<< <i>My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. >>
I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase. I always hear about him, but I've never actually seen him. There's decent arguments against taxes, but this ain't one of them. >>
So you sacrifice profit because you might pay a percentage extra on it over what you paid at the lower? Wow....just wow. You sir, are a truly unique individual. Why stop there? Maybe you should earn just enough to owe no taxes. That would probably fit the best with your mentality and reasoning then. Don't earn more because if you did it NEXT year, then you wouldn't owe the additional taxes of this year.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say your reasoning is not sound.
You're arguments come from a place where you think everyone has the options to just limit their income because they might owe more taxes, a laughable place. Others in this country fight to have enough income to provide. Unless you're willing to start paying your workers as a business owner a high wage no matter the job, which I think we agree isn't going to happen or even should, then the current tax bracket system functions. Where it doesn't is the rates at the high end for the reasons I've stated that have directly resulted in a failing economy, namely the outright pillaging of company coffers by those few in terms of ever increasing salaries and bonuses. Again, want the USA to be competitive? Want the standard of living to increase? Want to keep from falling further behind? Stop funneling billions into the pockets of a few rather than using that money to expand and innovate, and remove the incentive to gamble with company funds to try and get ludicrous bonus amounts.
<< <i> I'm sorry, but govt and services can not function in this country on that tax revenue. >>
Yes they could. $2.2T a year is plenty. It's the politicians who can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar, spending us into oblivion.
Do you spend more than you take in every single month of the year ?
Bush's largest deficit was approx $450B and the libs & Obama screamed how unpatriotic he was. Obama's deficits are triple the $450B figure but "he's only trying to help." Yea, trying to help bury us.
The media are useless (all of them). They continue to ignore the ONLY man who has the capability to fix the problems.
"For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death..."
Heinlein, Robert. To Sail Beyond The Sunset. Page 227
<< <i>So you sacrifice profit because you might pay a percentage extra on it over what you paid at the lower? Wow....just wow. You sir, are a truly unique individual. Why stop there? Maybe you should earn just enough to owe no taxes. That would probably fit the best with your mentality and reasoning then. Don't earn more because if you did it NEXT year, then you wouldn't owe the additional taxes of this year.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say your reasoning is not sound.
It doesn't sound like you are aware of basic human incentives and disincentives to produce. You seem to be unaware of the effects of increased taxation - the lack of willingness to produce. I perceive that your reasoning is lacking something in either logic or awareness. Take away a person's incentive to produce (via taxation, aka slavery), or to keep the fruits of his production, and you will discover a withdrawal of a person's labor.
You're arguments come from a place where you think everyone has the options to just limit their income because they might owe more taxes, a laughable place. Others in this country fight to have enough income to provide. Unless you're willing to start paying your workers as a business owner a high wage no matter the job, which I think we agree isn't going to happen or even should, then the current tax bracket system functions. Where it doesn't is the rates at the high end for the reasons I've stated that have directly resulted in a failing economy, namely the outright pillaging of company coffers by those few in terms of ever increasing salaries and bonuses. Again, want the USA to be competitive? Want the standard of living to increase? Want to keep from falling further behind? Stop funneling billions into the pockets of a few rather than using that money to expand and innovate, and remove the incentive to gamble with company funds to try and get ludicrous bonus amounts.
WWJD my friend, WWJD. >>
I highly doubt Jesus would condone robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taxation is slavery, and Jesus represented the antithesis to slavery.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
I highly doubt Jesus would condone robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taxation is slavery, and Jesus represented the antithesis to slavery.
>>
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. If you want to defend greater than $3 million dollar salaries a year as reasonable, go ahead. Just don't expect the majority to give it much credence.
<< <i>All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. >>
You do that with effective law enforcement and enforcement of reasonable regulation. You don't do it by stealing back what was stolen; in doing so you also steal from those that played by the rules. Gaming/abusing the system works at both ends of the wealth ladder.
<< <i>All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. >>
You do that with effective law enforcement and enforcement of reasonable regulation. You don't do it by stealing back what was stolen; in doing so you also steal from those that played by the rules. Gaming/abusing the system works at both ends of the wealth ladder. >>
And I'd contend the rules and gaming abusing of the system has already occurred, that we return it to the state that functioned in the 1950's with those tax rates. This one clearly does not.
