Sarah Palin, Sock Puppet
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The truth is that those regulations are what stops the rich and the big corporations from completely @$*(#ing the lower and middle classes...
Indeed. And I'm all for raising the top marginal tax rates to around 70%. We had it that for the entire post-war period until Reagan. It was during that time that the middle class really grew and we all really did share in the prosperity. Since Reagan the to 1% went from getting 9% of all the income to 23% of all the income and now the middle class is falling apart.
I wouldn't suggest 70%... At rates like that, people and companies actually WILL start to leave. Just bump the capital gains tax up to something like 30%, since that's where rich peoples' income REALLY comes from. But hey, don't take it from me... Take it from a guy who used to be the richest man in the world[^]...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I wouldn't suggest 70%... At rates like that, people and companies actually WILL start to leave. Just bump the capital gains tax up to something like 30%, since that's where rich peoples' income REALLY comes from. But hey, don't take it from me... Take it from a guy who used to be the richest man in the world[^]...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
actually WILL start to leave.
Maybe, maybe not. I guess I'm just sick of the way our politicians feel we have to be soooo very careful not to hurt the feelings of our galtian overlords lest they head off to galt's gulch. I'd like to try it first. In fact it's been tried before and worked pretty well. Here's a piece by Robert Reich advocating the higher rates. ...between the late 1940s and 1980 America's highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent.[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
actually WILL start to leave.
Maybe, maybe not. I guess I'm just sick of the way our politicians feel we have to be soooo very careful not to hurt the feelings of our galtian overlords lest they head off to galt's gulch. I'd like to try it first. In fact it's been tried before and worked pretty well. Here's a piece by Robert Reich advocating the higher rates. ...between the late 1940s and 1980 America's highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent.[^]
Don't get me wrong... I don't want to defend the rich here... But you have to think that when someone is paying 70% of their income to taxes, they're going to seriously consider moving elsewhere. Remember that location isn't as critical as it used to be. Back in the 80s, you couldn't really telecommute without a huge loss in productivity. Just because something worked in the 40s, doesn't mean it'll work today.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I wouldn't suggest 70%... At rates like that, people and companies actually WILL start to leave. Just bump the capital gains tax up to something like 30%, since that's where rich peoples' income REALLY comes from. But hey, don't take it from me... Take it from a guy who used to be the richest man in the world[^]...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Those people who would leave like that aren't really Americans anyway. They don't have to be. They make so much money that the tax rate has very little to do with their citizenship. We need a tax policy that reflects our government services we want and the kind of society we want to live in. So far we have government services that aren't paid for with a tax rate we think is okay. That's insane. rant(not towards anyone in particular) 70% and hire rates left rich people just fine. That's not going to change anything. Are problems aren't just revenue based, but system wide. Americans don't want to have to pay for what they use. The best example I have is how my team lead didn't want to pay for the warranty of a ring if she was to buy it separately. She told me it should come that way. Now what difference do you think she would see if it was already in the price of it. She wouldn't know it was there. Most people have no idea what it costs to pave a road or any other service the federal and state governments provide. How much does it really cost to clean that water of yours or bring it to your house? How about the cost of keeping companies from dirtying the air you breath? It always amazes me how a small group of people or even a large group of people can be so stupid as to preach for the very thing that causes them to have pain in the first place. The bottom line to me is that false arguments based on illusions are what's driving politics and policy right now. Everyone doesn't get to have their own set of facts. There is only one set of facts. You can hate them all you want, but it doesn't change them. end of rant
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Don't get me wrong... I don't want to defend the rich here... But you have to think that when someone is paying 70% of their income to taxes, they're going to seriously consider moving elsewhere. Remember that location isn't as critical as it used to be. Back in the 80s, you couldn't really telecommute without a huge loss in productivity. Just because something worked in the 40s, doesn't mean it'll work today.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Remember - we are talking about marginal rates. No one is going to be paying 70% of their TOTAL income in taxes.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Just because something worked in the 40s
and the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s. Perhaps some will leave. So what? I just don't think it's a big enough worry not to try.
