• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sol Rosenberg

Tax “Reform”

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

trickle down is happening right before your eyes 

 

 

IMG_7212.PNG

 

Excellent. Will I get a check in the mail or direct deposit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

Excellent. Will I get a check in the mail or direct deposit?

No, but Apple will deeply discount iPhones, going forward, right?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

No, but Apple will deeply discount iPhones, going forward, right?????

If you want Apple to discount its overpriced products, stop buying them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

No, but Apple will deeply discount iPhones, going forward, right?????

Sure. Sure they will.

 

4 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Trickle down at work...just look at these twenty five hard working conservatives filling thier pockets from the owners cash hose

IMG_7215.JPG

A free boat ride with sandwiches! Whoopee!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corporations will get "needed tax reform," ie, lower taxes

Tax lawyers and accountants will receive a jobs boom as new tax avoidance schemes are created and sold to corporations and the rich

The rich, and their companies will pay less taxes

Social benefits will be cut, including Medicare now and social security later (even though that shouldn't be part of the operating budget)

More of the tax burden will fall to the middle and lower class

Educational stipends and scholarships will be taxed

The wealth gap, already ridiculously enormous, will grow

The income gap, already enormous, will grow

Society will be less stable as the masses realize the theft of public resources and inequality structured into the economy

 

There's only so much blood you can get from a stone. The GOP, under Koch, Trump and DeVos direction, intends to find out how much and some here are willing to profit while they try. 

I think there is a coming correction from "values" voters. They used to vote GOP, a group devoted to protecting society against the predations of the immoral forces of liberalization. But the GOP is fighting for its survival based on strategies from the old culture wars. The battle for hearts and minds of middle America will go to the group that represents true justice, freedom and equality, as they always have. That used to involve looking back to the old ways. But the old ways have led to class and race warfare, and the new generation, the new ways of thinking will grow beyond "Judeo-Christian morals" as represented by Evangelicals and "Pro-Lifers" who are pro death penalty and impoverishing the poor. Old ways are now associated with sexual harassment, racism, priests and DAs molesting children, Irish Nuns killing unwanted children, religious wars and civil strife. The country is more diverse than it has ever been, and there is no going back, even if you slow immigration or fail to support DACA. 

If religion wants to compete in this new arena for hearts and minds, they will need to follow the lead and go beyond the actions of the current pope, and not follow the the Jerry Fallwells/megachurches down the road to false idols. Otherwise, churches will just become another political action committee.

This president, this tax-based giveaway of free stuff to the rich and corporations, will be notable in history as identifying what needed to change, be outlawed, be left behind. The GOP will fall under the weight of this success. Trump was right, America will get tired of "winning."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Corporations will get "needed tax reform," ie, lower taxes

Tax lawyers and accountants will receive a jobs boom as new tax avoidance schemes are created and sold to corporations and the rich

The rich, and their companies will pay less taxes

Social benefits will be cut, including Medicare now and social security later (even though that shouldn't be part of the operating budget)

More of the tax burden will fall to the middle and lower class

Educational stipends and scholarships will be taxed

The wealth gap, already ridiculously enormous, will grow

The income gap, already enormous, will grow

Society will be less stable as the masses realize the theft of public resources and inequality structured into the economy

 

There's only so much blood you can get from a stone. The GOP, under Koch, Trump and DeVos direction, intends to find out how much and some here are willing to profit while they try. 

I think there is a coming correction from "values" voters. They used to vote GOP, a group devoted to protecting society against the predations of the immoral forces of liberalization. But the GOP is fighting for its survival based on strategies from the old culture wars. The battle for hearts and minds of middle America will go to the group that represents true justice, freedom and equality, as they always have. That used to involve looking back to the old ways. But the old ways have led to class and race warfare, and the new generation, the new ways of thinking will grow beyond "Judeo-Christian morals" as represented by Evangelicals and "Pro-Lifers" who are pro death penalty and impoverishing the poor. Old ways are now associated with sexual harassment, racism, priests and DAs molesting children, Irish Nuns killing unwanted children, religious wars and civil strife. The country is more diverse than it has ever been, and there is no going back, even if you slow immigration or fail to support DACA. 

If religion wants to compete in this new arena for hearts and minds, they will need to follow the lead and go beyond the actions of the current pope, and not follow the the Jerry Fallwells/megachurches down the road to false idols. Otherwise, churches will just become another political action committee.

This president, this tax-based giveaway of free stuff to the rich and corporations, will be notable in history as identifying what needed to change, be outlawed, be left behind. The GOP will fall under the weight of this success. Trump was right, America will get tired of "winning."