<< <i>All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. >>
You do that with effective law enforcement and enforcement of reasonable regulation. You don't do it by stealing back what was stolen; in doing so you also steal from those that played by the rules. Gaming/abusing the system works at both ends of the wealth ladder. >>
And I'd contend the rules and gaming abusing of the system has already occurred, that we return it to the state that functioned in the 1950's with those tax rates. This one clearly does not. >>
It continues as we debate because we have in place a corrupt system of enforcement. We chose a leader. We did not choose him to lead us, we chose him to lead those that he appoints and employs to manage our system. He is the CEO of that system. Don't you find it odd that not one person responsible for the "housing" crisis or the crimes you mention is in jail? I find anger directed at all who have financially succeeded in life to be completely misplaced. Kinda like the #occupy protestors lined up in front of Wall St. when they should be lined up at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave. Those at that address are responsible for allowing it to happen and not holding those in the private sector responsible for doing it.
And I'd contend again we had a working system that now no longer functions to the vast benefit of society. What's changed since then? Those tax rates and the ballooning of CEO and upper management pay and bonuses thanks to their efforts to destroy all around them in the name of their own welfare. The return of those tax rates would bring the system back in line. When you remove the incentive, you don't have to go broke trying to spend on agencies to enforce.
<< <i>And I'd contend again we had a working system that now no longer functions to the vast benefit of society. What's changed since then? Those tax rates and the ballooning of CEO and upper management pay and bonuses thanks to their efforts to destroy all around them in the name of their own welfare. The return of those tax rates would bring the system back in line. When you remove the incentive, you don't have to go broke trying to spend on agencies to enforce. >>
What changed since then is those that you pay to police and regulate Wall St. are now on the payroll of Wall St. Since then laws that kept Wall St. in line have systematically been gutted to allow greed and corruption to flourish. Since then federal regulators have been given "hands off" orders. Since then Wall St. lobbyist have seized control of Washington. Since then those in government service that warned of the Wall St. takeover of Washington have been run out of government service.
For a system to benefit society it first has to be a fair system. The system is unquestionably corrupt. Since the system is managed by Washington, blaming Wall St. serves no purpose. Wall Street is only taking advantage of changes to the system that it "lobbied" for. Those that fell under the influence of the lobbying effort are to blamed. And those that kept returning them and their kind to office are to be blamed. Washington points the finger at Wall St. and does everything it can to have you do the same.
Lobbyist reform is needed as well. But to say it's all Wall Street just taking advantage...yes, one of the things their taking advantage of is current lax tax rates that used to exist at much higher rates that prevented the demise of our economy.
<< <i>Lobbyist reform is needed as well. But to say it's all Wall Street just taking advantage...yes, one of the things their taking advantage of is current lax tax rates that used to exist at much higher rates that prevented the demise of our economy. >>
And this is where we disagree. Higher tax rates didn't prevent the demise of our economy. Honesty in Washington and tight control of Wall St. bankers with limited, but effective regulation, prevented the demise of our econonomy. The demise of our economy was prevented by things such as the Glass Steagall Act which was abolished by paid for politicians at the request of those it kept in check. It was prevented by holding those accountable that violated the law.
The person that turns a wolf loose in the chicken house is responsible for the dead chickens, not the wolf. Sure, you can shoot the wolf but if another one shows up there's a good chance it will also be turned loose in the chicken house. Wanna solve the problem? Shoot the person putting wolves in the chicken house.
If you penalize a thief with higher taxes on what he steals you only encourage him to steal more. Maybe those higher tax rates years ago are what motivated them to be stealing more today. To truely fix a problem you attack the cause, not the symptoms.
If you can't see how it worked in the 50's, and that billions funneling into the pockets of the few as well as the risks they then take with the corporations they run to qualify for big bonuses isn't to fault, you're right. We don't have much to say to one another. I can look at history and see what was working. I'm sorry you don't understand that the obscene inflating of salaries is what has caused a vast majority of companies to have less to innovate, expand, and create jobs. By defending those obscene salaries you're just playing into their hands.
To truely fix a problem you attack the cause, not the symptom. Greed and corruption on Wall St. are the symptom of a broken system, not the cause. I would address the greed and corruption of those that manage the system.
Problem #1 - "higher taxes for the rich" is a lie. It doesn't generate sufficient revenue and is quickly followed by "higher taxes all around".
Problem #2 - higher revenues for the government never results in the creation of a "rainy day fund" for leaner times. It always results in more and more spending for bigger, more wasteful, and terribly-managed, ineffective and corrupt government.
We have plenty of laws and government already. It would be a revelation to see what we already have work the way it was promised.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy.
And here's the problem. All you are talking about should NEVER be greedy CEO's. Greedy welfare moms, greedy welfare dads, greedy students with loans, greedy illegals, greedy worthless druggies on MediCaid, greedy retiree's at age 50 on "disability"... there's a list a mile long of "poor" who are greedy too. Didn't even mention a union, did I?
<< <i>Obama's Job Council Head Jeffrey Immelt CEO of GE pays zero corp. taxes....explain that one!! >>
Look at Buffett ... He pays a lot lower effective tax rate because he knows how to work the tax system. "charitable orgs. play a key role"
GE also knows how to manipulate the tax system to their advantage.