-
Those people who would leave like that aren't really Americans anyway. They don't have to be. They make so much money that the tax rate has very little to do with their citizenship. We need a tax policy that reflects our government services we want and the kind of society we want to live in. So far we have government services that aren't paid for with a tax rate we think is okay. That's insane. rant(not towards anyone in particular) 70% and hire rates left rich people just fine. That's not going to change anything. Are problems aren't just revenue based, but system wide. Americans don't want to have to pay for what they use. The best example I have is how my team lead didn't want to pay for the warranty of a ring if she was to buy it separately. She told me it should come that way. Now what difference do you think she would see if it was already in the price of it. She wouldn't know it was there. Most people have no idea what it costs to pave a road or any other service the federal and state governments provide. How much does it really cost to clean that water of yours or bring it to your house? How about the cost of keeping companies from dirtying the air you breath? It always amazes me how a small group of people or even a large group of people can be so stupid as to preach for the very thing that causes them to have pain in the first place. The bottom line to me is that false arguments based on illusions are what's driving politics and policy right now. Everyone doesn't get to have their own set of facts. There is only one set of facts. You can hate them all you want, but it doesn't change them. end of rant
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Let me join you in ranting. :)
wolfbinary wrote:
Americans don't want to have to pay for what they use
To some extent that may be true. But take a look at these graphs at Mother Jones[^] Income and wealth are grotesquely concentrated at the very top. Of course many people don't want to see there taxes rise - most of the taxable income is at the very top! Under Reagan payroll taxes went up on the middle class and at the same time it was capped for the rich. Just another transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. With the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts - most people saw very little tax relief, but again, the wealthy saw massive reductions on their tax bills. So I am in agreement - taxes for the middle class don't need to increase - but it does need to increase on the wealthy.
-
Remember - we are talking about marginal rates. No one is going to be paying 70% of their TOTAL income in taxes.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Just because something worked in the 40s
and the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s. Perhaps some will leave. So what? I just don't think it's a big enough worry not to try.
And what happened in the 90s and 00s? The Internet... Globalization... Now these guys can move to the UK and keep doing what they're doing, and the companies can just incorporate in the Caymans, or whatever it is they do. Times change... Old tricks don't always work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Those people who would leave like that aren't really Americans anyway. They don't have to be. They make so much money that the tax rate has very little to do with their citizenship. We need a tax policy that reflects our government services we want and the kind of society we want to live in. So far we have government services that aren't paid for with a tax rate we think is okay. That's insane. rant(not towards anyone in particular) 70% and hire rates left rich people just fine. That's not going to change anything. Are problems aren't just revenue based, but system wide. Americans don't want to have to pay for what they use. The best example I have is how my team lead didn't want to pay for the warranty of a ring if she was to buy it separately. She told me it should come that way. Now what difference do you think she would see if it was already in the price of it. She wouldn't know it was there. Most people have no idea what it costs to pave a road or any other service the federal and state governments provide. How much does it really cost to clean that water of yours or bring it to your house? How about the cost of keeping companies from dirtying the air you breath? It always amazes me how a small group of people or even a large group of people can be so stupid as to preach for the very thing that causes them to have pain in the first place. The bottom line to me is that false arguments based on illusions are what's driving politics and policy right now. Everyone doesn't get to have their own set of facts. There is only one set of facts. You can hate them all you want, but it doesn't change them. end of rant
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
I agree that the rate needs to go up... I just think bumping it up to 70% is a recipe for disaster... Figure out how much it NEEDS to go up in order to give us a usable budget surplus, and stop there. Make them pay a fair share (Fair = More then average), but don't take 70% or 90% of their income... Otherwise you remove the incentive for being rich, and just encourage them to look harder for loopholes (Which will never go away, because our politicians are too corrupt).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
And what happened in the 90s and 00s? The Internet... Globalization... Now these guys can move to the UK and keep doing what they're doing, and the companies can just incorporate in the Caymans, or whatever it is they do. Times change... Old tricks don't always work.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)What happened is Reagan brought the top rate down to 28%. And in that time the top 1%'s share of income went from 9% to 23%. I'm simply not afraid of any threats that they will take their marbles and go galt on us. If they do others smart people will take their place. I notice in your response to wolf that you seem to think that total tax liabilities would be 70%. It would not. We are talking marginal rates. So total liabilities would never approach that level. Even though the current top rate is 28%, Mr. Buffet only pays about 17%, by his own admission. I don't have a link but I read a study in new York state about how rich people there responded to higher taxes. The flight from the state was inconsequential.
-
What happened is Reagan brought the top rate down to 28%. And in that time the top 1%'s share of income went from 9% to 23%. I'm simply not afraid of any threats that they will take their marbles and go galt on us. If they do others smart people will take their place. I notice in your response to wolf that you seem to think that total tax liabilities would be 70%. It would not. We are talking marginal rates. So total liabilities would never approach that level. Even though the current top rate is 28%, Mr. Buffet only pays about 17%, by his own admission. I don't have a link but I read a study in new York state about how rich people there responded to higher taxes. The flight from the state was inconsequential.