Are you trying to close the wealth and income gap?  Is that your goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jzk said:

Are you trying to close the wealth and income gap?  Is that your goal?

I'm trying to enforce equality. The GOP tax plan increases inequality by leaps and bounds, a goal which I think destabilizes society. If you want a definition of inequality, then align personal tax plans, political representation, access to healthcare and and access to justice with current GOP plans. I think the GOP has abdicated justice and societal health in public policy, and is committing political, financial, educational and environmental class warfare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, phillysailor said:

I'm trying to enforce equality. The GOP tax plan increases inequality by leaps and bounds, a goal which I think destabilizes society. If you want a definition of inequality, then align personal tax plans, political representation, access to healthcare and and access to justice with current GOP plans. I think the GOP has abdicated justice and societal health in public policy, and is committing political, financial, educational and environmental class warfare. 

What kind of equality?

Like LeBron James access to whatever he wants to purchase?  Should we break his legs?  Just one leg to make him more equal?

If not, then why do you care how much he makes?  He can only make money by providing NBA viewers with exactly what they want.

How does his creating wealth take away from anyone else's wealth?   How does it restrict anyone's ability to become wealthy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I'm trying to enforce equality. The GOP tax plan increases inequality by leaps and bounds, a goal which I think destabilizes society. If you want a definition of inequality, then align personal tax plans, political representation, access to healthcare and and access to justice with current GOP plans. I think the GOP has abdicated justice and societal health in public policy, and is committing political, financial, educational and environmental class warfare. 

there was a little snippet on NPR on the impact of the tax plan on education:
 

for the user-wealthy, there's an expansion of 529 savings plans for K-12 religious schools. Think about this for a minute. You'd need to start saving early in your life for the tax-free apprecation to matter - at all. Like, when you're in high-school early. Who can do this? The wealthy. It's expected this little nugget will be used by people with 25x median earnings.

Ooooo Kaaaayyyyy...

Then - they looked at the removal of SALT deductions - and the economists had data that showed States will likely cut spending on public schools.

 

This plan is such a winner!  Trump was right, I'm tired of winning....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

What kind of equality?

Like LeBron James access to whatever he wants to purchase?  Should we break his legs?  Just one leg to make him more equal?

If not, then why do you care how much he makes?  He can only make money by providing NBA viewers with exactly what they want.

How does his creating wealth take away from anyone else's wealth?   How does it restrict anyone's ability to become wealthy?

You're very silly. Hard to take any of this serious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, phillysailor said:

You're very silly. Hard to take any of this serious

Yes, it is hard to take your distorted view of wealth creation seriously.  In a free market, wealth is created by people trading for things that make their lives better.  Why does that cause you so much pain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, the GOP has decided to help the hegemony that corporations and the rich have upon society. This comes along with the rules of Evangelicals for gays and women, educational plans by those found guilty of fraud and deceitful for-profit educational institutions, and tax plans written by and for real estate moguls who may have been bankrolled by Russian oligarchs trying to launder their money. 

There is nothing suggesting the middle and lower class vote Republican. In the end, they will listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes, it is hard to take your distorted view of wealth creation seriously.  In a free market, wealth is created by people trading for things that make their lives better.  Why does that cause you so much pain?

You are not using logic to make arguments when you suggest breaking legs of NBA players is equivalent to my points. You are making a fool of yourself. You equate logic with emotions. You have great emotional attachment to your arguments and, like Trump, see those emotions in others. Come up with some real arguments if you want real discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

You are not using logic to make arguments when you suggest breaking legs of NBA players is equivalent to my points. You are making a fool of yourself. You equate logic with emotions. You have great emotional attachment to your arguments and, like Trump, see those emotions in others. Come up with some real arguments if you want real discussion. 

You have a problem with income and wealth inequality.  You want to make things "equal."  LeBron James creates wealth through his spectacular talent and skills in the NBA.  That creates both income and wealth inequality.  How is that a bad thing?  Do you agree that it is a good thing?

The problem is that your premise is wrong.   Income inequality is a great thing.  I prefer a world with LeBron James becoming very wealthy and millions of happy NBA fans to the alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slug zitski said:

Trickle down at work...just look at these twenty five hard working conservatives filling thier pockets from the owners cash hose

IMG_7215.JPG

The billionaires built that in their garage?  Larry Ellison does his own bottom paint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

Need more hands to help roll this turd up the hill. 