I've heard through the grapevine that they train their accountants on massaging th tax code towards their benefit. Who cares if it is 0% or some small percentage. They know how to game the system.
I can't say "flat tax" is a cure all... but I'd sure like to explore it after thinking about all the loopholes and special exemptions offered out there. even a tiered but flat within the tiers, tax code is a possibility to me ... despite my criticism of Bachmann (the idea isn't bad... she just can't communicate it and makes it appear that she, and her all her tax experience, can't uncomplicate something she herself says is too complicated.)
<< <i>[But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. >>
<< <i>So you deferred the income (for a short time), you didn't not take it. Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed. >>
It's not about being taxed. It's about being taxed at higher rates because of success. I'm a businessman and I have an opportunity to increase profit at the end of each year and I choose not to because all of my profit would be taxed at a higher rate upon entry into a higher tax bracket. And yes, I consider this a penalty of success. I can defer the sales until the following year and reduce my tax liability on them, thus increasing my net. Opportunities to increase profit are not turned down because they would be taxed, they are turned down because they, and all profit for the year, would be taxed at a higher rate.
You won't see a businessman who sees an opportunity to increase profit but decides not to because the profit would be taxed. You will see many a businessman who will avoid some profit not only because it puts him in a higher bracket at a higher tax rate, but it also subjects all of his profit for that year to the higher tax rate. If the increase in profit is greater than the increased tax libability resulting from a higher tax rate, the smart thing to do is take the additional profit but only after weighing non-monetary costs required to earn it. >>
at least for personal income tax, the brackets are fixed.
It's like the eBay FVF brackets.
you always pay.... say..... 1.9% on the amount between $250 and $500 or whatever.... So even if your price ends at $650, you only pay the higher bracket on the $150 over $500.
So, a higher bracket doesn't mean the lower bracket money gets the higher percentage....
Here is an example: suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:
( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50 ( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75 ( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75 ( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00 Total: $ 22,372.00
This puts you in the 28% tax bracket, since that's the highest rate applied to any of your income; but as a percentage of the whole $100,000, your tax is about 22.37%.
>>> making more than the next bracket does not put the amount under it in the lower brackets into higher tax rates.
<< <i>Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed.
If you studied business, you would have encountered in economics the "law of diminishing returns" and would understand that any intelligent businessman will not invest in a business or an enterprise when there is a lower and lower payoff for the same amount of effort.
If you find yourself in that situation, you will understand what that means. >>
I understand what it means, but you're pretending that the small increase in tax would truly deter someone from making the extra money. So if your first $100K of income falls into the 30% bracket and the next $100K or next $1M falls into a 35% marginal rate, who is going to stop working because of the increase? Because you pocket slightly less of the 2nd $100K, you're going to forgo the income? That's ridiculous.
There are reasons to argue against taxes, but that a few percent above the current rates equates to "punishing success" is ludicrous. >>
ugh.
my mother is an example of this old thinking...
there was no talking to her.
"I would rather not make more money than send them more money."
ok... ok... so on that second 100k you bring in 65% instead of 70%....
it's not punishing success when you think of it as they gave you a break on the first 100K.... those lower tax brackets are there to aid the poor. It's not the other way around. If the gov't idiots had their way, I'd bet it'd be 35% all the way down to 0%.... luckily we have had some clued indiviuals that know the "blood from turnip" cliche.
<< <i>And I'd contend again we had a working system that now no longer functions to the vast benefit of society. What's changed since then? Those tax rates and the ballooning of CEO and upper management pay and bonuses thanks to their efforts to destroy all around them in the name of their own welfare. The return of those tax rates would bring the system back in line. When you remove the incentive, you don't have to go broke trying to spend on agencies to enforce. >>
I blame cushy board of director relationships and weak boards of directors for the spiraling CEO pay.
Pay often is not commensurate with performance, and the boards and execs are too close to each other to 1) counter their pals and 2) change.
only now we are getting "say on pay" showing up on shareholder votes, but that is a joke. Insiders and institutions hold the most power on the shareholder records.... it is still a cushy relationship and giving them a "say" won't take away pay for poor performance.
There are so few Steve Jobs out there, but unfortunately, they are all paid like it, even when they don't perform like it.
CEOs of one company sit on boards of others and vice versa... too close for comfort!
then they say "we have to pay this way to attract talent."
however, the pay seems to be more based off being "over the top" of the previous pay packages. There is no clawback for wrongdoing, and no clawback for performance. Their version of performance pay is stock options with low strike prices. (lower than the salaried get) But if there is poor performance, they still vest. They make loads of money and the company can be on the rocks.
CEO pay isn't so much an issue if you had a Jobs out there earning it.