Yes, he was, at the time of that article, paying 17% mostly because his income came from capital gains, not salary. That's the tax that needs to be increased. As for marginal rates... If the 70% isn't the real rate, then let's talk about the real rate... The effective rate for the people in question... If you start charging them 50% federal tax (Add in another 10-15% state and local in some jurisdictions), they might start to consider the UK as a new home... But 35-40% might be tolerable. Like I keep saying, I AM in favor of raising it... Just have to be careful not to overdo it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Yes, he was, at the time of that article, paying 17% mostly because his income came from capital gains, not salary. That's the tax that needs to be increased. As for marginal rates... If the 70% isn't the real rate, then let's talk about the real rate... The effective rate for the people in question... If you start charging them 50% federal tax (Add in another 10-15% state and local in some jurisdictions), they might start to consider the UK as a new home... But 35-40% might be tolerable. Like I keep saying, I AM in favor of raising it... Just have to be careful not to overdo it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
mostly because his income came from capital gains, not salary.
Bottom line is he paid on 17% on his income. Perhaps by pointing that out you are acknowledging that capital gains shouldn't be treated any different than other income, and with that I agree. I still think that one should aim high. And I'll throw this into the mix - the idea that all the rich people will run away I see as highly unlikely. I propose that a more likely response would be to leave the money in the company - grow it and hire more employees. I was wrong. It wasn't New York, it was New Jersey. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
mostly because his income came from capital gains, not salary.
Bottom line is he paid on 17% on his income. Perhaps by pointing that out you are acknowledging that capital gains shouldn't be treated any different than other income, and with that I agree. I still think that one should aim high. And I'll throw this into the mix - the idea that all the rich people will run away I see as highly unlikely. I propose that a more likely response would be to leave the money in the company - grow it and hire more employees. I was wrong. It wasn't New York, it was New Jersey. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html[^]
Majerus wrote:
Bottom line is he paid on 17% on his income. Perhaps by pointing that out you are acknowledging that capital gains shouldn't be treated any different than other income, and with that I agree.
Yes, I thought I said that already.
Majerus wrote:
I still think that one should aim high. And I'll throw this into the mix - the idea that all the rich people will run away I see as highly unlikely. I propose that a more likely response would be to leave the money in the company - grow it and hire more employees. I was wrong. It wasn't New York, it was New Jersey.
The people who run the government aren't stupid. They have the data to easily calculate how much of an increase would be needed to balance things. And no one is suggesting that ALL of them would leave. For every percentage you increase the taxes, some number of people will decide they'd be better off elsewhere. The only question is the formula that links these two factors.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Majerus wrote:
Bottom line is he paid on 17% on his income. Perhaps by pointing that out you are acknowledging that capital gains shouldn't be treated any different than other income, and with that I agree.
Yes, I thought I said that already.
Majerus wrote:
I still think that one should aim high. And I'll throw this into the mix - the idea that all the rich people will run away I see as highly unlikely. I propose that a more likely response would be to leave the money in the company - grow it and hire more employees. I was wrong. It wasn't New York, it was New Jersey.
The people who run the government aren't stupid. They have the data to easily calculate how much of an increase would be needed to balance things. And no one is suggesting that ALL of them would leave. For every percentage you increase the taxes, some number of people will decide they'd be better off elsewhere. The only question is the formula that links these two factors.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, I thought I said that already
Sorry, I misread your 2nd sentence.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The people who run the government aren't stupid.
Perhaps. :)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They have the data to easily calculate how much of an increase would be needed to balance things.
No doubt. Reich is a smart guy and he was in the government. And previous smart guys in previous governments had the top marginal rate, on average, around 70%(91% during the Eisenhower administration) for a little over 3 decades prior to Reagan.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And no one is suggesting that ALL of them would leave.
I wasn't implying otherwise.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For every percentage you increase the taxes, some number of people will decide they'd be better off elsewhere. The only question is the formula that links these two factors.
I suspect not. Perhaps there is a threshold beyond which flight might be significant, but I doubt very seriously that there is anything like a linear progress where for every percentage point of marginal increase x number of rich people will flee the country. You may be right. I don't know. I am simply not going to rule out what can or can't be done over fear of hurting to poor fee-fees of the uber-rich.
-
http://wonkette.com/438825/is-sarah-palin-commenting-on-her-own-facebook-fan-page[^] How petty. And this woman could become president.