IMG_4643.JPG

That's an opinion poll based on what CBS tells people in their newscasts and then demands validation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

That's an opinion poll based on what CBS tells people in their newscasts and then demands validation.

 

Feel free to post a credible poll to your liking. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Corporate tax relief greatly benifits the working class. . 

How exactly?

Will they benefit from increased stock buybacks?

Will they benefit from increased dividend payments to corporate shareholders?

Will they benefit from increased corporate cash reserves?

Or are you simply a gullible fool?

A "Useful idiot"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I'm trying to enforce equality. The GOP tax plan increases inequality by leaps and bounds, a goal which I think destabilizes society. If you want a definition of inequality, then align personal tax plans, political representation, access to healthcare and and access to justice with current GOP plans. I think the GOP has abdicated justice and societal health in public policy, and is committing political, financial, educational and environmental class warfare. 

Don't waste your keystroke Philly - you are dealing with a true believer.

Reason or logic or facts don't enter into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

How exactly?

Will they benefit from increased stock buybacks?

Will they benefit from increased dividend payments to corporate shareholders?

Will they benefit from increased corporate cash reserves?

Or are you simply a gullible fool?

A "Useful idiot"?

Well, clown, for whom does the working class work?  Is it better for the working class to have a thriving corporate environment, or an environment hostile to corporations?  You think that wealth is a zero sum game, so when a corporation does well, it must be at the expense of someone else, like the workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

You have a problem with income and wealth inequality.  You want to make things "equal."  LeBron James creates wealth through his spectacular talent and skills in the NBA.  That creates both income and wealth inequality.  How is that a bad thing?  Do you agree that it is a good thing?

The problem is that your premise is wrong.   Income inequality is a great thing.  I prefer a world with LeBron James becoming very wealthy and millions of happy NBA fans to the alternative.

Income and wealth inequality is why I went to med school and save my money, invest in my kids future. The American Dream is alive in my choices.

I am opposed to the extreme relocation of power and wealth that better describes modern America. The kind of wealth that employs armies of tax attorneys to make jets tax deductible. The kind of wealth that purchases senate votes like the tax bill, mortgaging a nation's future to further augment the amassed billions of just a few families today. This unAmerican attack on our values by Koch, Trump, Adelson, Wilbur Ross, Putin and other oligarchs who would subvert our national politics in order to feed their egos and their real estate portfolio isn't wealth on a LeBron scale... it reveals LeBron to be just another workaday Joe.

It's as if LeBron went all Machiavelli, went home to his Akron, OH and sold the schools, the trolley and bus system, leveraged the water rights, polluted the air and took the homes through a "real estate bubble" followed by a hometown funded bailout of the local banks, (of which LeBron owns a couple). He then took all the 401K savings and gambled them, taking winnings and insuring his losses by taxing the people. Oh, and then he bought and sold the hospital as well as the insurance companies, citing "rising medical costs" when sick folks complain about rationing. Next, he purchases the local government, and ensures that his own tax bill is "reformed."

Evil LeBron, with his Super! new net worth is comparable to the forces which aligned to get the current administration and policy choices selected, and is a taste of what will happen if they are given more time and space.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well....every pension fund is 50 percent equities .

 

all that tax relief  trickles down 

 

and careful with your  foul tongue...im sure youre  a tough guy when sitting behind that   computer screen .  

 

call me a usefull idiot face to face, you will visit the dentist 

 

i promise 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Income and wealth inequality is why I went to med school and save my money, invest in my kids future. The American Dream is alive in my choices.

I am opposed to the extreme relocation of power and wealth that better describes modern America. The kind of wealth that employs armies of tax attorneys to make jets tax deductible. The kind of wealth that purchases senate votes like the tax bill, mortgaging a nation's future to further augment the amassed billions of just a few families today. This unAmerican attack on our values by Koch, Trump, Adelson, Wilbur Ross, Putin and other oligarchs who would subvert our national politics in order to feed their egos and their real estate portfolio isn't wealth on a LeBron scale... it reveals LeBron to be just another workaday Joe.

It's as if LeBron went all Machiavelli, went home to his Akron, OH and sold the schools, the trolley and bus system, leveraged the water rights, polluted the air and took the homes through a "real estate bubble" followed by a hometown funded bailout of the local banks, (of which LeBron owns a couple). He then took all the 401K savings and gambled them, taking winnings and insuring his losses by taxing the people. Oh, and then he bought and sold the hospital as well as the insurance companies, citing "rising medical costs" when sick folks complain about rationing. Next, he purchases the local government, and ensures that his own tax bill is "reformed."