The big issue is the bass-ackwards way it is given.... it is simply given.... and the fact these guys who are closer to the top need to be more accountable than th guys at the bottom.... but they are actually less accountable. It's easier to fire some schmuck at the bottom for poor performance than the CEOs. It's easier to say some schmuck at the bottom is an anchor on the company's bottom line than the CEO.... and the boards are too cowardly and too close to each other to do anything about it.
I'll pay top dollar for Jobs or someone like him. They earn it.
The rest??
They Don't Deserve It. Yet they continue to be given it.
(and don't get me started on when some loser ceo gets hired by another firm for ridiculous money after screwing the last firm.... just because someone once held the title doesn't mean they deserve to continue with the title! ugh!. Some CEOs just simply should never be in the job again!)
I highly doubt Jesus would condone robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taxation is slavery, and Jesus represented the antithesis to slavery.
>>
???
slavery?
We'd need Jesus to work miracles to pay for silly things like roads and fire trucks if we didn't have the ""slavery"" of taxes.
You think this stuff is free? >>
You can feel free to pay for something if you want it; that wouldn't be slavery. At what point would you consider a tax regime slavery? Would 100% taxation suffice to get my point? The ironic thing is that at that 100% taxation rate, even people under such a system only dimly are aware of that they are slaves. Take the USSR for example, where they promised a worker's paradise (without taxation). The problem is, the paper currency you earned was worthless and there was nothing on the shelves to buy. Sure, 0% taxation but in fact 100% slavery. Were you free to leave? Yes, if you wanted to risk your life as many did (and died trying). So, at what point would you consider a tax regime to be slavery? How much is enough, and at what point are you free to leave it?
I'm sure you haven't forgotten Jesus' last great rant: overturning the tables of the tax authorities in His Father's house before He was crucified. The powers that be had turned the Temple into a den of thieves.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
The demise of our economy was prevented by things such as the Glass Steagall Act which was abolished by paid for politicians at the request of those it kept in check. It was prevented by holding those accountable that violated the law.
And along with Glass Steagall being repealed, the banksters need a monetary/trading vehicle to produce highly leveraged bets that could be conducted outside the scrutiny of the regulated financial system, and ensure that any large losses could be shifted to the govt or public. The opaque world of over-the-counter derivatives was the perfect vehicle. And the The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ensured that there would be no regulation of their activities. After all, Long Term Capital Management was bailed out in the late 1990's. There was no reason to believe that precedent would not continue to be followed. The bankers were not satisfied with the obscene 10-1 leverage that fractional reserve banking provided them for so many decades. Now they wanted 30-1 to 40-1....without assuming the full risk.
This is such a sad moment in Republican debate history! >>
Perry is so pathetic that current Republican Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, tried to run against Perry in 2010.
But Perry's machine was in full action, and he was re-elected. Really sad, Perry claims Texas has a balanced budget, but did it with Obama stimulus money.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>The demise of our economy was prevented by things such as the Glass Steagall Act which was abolished by paid for politicians at the request of those it kept in check. It was prevented by holding those accountable that violated the law.
And along with Glass Steagall being repealed, the banksters need a monetary/trading vehicle to produce highly leveraged bets that could be conducted outside the scrutiny of the regulated financial system, and ensure that any large losses could be shifted to the govt or public. The opaque world of over-the-counter derivatives was the perfect vehicle. And the The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ensured that there would be no regulation of their activities. After all, Long Term Capital Management was bailed out in the late 1990's. There was no reason to believe that precedent would not continue to be followed. The bankers were not satisfied with the obscene 10-1 leverage that fractional reserve banking provided them for so many decades. Now they wanted 30-1 to 40-1....without assuming the full risk.
roadrunner >>
at least regulators were allowed and encouraged to do their jobs. People went to jail over the LTCM fiasco. The hands-off attitued began with Enron, about the time CFTC chairman Wendy Gramm (yes, wife of the crooked senator) changed the energy rules In Enron's favor. Weeks later she resigned from the CFTC and joined Enron's board of directors and ran the Audit and Compliance Committee until the theivery was discovered. She should be in jail today for federal prostitution.
<< <i> Its not hopeless. The landslides of 1980 and 1984 were accomplished despite the near strangehold on power held by the media elites. Alternative media did not exist. Dan Rather's "fake but true" National Guard story of 2004 was proven to be a fraud by the alternative media. November 2010 was a fine example that they cannot exert their old power. >>
The Dan Rather story on Bush's National Guard service was true.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>My only argument would be that it is not wise to penalize success, especially in a country that boasts it as the American Dream. The "more you make, the more penalty you pay" argument only destroys the drive to be more successful. >>
I'd really like to meet the guy who stopped trying to make more money because his tax bracket might increase. I always hear about him, but I've never actually seen him. There's decent arguments against taxes, but this ain't one of them. >>
My father.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say your reasoning is not sound.
