Taxing them more is certainly acceptable.
[/quote]
Just wondering if you actually understand what you read or do you spin it to match the fantasy that goes on in your head. I agree that there’s nothing wrong with taxing the rich. They can afford it. What I do find disturbing is O’Bama wants to “ask” them to give back past monies. That sounds a little suspect to me … almost like coersion … kinda like what the Constitution protects us against … that same Constitution that Mr. O’Bama says he wants to protect with his life … Well, other than that, it’s been a fun little discussion thus far.