Evil LeBron, with his Super! new net worth is comparable to the forces which aligned to get the current administration and policy choices selected, and is a taste of what will happen if they are given more time and space.

Are you talking about crony capitalism?  That shit is caused by the government.  Government is for sale, and corporations buy influence.  Reduce the size of government, and you reduce government's ability to hurt society in that manner.  Win-win.

What does any of this have to do with income inequality?  You agree then, that income inequality is a great thing?  LeBron came from the inner city.  Aren't you happy about his wealth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Well....every pension fund is 50 percent equities .

all that tax relief  trickles down 

and careful with your  foul tongue...im sure youre  a tough guy when sitting behind that   computer screen .  

call me a usefull idiot face to face, you will visit the dentist 

i promise 

image.png.67916441177c9e12421ac403cd097131.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

and careful with your  foul tongue...im sure youre  a tough guy when sitting behind that   computer screen .  

call me a usefull idiot face to face, you will visit the dentist 

i promise 

O/K - you're a semi-literate idiot.

How's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billy backstay said:

We are renters.  Property we own are also rentals only. Collectively, our income is probably so little as to have to zero effect, or negative effect on our taxes.

 

'Holy crap': Experts find tax plan riddled with glitches

Some of the provisions could be easily gamed, tax lawyers say.

 

By BRIAN FALER

 

12/06/2017 05:04 AM EST

Republicans’ tax-rewrite plans are riddled with bugs, loopholes and other potential problems that could plague lawmakers long after their legislation is signed into law.

Some of the provisions could be easily gamed, tax lawyers say. Their plans to cut taxes on “pass-through” businesses in particular could open broad avenues for tax avoidance.

 

Others would have unintended results, like a last-minute decision by the Senate to keep the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure wealthy people and corporations don't escape taxes altogether. For many businesses, that would nullify the value of a hugely popular break for research and development expenses.

Some provisions are so vaguely written they leave experts scratching their heads, like a proposal to begin taxing the investment earnings of rich private universities’ endowments. The legislation doesn’t explain what’s considered an endowment, and some colleges have more than 1,000 accounts.

In many cases, Republicans are giving taxpayers little time to adjust to sometimes major changes in policy. An entirely new international tax regime, one experts are still trying to parse, would go into effect Jan. 1, only days after lawmakers hope to push the plan through Congress.

“The more you read, the more you go, ‘Holy crap, what’s this?'” said Greg Jenner, a former top tax official in George W. Bush’s Treasury Department. “We will be dealing with unintended consequences for months to come because the bill is moving too fast.”

Some liken it to when Democrats rushed the Affordable Care Act through Congress and ended up with scads of legislative snafus. Republicans have not allowed Democrats to fix the health care law, and some say the GOP can expect payback when it tries to address problems with its tax plan.

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said he’s aware of problems, and that lawmakers aim to address them as part of negotiations over a final plan.

“We’ve gotten really good feedback on how best to fine-tune it,” he said. “It’s really showing us where we need to land, and the issues we need to improve in conference.”

Part of writing any tax legislation, tax veterans say, is trying to anticipate how clever tax lawyers might game a proposal, how seemingly disparate sections of the code might interact in unexpected ways and how to address taxpayers’ sometimes unusual circumstances.

It’s not possible for lawmakers to foresee every eventuality, and it’s hardly unusual for there to be mistakes Congress later corrects.

What is unusual is the sheer scope of the legislation now before lawmakers, and the speed with which it’s moving through Congress. Republicans are trying to muscle the plan through the Capitol before special interest groups can mobilize opposition.

The House passed its draft of the proposal, from introduction to final vote, in two weeks flat. The normally balky Senate needed barely three weeks to move its plan.

By comparison, it took Democrats more than six months to pass the Affordable Care Act.

That breakneck pace means there hasn’t been much time for feedback from experts outside the Capitol.

“You can never catch all the implications,” said Jenner. “That problem is magnified exponentially when you’re rushing through like this.”

Some of the problems can be addressed by negotiators charged with hashing out a single plan that lawmakers can forward to President Donald Trump.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

But many of the issues are complicated, and lawmakers are in a hurry.

Trump wants negotiators to wrap up their work even before a Dec. 22 deadline they’ve set for themselves. “We want it to proceed as quickly as possible,” Marc Short, the administration’s congressional liaison, said Tuesday.

What’s more, some of the fixes could be expensive, potentially throwing lawmakers’ budget numbers out of whack.