You're arguments come from a place where you think everyone has the options to just limit their income because they might owe more taxes, a laughable place. Others in this country fight to have enough income to provide. Unless you're willing to start paying your workers as a business owner a high wage no matter the job, which I think we agree isn't going to happen or even should, then the current tax bracket system functions. Where it doesn't is the rates at the high end for the reasons I've stated that have directly resulted in a failing economy, namely the outright pillaging of company coffers by those few in terms of ever increasing salaries and bonuses. Again, want the USA to be competitive? Want the standard of living to increase? Want to keep from falling further behind? Stop funneling billions into the pockets of a few rather than using that money to expand and innovate, and remove the incentive to gamble with company funds to try and get ludicrous bonus amounts.
WWJD my friend, WWJD.
<< <i> I'm sorry, but govt and services can not function in this country on that tax revenue. >>
Yes they could. $2.2T a year is plenty. It's the politicians who can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar, spending us into oblivion.
Do you spend more than you take in every single month of the year ?
Bush's largest deficit was approx $450B and the libs & Obama screamed how unpatriotic he was. Obama's deficits are triple the $450B figure but "he's only trying to help."
Yea, trying to help bury us.
The media are useless (all of them). They continue to ignore the ONLY man who has the capability to fix the problems.
<< <i>WWJD my friend, WWJD. >>
He would advise to avoid the socialist philosophy and to learn to debate others without insulting them.
We still have hope. But once those that vote for a living outnumber those that work for a living we will be at the point of no return.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Heinlein, Robert. To Sail Beyond The Sunset. Page 227
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>So you sacrifice profit because you might pay a percentage extra on it over what you paid at the lower? Wow....just wow. You sir, are a truly unique individual. Why stop there? Maybe you should earn just enough to owe no taxes. That would probably fit the best with your mentality and reasoning then. Don't earn more because if you did it NEXT year, then you wouldn't owe the additional taxes of this year.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say your reasoning is not sound.
It doesn't sound like you are aware of basic human incentives and disincentives to produce. You seem to be unaware of the effects of increased taxation - the lack of willingness to produce. I perceive that your reasoning is lacking something in either logic or awareness. Take away a person's incentive to produce (via taxation, aka slavery), or to keep the fruits of his production, and you will discover a withdrawal of a person's labor.
You're arguments come from a place where you think everyone has the options to just limit their income because they might owe more taxes, a laughable place. Others in this country fight to have enough income to provide. Unless you're willing to start paying your workers as a business owner a high wage no matter the job, which I think we agree isn't going to happen or even should, then the current tax bracket system functions. Where it doesn't is the rates at the high end for the reasons I've stated that have directly resulted in a failing economy, namely the outright pillaging of company coffers by those few in terms of ever increasing salaries and bonuses. Again, want the USA to be competitive? Want the standard of living to increase? Want to keep from falling further behind? Stop funneling billions into the pockets of a few rather than using that money to expand and innovate, and remove the incentive to gamble with company funds to try and get ludicrous bonus amounts.
WWJD my friend, WWJD. >>
I highly doubt Jesus would condone robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taxation is slavery, and Jesus represented the antithesis to slavery.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>
I highly doubt Jesus would condone robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taxation is slavery, and Jesus represented the antithesis to slavery.
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. If you want to defend greater than $3 million dollar salaries a year as reasonable, go ahead. Just don't expect the majority to give it much credence.