-
Majerus wrote:
I wonder how hard it would be to actually emigrate to Canada.
I don't think it is that difficult. People have been doing it now for several centuries. ;P
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
Chris Meech wrote:
I don't think it is that difficult. People have been doing it now for several centuries.
Swap you Majerus for a tenth round draft pick in 2013 and a bat boy. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Chris Meech wrote:
I don't think it is that difficult. People have been doing it now for several centuries.
Swap you Majerus for a tenth round draft pick in 2013 and a bat boy. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
tenth round draft pick in 2013
Which draft? Baseball, Basketball, Football or Hockey? Oh and does they bat boy need to bring his own bats? :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Oakman wrote:
tenth round draft pick in 2013
Which draft? Baseball, Basketball, Football or Hockey? Oh and does they bat boy need to bring his own bats? :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
Chris Meech wrote:
Which draft? Baseball, Basketball, Football or Hockey?
Window
Chris Meech wrote:
Oh and does they bat boy need to bring his own bats?
Nope. Just his own Ruben[^]
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
I agree that the rate needs to go up... I just think bumping it up to 70% is a recipe for disaster... Figure out how much it NEEDS to go up in order to give us a usable budget surplus, and stop there. Make them pay a fair share (Fair = More then average), but don't take 70% or 90% of their income... Otherwise you remove the incentive for being rich, and just encourage them to look harder for loopholes (Which will never go away, because our politicians are too corrupt).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
70% is a recipe for disaster... Figure out how much it NEEDS to go up in order to give us a usable budget surplus, and stop there.
I'm, unfortunately, of two minds on this because there is something to be said for it being a recipe for disaster. I don't know. It's incredibly hard to get to the facts and truth of the matter. I don't have the complete answer in my mind.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
don't take 70% or 90% of their income... Otherwise you remove the incentive for being rich, and just encourage them to look harder for loopholes
To be quite honest being rich is a stupid waste of resources and power. It's an illusion that everyone has a chance of being rich. From what I can tell every good thing rich people do is to make themselves look good and get people to ignore the disparity and inequality they create through capitalistic ways rather then democratic ones.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
(Which will never go away, because our politicians are too corrupt).
I have a very dim outlook on humanity. While there are great things humanity has accomplished, going to the moon for example. Most of the time its been about money and power for a few at the expense of the many. The electorate is both stupid and corrupt itself thus the majority representation we have.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Let me join you in ranting. :)
wolfbinary wrote:
Americans don't want to have to pay for what they use
To some extent that may be true. But take a look at these graphs at Mother Jones[^] Income and wealth are grotesquely concentrated at the very top. Of course many people don't want to see there taxes rise - most of the taxable income is at the very top! Under Reagan payroll taxes went up on the middle class and at the same time it was capped for the rich. Just another transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. With the Bush (and now Obama) tax cuts - most people saw very little tax relief, but again, the wealthy saw massive reductions on their tax bills. So I am in agreement - taxes for the middle class don't need to increase - but it does need to increase on the wealthy.
That doesn't surprise me.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
70% is a recipe for disaster... Figure out how much it NEEDS to go up in order to give us a usable budget surplus, and stop there.
I'm, unfortunately, of two minds on this because there is something to be said for it being a recipe for disaster. I don't know. It's incredibly hard to get to the facts and truth of the matter. I don't have the complete answer in my mind.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
don't take 70% or 90% of their income... Otherwise you remove the incentive for being rich, and just encourage them to look harder for loopholes
To be quite honest being rich is a stupid waste of resources and power. It's an illusion that everyone has a chance of being rich. From what I can tell every good thing rich people do is to make themselves look good and get people to ignore the disparity and inequality they create through capitalistic ways rather then democratic ones.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
(Which will never go away, because our politicians are too corrupt).
I have a very dim outlook on humanity. While there are great things humanity has accomplished, going to the moon for example. Most of the time its been about money and power for a few at the expense of the many. The electorate is both stupid and corrupt itself thus the majority representation we have.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
To be quite honest being rich is a stupid waste of resources and power. It's an illusion that everyone has a chance of being rich. From what I can tell every good thing rich people do is to make themselves look good and get people to ignore the disparity and inequality they create through capitalistic ways rather then democratic ones.
Yes, but that illusion is what drives many people to succeed... Entrepreneurs, inventors, etc...
wolfbinary wrote:
Most of the time its been about money and power for a few at the expense of the many. The electorate is both stupid and corrupt itself thus the majority representation we have.
Wish I could disagree, but... yeah.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)