Republicans may try to pass subsequent legislation to address problems, but that may not have the ”reconciliation” protections — a set of complex rules in the Senate that allow them to shut off Democratic filibusters — on which they’re now relying to move their plan through the chamber. That would enable Democrats to block any fixes.

Lawmakers could also punt some of the issues to Treasury to figure out with government regulations. But that’s typically a slow process, and most of the Republican plan would take effect Jan. 1.

Republicans are well aware of the corporate AMT problem and appear likely to address it in conference, with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) demanding a fix.

 

“That should be eliminated, for sure,” he told CNBC on Monday.

But experts say there are plenty of other issues.

Their plans to cut taxes on pass-through businesses would open a whole new palette of complicated tax-avoidance techniques allowing the well-to-do to slash their taxes, lawyers say.

People will be tempted to recharacterize their income in order to take advantage of a 23 percent deduction for pass-throughs offered by the Senate. For someone making $500,000, that would save them $30,000.

“This is an entirely new concept and, from a tax lawyer’s perspective, it’s like a new paint box,” said David Miller, a tax partner at Proskauer Rose LLP. “We have a new tool to play with.”

At the same time, an apparent bid by the Senate to head off tax-avoidance moves involving business losses would dissuade people in certain circumstances from starting companies — though one of the main purposes of the legislation is to improve the business environment, said Don Susswein, a principal at the tax and accounting firm RSM.

explainsjpg.png

“That’s a good example of a provision that was undoubtedly well-intentioned, trying to solve a very narrow problem, but maybe they didn’t have the time to really get it right,” he said. “Hopefully, it will be closely examined in conference.”

Republicans themselves acknowledge one glitch. In a report accompanying their legislation, House Republicans essentially say they screwed up the details of how a one-time tax on multinational companies’ offshore profits would work and plan to fix it.

“The committee is aware that certain aspects of this section require additional attention,” the report says, and will revise the plan to avoid “inappropriate” results.

Other issues arise from the fact that lawmakers are mostly skipping the custom of having a transitional period between current tax rules and the new ones, in order to give the public time to adjust to the changes.

The House bill also includes a whole new way of taxing multinational corporations — aside from the one-time tax — that lawmakers have hardly debated, and which experts are still trying to understand.

“It’s crazy,” said one Republican lobbyist. “I don’t think anyone could explain it, let alone comply with it” by Jan. 1.

Nancy Cook contributed to this report.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/tax-plan-glitches-mistakes-republicans-208049

 

Definition of Expert : 

Expert (n)
(1) Someone who used to be a Pert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I'm trying to enforce equality. The GOP tax plan increases inequality by leaps and bounds, a goal which I think destabilizes society. If you want a definition of inequality, then align personal tax plans, political representation, access to healthcare and and access to justice with current GOP plans. I think the GOP has abdicated justice and societal health in public policy, and is committing political, financial, educational and environmental class warfare. 

Enforce equality?  What a ridiculous idea.

Suppose you took all the money in the world and distributed it equally at midnight.

At 5 past midnight, You buy a 20$ single malt and tip the bartender $2.  You are instantly the poorest man in the world, the bar owner the richest and the bartender second richest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

Enforce equality?  What a ridiculous idea.

Suppose you took all the money in the world and distributed it equally at midnight.

At 5 past midnight, You buy a 20$ single malt and tip the bartender $2.  You are instantly the poorest man in the world, the bar owner the richest and the bartender second richest.

Careful with those tips. There's language in the bill that allows the boss to keep all the tips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

Careful with those tips. There's language in the bill that allows the boss to keep all the tips.

Yeah, but why work as a bartender when the government just redistributed a couple of million your way?

The bartender is probably the owner making sure you don't pour your own too generously.

At that point,  he is the richest guy in the world, you are the poorest and everybody else is the middle class.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Enforce equality?  What a ridiculous idea.

Suppose you took all the money in the world and distributed it equally at midnight.

At 5 past midnight, You buy a 20$ single malt and tip the bartender $2.  You are instantly the poorest man in the world, the bar owner the richest and the bartender second richest.

"Enforce" is a bad term, not sure what I'm grasping for, just an understanding about how to prevent the middle and lower class from being subjugated to the predation of the upper class and large corporations. If the latter two groups own the press (witness Koch group purchasing TIME, Murdoch's empire), legislature, executive, and, increasingly the judicial branches, then there has to be pushback from/for the people. What would you call this goal? Help me out. 