<< <i>All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. >>
You do that with effective law enforcement and enforcement of reasonable regulation. You don't do it by stealing back what was stolen; in doing so you also steal from those that played by the rules. Gaming/abusing the system works at both ends of the wealth ladder.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>
<< <i>All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. >>
You do that with effective law enforcement and enforcement of reasonable regulation. You don't do it by stealing back what was stolen; in doing so you also steal from those that played by the rules. Gaming/abusing the system works at both ends of the wealth ladder. >>
And I'd contend the rules and gaming abusing of the system has already occurred, that we return it to the state that functioned in the 1950's with those tax rates. This one clearly does not.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>All we're talking about is keeping out of control greedy CEO's, Board of Directors, President's, VP's and others from robbing the company coffers for their own gain / incentive to gamble corporation dollars for their own bonuses, which in turn would SAVE the economy. >>
You do that with effective law enforcement and enforcement of reasonable regulation. You don't do it by stealing back what was stolen; in doing so you also steal from those that played by the rules. Gaming/abusing the system works at both ends of the wealth ladder. >>
And I'd contend the rules and gaming abusing of the system has already occurred, that we return it to the state that functioned in the 1950's with those tax rates. This one clearly does not. >>
It continues as we debate because we have in place a corrupt system of enforcement. We chose a leader. We did not choose him to lead us, we chose him to lead those that he appoints and employs to manage our system. He is the CEO of that system. Don't you find it odd that not one person responsible for the "housing" crisis or the crimes you mention is in jail? I find anger directed at all who have financially succeeded in life to be completely misplaced. Kinda like the #occupy protestors lined up in front of Wall St. when they should be lined up at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave. Those at that address are responsible for allowing it to happen and not holding those in the private sector responsible for doing it.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>And I'd contend again we had a working system that now no longer functions to the vast benefit of society. What's changed since then? Those tax rates and the ballooning of CEO and upper management pay and bonuses thanks to their efforts to destroy all around them in the name of their own welfare. The return of those tax rates would bring the system back in line. When you remove the incentive, you don't have to go broke trying to spend on agencies to enforce. >>
What changed since then is those that you pay to police and regulate Wall St. are now on the payroll of Wall St. Since then laws that kept Wall St. in line have systematically been gutted to allow greed and corruption to flourish. Since then federal regulators have been given "hands off" orders. Since then Wall St. lobbyist have seized control of Washington. Since then those in government service that warned of the Wall St. takeover of Washington have been run out of government service.
For a system to benefit society it first has to be a fair system. The system is unquestionably corrupt. Since the system is managed by Washington, blaming Wall St. serves no purpose. Wall Street is only taking advantage of changes to the system that it "lobbied" for. Those that fell under the influence of the lobbying effort are to blamed. And those that kept returning them and their kind to office are to be blamed. Washington points the finger at Wall St. and does everything it can to have you do the same.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>Lobbyist reform is needed as well. But to say it's all Wall Street just taking advantage...yes, one of the things their taking advantage of is current lax tax rates that used to exist at much higher rates that prevented the demise of our economy. >>
And this is where we disagree. Higher tax rates didn't prevent the demise of our economy. Honesty in Washington and tight control of Wall St. bankers with limited, but effective regulation, prevented the demise of our econonomy. The demise of our economy was prevented by things such as the Glass Steagall Act which was abolished by paid for politicians at the request of those it kept in check. It was prevented by holding those accountable that violated the law.
The person that turns a wolf loose in the chicken house is responsible for the dead chickens, not the wolf. Sure, you can shoot the wolf but if another one shows up there's a good chance it will also be turned loose in the chicken house. Wanna solve the problem? Shoot the person putting wolves in the chicken house.
If you penalize a thief with higher taxes on what he steals you only encourage him to steal more. Maybe those higher tax rates years ago are what motivated them to be stealing more today. To truely fix a problem you attack the cause, not the symptoms.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Worked in the 50's, will work again.
Greed and corruption on Wall St. are the symptom of a broken system, not the cause.
I would address the greed and corruption of those that manage the system.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Problem #2 - higher revenues for the government never results in the creation of a "rainy day fund" for leaner times. It always results in more and more spending for bigger, more wasteful, and terribly-managed, ineffective and corrupt government.
We have plenty of laws and government already. It would be a revelation to see what we already have work the way it was promised.
I knew it would happen.
And here's the problem. All you are talking about should NEVER be greedy CEO's. Greedy welfare moms, greedy welfare dads, greedy students with loans, greedy illegals, greedy worthless druggies on MediCaid, greedy retiree's at age 50 on "disability"... there's a list a mile long of "poor" who are greedy too. Didn't even mention a union, did I?
geesh.
Frank says we stay on topic.
<< <i>I must have missed something here. All the way from Perrys unpreparedness to a class warfare debate......
geesh.
Frank says we stay on topic. >>
And you go and change it to "missing something."
Perry's was prepared, he just forgot he was prepared.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>Obama's Job Council Head Jeffrey Immelt CEO of GE pays zero corp. taxes....explain that one!! >>
Look at Buffett ... He pays a lot lower effective tax rate because he knows how to work the tax system. "charitable orgs. play a key role"
GE also knows how to manipulate the tax system to their advantage.
I've heard through the grapevine that they train their accountants on massaging th tax code towards their benefit. Who cares if it is 0% or some small percentage. They know how to game the system.
I can't say "flat tax" is a cure all... but I'd sure like to explore it after thinking about all the loopholes and special exemptions offered out there. even a tiered but flat within the tiers, tax code is a possibility to me ... despite my criticism of Bachmann (the idea isn't bad... she just can't communicate it and makes it appear that she, and her all her tax experience, can't uncomplicate something she herself says is too complicated.)
<< <i>
<< <i>[But, since you brought it up, I personally make decisions that prevent me from advancing to the next tax bracket. For example I will stop making sales near the end of the year, have done it the past three years. I'm self employed and have that liberty. Why not just wait until the beginning of the next year and keep more of my profit. >>
<< <i>So you deferred the income (for a short time), you didn't not take it.
Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed. >>
It's not about being taxed. It's about being taxed at higher rates because of success. I'm a businessman and I have an opportunity to increase profit at the end of each year and I choose not to because all of my profit would be taxed at a higher rate upon entry into a higher tax bracket. And yes, I consider this a penalty of success. I can defer the sales until the following year and reduce my tax liability on them, thus increasing my net. Opportunities to increase profit are not turned down because they would be taxed, they are turned down because they, and all profit for the year, would be taxed at a higher rate.
You won't see a businessman who sees an opportunity to increase profit but decides not to because the profit would be taxed. You will see many a businessman who will avoid some profit not only because it puts him in a higher bracket at a higher tax rate, but it also subjects all of his profit for that year to the higher tax rate. If the increase in profit is greater than the increased tax libability resulting from a higher tax rate, the smart thing to do is take the additional profit but only after weighing non-monetary costs required to earn it. >>
at least for personal income tax, the brackets are fixed.
It's like the eBay FVF brackets.
you always pay.... say..... 1.9% on the amount between $250 and $500 or whatever.... So even if your price ends at $650, you only pay the higher bracket on the $150 over $500.
So, a higher bracket doesn't mean the lower bracket money gets the higher percentage....
Here is an example:
suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:
( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00
This puts you in the 28% tax bracket, since that's the highest rate applied to any of your income; but as a percentage of the whole $100,000, your tax is about 22.37%.
>>> making more than the next bracket does not put the amount under it in the lower brackets into higher tax rates.
you're saying it is different for businesses?
<< <i>
<< <i>Like I said, I'd love to see the businessman who saw an opportunity to increase profit but decided not to do so because the profit would be taxed.
If you studied business, you would have encountered in economics the "law of diminishing returns" and would understand that any intelligent businessman will not invest in a business or an enterprise when there is a lower and lower payoff for the same amount of effort.
If you find yourself in that situation, you will understand what that means. >>
I understand what it means, but you're pretending that the small increase in tax would truly deter someone from making the extra money. So if your first $100K of income falls into the 30% bracket and the next $100K or next $1M falls into a 35% marginal rate, who is going to stop working because of the increase? Because you pocket slightly less of the 2nd $100K, you're going to forgo the income? That's ridiculous.
There are reasons to argue against taxes, but that a few percent above the current rates equates to "punishing success" is ludicrous. >>
ugh.
my mother is an example of this old thinking...
there was no talking to her.
"I would rather not make more money than send them more money."
ok... ok... so on that second 100k you bring in 65% instead of 70%....
it's not punishing success when you think of it as they gave you a break on the first 100K.... those lower tax brackets are there to aid the poor. It's not the other way around. If the gov't idiots had their way, I'd bet it'd be 35% all the way down to 0%.... luckily we have had some clued indiviuals that know the "blood from turnip" cliche.
<< <i>
<< <i>WWJD my friend, WWJD. >>
I highly doubt Jesus would condone robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taxation is slavery, and Jesus represented the antithesis to slavery.
???
slavery?
We'd need Jesus to work miracles to pay for silly things like roads and fire trucks if we didn't have the ""slavery"" of taxes.
You think this stuff is free?
This time I won't follow here lead.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>And I'd contend again we had a working system that now no longer functions to the vast benefit of society. What's changed since then? Those tax rates and the ballooning of CEO and upper management pay and bonuses thanks to their efforts to destroy all around them in the name of their own welfare. The return of those tax rates would bring the system back in line. When you remove the incentive, you don't have to go broke trying to spend on agencies to enforce. >>
I blame cushy board of director relationships and weak boards of directors for the spiraling CEO pay.
Pay often is not commensurate with performance, and the boards and execs are too close to each other to 1) counter their pals and 2) change.
only now we are getting "say on pay" showing up on shareholder votes, but that is a joke. Insiders and institutions hold the most power on the shareholder records.... it is still a cushy relationship and giving them a "say" won't take away pay for poor performance.
There are so few Steve Jobs out there, but unfortunately, they are all paid like it, even when they don't perform like it.
CEOs of one company sit on boards of others and vice versa... too close for comfort!
then they say "we have to pay this way to attract talent."
however, the pay seems to be more based off being "over the top" of the previous pay packages. There is no clawback for wrongdoing, and no clawback for performance. Their version of performance pay is stock options with low strike prices. (lower than the salaried get) But if there is poor performance, they still vest. They make loads of money and the company can be on the rocks.
CEO pay isn't so much an issue if you had a Jobs out there earning it.