You can't just say "vote the bums out" because it's every level of government increasingly under the sway of the ridiculously wealthy. Trump wasn't that wealthy, until the Russians bankrolled him and the GOP adopted him. At this point I have no idea how to judge his wealth, and he probably doesn't either. It's money, power, cronies, and a bully pulpit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Enforce equality?  What a ridiculous idea.

Suppose you took all the money in the world and distributed it equally at midnight.

At 5 past midnight, You buy a 20$ single malt and tip the bartender $2.  You are instantly the poorest man in the world, the bar owner the richest and the bartender second richest.

Word.

Somewhere it's called communism been tried and failed. The problem with equality is that some always seem to end up more equal than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

Are you talking about crony capitalism?  That shit is caused by the government.  Government is for sale, and corporations buy influence.  Reduce the size of government, and you reduce government's ability to hurt society in that manner.  Win-win.

What does any of this have to do with income inequality?  You agree then, that income inequality is a great thing?  LeBron came from the inner city.  Aren't you happy about his wealth?

Ok, a lot to unpack here.

First, wrt to LeBron, your charge is weird. I have no problem with him or his wealth. He's earned it through hard work. He has not forced his community to become bankrupt to support his wealth, he has probably received some of their hard earned dollars, but they've spent willingly. This has nothing to do with the type of socio-political predations I was describing. You do understand hyperbole and allegory, don't you? 

As far as crony capitalism, I think that if a government determines the rules (ie, laws) which govern a nation, then it has an enormous amount of power. Since we are a nation of laws, then we must protect government from the rich and powerful, otherwise we end up with crony capitalism.

Rulings such as Citizens United are part of the problem, efforts such as McCain Feingold are only useful if they are buttressed by an intent and follow through by public officers and representatives to keep our elections free and fair. 

Because of our Constitution, the size of government doesn't determine whether or not crony capitalism can exist... it can and will if the citizens allow it. You want to make government smaller, so you say it will fix other problems. I say bullshit, that problem will exist no matter if government is smaller because if corporations write our rules they can increase profits at our expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Ok, a lot to unpack here.

First, wrt to LeBron, your charge is weird. I have no problem with him or his wealth. He's earned it through hard work. He has not forced his community to become bankrupt to support his wealth, he has probably received some of their hard earned dollars, but they've spent willingly. This has nothing to do with the type of socio-political predations I was describing. You do understand hyperbole and allegory, don't you? 

As far as crony capitalism, I think that if a government determines the rules (ie, laws) which govern a nation, then it has an enormous amount of power. Since we are a nation of laws, then we must protect government from the rich and powerful, otherwise we end up with crony capitalism. - You are kidding right. 1: the US government was created by rich people. 2: that ship sailed with Rockefeller. - You get the government you elect.

Rulings such as Citizens United are part of the problem, efforts such as McCain Feingold are only useful if they are buttressed by an intent and follow through by public officers and representatives to keep our elections free and fair. - you get the government you elect.

Because of our Constitution, the size of government doesn't determine whether or not crony capitalism can exist... it can and will if the citizens allow it. You want to make government smaller, so you say it will fix other problems. I say bullshit, that problem will exist no matter if government is smaller because if corporations write our rules they can increase profits at our expense. - Again you get the government you elect.

For the past 10 years or so it has been popular to shit on capitalism. The resent for the rich has reached fever heights, you can see that by the posts here.

For me, when I see a rich man I think well he did it, so can I! I applaud the efforts of others to better their lot. When I first came to the US that was the goal of every immigrant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Ok, a lot to unpack here.

First, wrt to LeBron, your charge is weird. I have no problem with him or his wealth. He's earned it through hard work. He has not forced his community to become bankrupt to support his wealth, he has probably received some of their hard earned dollars, but they've spent willingly. This has nothing to do with the type of socio-political predations I was describing. You do understand hyperbole and allegory, don't you? 

As far as crony capitalism, I think that if a government determines the rules (ie, laws) which govern a nation, then it has an enormous amount of power. Since we are a nation of laws, then we must protect government from the rich and powerful, otherwise we end up with crony capitalism.

Rulings such as Citizens United are part of the problem, efforts such as McCain Feingold are only useful if they are buttressed by an intent and follow through by public officers and representatives to keep our elections free and fair. 

Because of our Constitution, the size of government doesn't determine whether or not crony capitalism can exist... it can and will if the citizens allow it. You want to make government smaller, so you say it will fix other problems. I say bullshit, that problem will exist no matter if government is smaller because if corporations write our rules they can increase profits at our expense.

A corporation can only get money from you if you freely give your money to it.  Do we agree on that?  But government can take your money by force.  Now, if government gets together with a company to create a government supported monopoly, then that is bad. 

Someone in the free market can only get wealthy by convincing enough people to voluntarily give that person their money.  They do that by providing a valued good or service.  If they are really good at it, they become really wealthy.  But they only do so by benefiting lots of people.  Like LeBron.  

So, again, I ask, what is the problem with income inequality as long as it doesn't arise by theft?  Government is the only entity that has the power to steal.  Everyone else has to get their money the old fashion way - by earning it.  Income inequality is merely a result of someone providing great benefit to a large number of people.  It should be applauded, not hated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

For the past 10 years or so it has been popular to shit on capitalism. The resent for the rich has reached fever heights, you can see that by the posts here.

For me, when I see a rich man I think well he did it, so can I! I applaud the efforts of others to better their lot. When I first came to the US that was the goal of every immigrant.

 

Really? 

Pretty sure most sailors are big fans of capitalism. Buying the gov't so that you can give yourself beneficial tax treatment like carried interest, estate tax breaks, "cap gains" breaks & other ways to shelter income? That ain't capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Really? 

Pretty sure most sailors are big fans of capitalism. Buying the gov't so that you can give yourself beneficial tax treatment like carried interest, estate tax breaks, "cap gains" breaks & other ways to shelter income? That ain't capitalism.

 

No, it's not; that is Crony Capitalism.  And the new Tax Reform is the penultimate height of it, as well as hypocrisy, by calling it "Middle Class Tax Relief"!! 

Gaslight is the new norm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jzk said:

A corporation can only get money from you if you freely give your money to it.  Do we agree on that?  But government can take your money by force.  Now, if government gets together with a company to create a government supported monopoly, then that is bad. 

Someone in the free market can only get wealthy by convincing enough people to voluntarily give that person their money.  They do that by providing a valued good or service.  If they are really good at it, they become really wealthy.  But they only do so by benefiting lots of people.  Like LeBron.  

So, again, I ask, what is the problem with income inequality as long as it doesn't arise by theft?  Government is the only entity that has the power to steal.  Everyone else has to get their money the old fashion way - by earning it.  Income inequality is merely a result of someone providing great benefit to a large number of people.  It should be applauded, not hated. 

Horseshit.

We don't agree that corporations only make money through legal means. Just look at Wells Fargo's legal troubles: opening accounts fraudulently, illegal charges incorrectly applied, mortgage foreclosures not handled properly, mortgages issued without basic diligence. The banks and their loan spree led directly to the housing crisis, which ended with the banks receiving hundreds of thousands of properties, getting bailed out by the US Taxpayer, and then receiving their bonuses. 

This is just one sector which governmental regulations can protect citizens from companies taking your money. Hence, the CPB, which is being weakened, currently, by the GOP by any and all measures possible.

Income equality created by allowing the exceedingly wealthy to feast off the citizens of the US is theft. If they've paid for the privilege that makes the government a co-conspirator, but the solution is not to get rid of government, but to increase the protections for government and civilians. Although the rich may pay for rules changes which benefit them and those are "legal" loopholes, it doesn't make it "right." The supremely wealthy are no paragons of virtue. Not sure why you insist on defending them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

For the past 10 years or so it has been popular to shit on capitalism. The resent for the rich has reached fever heights, you can see that by the posts here.

For me, when I see a rich man I think well he did it, so can I! I applaud the efforts of others to better their lot. When I first came to the US that was the goal of every immigrant.

 

nah, in the past 10 years there's a class of narcissistic rich fucks who like to whine about their lot in life. they think everyone should fellate them because they are rich and started believing a social darwinist bullshit line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, phillysailor said:

Horseshit.

We don't agree that corporations only make money through legal means. Just look at Wells Fargo's legal troubles: opening accounts fraudulently, illegal charges incorrectly applied, mortgage foreclosures not handled properly, mortgages issued without basic diligence. The banks and their loan spree led directly to the housing crisis, which ended with the banks receiving hundreds of thousands of properties, getting bailed out by the US Taxpayer, and then receiving their bonuses. 

This is just one sector which governmental regulations can protect citizens from companies taking your money. Hence, the CPB, which is being weakened, currently, by the GOP by any and all measures possible.

Income equality created by allowing the exceedingly wealthy to feast off the citizens of the US is theft. If they've paid for the privilege that makes the government a co-conspirator, but the solution is not to get rid of government, but to increase the protections for government and civilians. Although the rich may pay for rules changes which benefit them and those are "legal" loopholes, it doesn't make it "right." The supremely wealthy are no paragons of virtue. Not sure why you insist on defending them.