The big issue is the bass-ackwards way it is given.... it is simply given.... and the fact these guys who are closer to the top need to be more accountable than th guys at the bottom.... but they are actually less accountable. It's easier to fire some schmuck at the bottom for poor performance than the CEOs. It's easier to say some schmuck at the bottom is an anchor on the company's bottom line than the CEO.... and the boards are too cowardly and too close to each other to do anything about it.
I'll pay top dollar for Jobs or someone like him. They earn it.
The rest??
They Don't Deserve It. Yet they continue to be given it.
(and don't get me started on when some loser ceo gets hired by another firm for ridiculous money after screwing the last firm.... just because someone once held the title doesn't mean they deserve to continue with the title! ugh!. Some CEOs just simply should never be in the job again!)
<< <i>don't blame me, MsM keeps changing the original topic.
This time I won't follow here lead. >>
I'm with you... he was prepared.... he just forgot he was prepared.
cracker.... cracker.... parrot wanna cracker....
I'm sure it was all memorized at one point.
line stolen fair and square.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>WWJD my friend, WWJD. >>
I highly doubt Jesus would condone robbing Peter to pay Paul. Taxation is slavery, and Jesus represented the antithesis to slavery.
???
slavery?
We'd need Jesus to work miracles to pay for silly things like roads and fire trucks if we didn't have the ""slavery"" of taxes.
You think this stuff is free? >>
You can feel free to pay for something if you want it; that wouldn't be slavery. At what point would you consider a tax regime slavery? Would 100% taxation suffice to get my point? The ironic thing is that at that 100% taxation rate, even people under such a system only dimly are aware of that they are slaves. Take the USSR for example, where they promised a worker's paradise (without taxation). The problem is, the paper currency you earned was worthless and there was nothing on the shelves to buy. Sure, 0% taxation but in fact 100% slavery. Were you free to leave? Yes, if you wanted to risk your life as many did (and died trying). So, at what point would you consider a tax regime to be slavery? How much is enough, and at what point are you free to leave it?
I'm sure you haven't forgotten Jesus' last great rant: overturning the tables of the tax authorities in His Father's house before He was crucified. The powers that be had turned the Temple into a den of thieves.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
that's thievery right there.
Who supports that?
Well maybe, but this guy for sure:
No tears in that pic
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
And along with Glass Steagall being repealed, the banksters need a monetary/trading vehicle to produce highly leveraged bets that could be conducted outside the scrutiny of the regulated financial system, and ensure that any large losses could be shifted to the govt or public. The opaque world of over-the-counter derivatives was the perfect vehicle. And the The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ensured that there would be no regulation of their activities. After all, Long Term Capital Management was bailed out in the late 1990's. There was no reason to believe that precedent would not continue to be followed. The bankers were not satisfied with the obscene 10-1 leverage that fractional reserve banking provided them for so many decades. Now they wanted 30-1 to 40-1....without assuming the full risk.
roadrunner
<< <i>Linker
This is such a sad moment in Republican debate history! >>
Perry is so pathetic that current Republican Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, tried to run against Perry in 2010.
But Perry's machine was in full action, and he was re-elected. Really sad, Perry claims Texas has a balanced
budget, but did it with Obama stimulus money.
<< <i>The demise of our economy was prevented by things such as the Glass Steagall Act which was abolished by paid for politicians at the request of those it kept in check. It was prevented by holding those accountable that violated the law.
And along with Glass Steagall being repealed, the banksters need a monetary/trading vehicle to produce highly leveraged bets that could be conducted outside the scrutiny of the regulated financial system, and ensure that any large losses could be shifted to the govt or public. The opaque world of over-the-counter derivatives was the perfect vehicle. And the The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ensured that there would be no regulation of their activities. After all, Long Term Capital Management was bailed out in the late 1990's. There was no reason to believe that precedent would not continue to be followed. The bankers were not satisfied with the obscene 10-1 leverage that fractional reserve banking provided them for so many decades. Now they wanted 30-1 to 40-1....without assuming the full risk.
roadrunner >>
at least regulators were allowed and encouraged to do their jobs. People went to jail over the LTCM fiasco. The hands-off attitued began with Enron, about the time CFTC chairman Wendy Gramm (yes, wife of the crooked senator) changed the energy rules In Enron's favor. Weeks later she resigned from the CFTC and joined Enron's board of directors and ran the Audit and Compliance Committee until the theivery was discovered. She should be in jail today for federal prostitution.
Enron And the Gramms
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>
Its not hopeless. The landslides of 1980 and 1984 were accomplished despite the near strangehold on power held by the media elites. Alternative media did not exist. Dan Rather's "fake but true" National Guard story of 2004 was proven to be a fraud by the alternative media. November 2010 was a fine example that they cannot exert their old power. >>
The Dan Rather story on Bush's National Guard service was true.
Link