Yeah, ok, I could make money by robbing old ladies, but that is already illegal.  So what?  Besides criminal activity, if Apple wants to make money, it has to get you to voluntarily buy an iphone.  Do you agree with that much?  And if Apple does a really good job benefiting the lives of millions of people, then it becomes a wealthy corporation.  

LeBron is supremely wealthy.  So is Harrison Ford.  But more importantly, so are other people that provided you with all the things you need and want to have a good life.  Refrigeration, energy, transportation, a computer, cell phone, etc.  That shit doesn't just make itself.  You have serious wealth envy issues, and that is not healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Really? 

Pretty sure most sailors are big fans of capitalism. Buying the gov't so that you can give yourself beneficial tax treatment like carried interest, estate tax breaks, "cap gains" breaks & other ways to shelter income? That ain't capitalism.

That's the best explanation of not supporting the tax reform I've seen here. However I don't think Trump & Co are the only beneficiaries. A lot of money will come back to the US with this reform. It's better to pay less tax on a lot of money than to pay High taxes on nothing right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

That's the best explanation of not supporting the tax reform I've seen here. However I don't think Trump & Co are the only beneficiaries. A lot of money will come back to the US with this reform. It's better to pay less tax on a lot of money than to pay High taxes on nothing right? 

Having worked in Finance in one of those big "take advantage of the Irish tax law companies" the money will "move" back to the US, but it will just be paid to shareholders as dividends.

 

Hell - the earnings were already being paid to shareholders. Here's how Cisco did it.

The would "shelter" ship-loads of income/cash overseas through various and completely legal means. They found the company then to be a bit "cash poor" in the US but it had $40B (back then) overseas. Chambers and the board wanted to start paying dividends,  but how to pay US shareholders with cash from overseas? Easy, borrow in the US. So, if you look at the balance sheet, really peel it back, you'll see massive cash balances outside the US, and debt inside the US. But it all nets out so it's hard to see in the basic financial reporting.   Give Cisco the ability to bring the money back? they will just pay off the loans.  It didn't really cost them much either as they used the cash balances as collateral and they would brag about getting better than t-bill rates.  Hard to believe, but I guess if you have cash collateral, you can swing that sort of thing.  

And if you look up Chuck Robbins quotes, the now CEO, he's basically stated that he will just use the tax holiday to pay more to shareholders. It's their money  after all.

And I think we should reform the corp tax system.  Make the US Corp tax law competitive, maybe a little more expensive than world rates (remember, US productivity is pretty high compared to average, meaning, companies will have more profits for the same investment), but simplify it.  Why sell cheap when you can get a few extra $s?

 

But why conflate corp tax reform (which could have been done pretty revenue neutral) with this abortion of a borrow and giveaway bill? Travesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Yeah, ok, I could make money by robbing old ladies, but that is already illegal.  So what?  Besides criminal activity, if Apple wants to make money, it has to get you to voluntarily buy an iphone.  Do you agree with that much?  And if Apple does a really good job benefiting the lives of millions of people, then it becomes a wealthy corporation.  

LeBron is supremely wealthy.  So is Harrison Ford.  But more importantly, so are other people that provided you with all the things you need and want to have a good life.  Refrigeration, energy, transportation, a computer, cell phone, etc.  That shit doesn't just make itself.  You have serious wealth envy issues, and that is not healthy.

I reject your charge... I am rich enough to have choices for travel, send my kids to the school I choose, food on the table, etc. I want to protect what I have. It is the exponential growth on the extreme right of the graph, coupled with executive, judicial and control of the press which is my concern. All this concentration with the über few (think a few hundred families) is creating an unstable society. 

You display ignorance of history. You have failed to recognize the destabilizing forces you would unleash. Mobs overturn dictators and kleptocrats because of the perceived unfairness of their situation combined with flashpoint and access to weapons. Sounds sort of like modern America. Enabling greater divisions between classes is a good way to throw fuel on the fire, as is stoking inter-racial and intra-gender issues: to me, this resembles the GOP's current platform.

Other ways corporations can avoid giving consumers real choice? They can supply what have become basic American needs (energy, housing, internet, food, gas), settling on price fixing regimes that do not require collusion with competitors. Rent seeking is another way to ensure demand, hence lobbyists who convince governmental types to support their whims. Who hires them most lobbyists? The richest people and corporations. I see no need to allow lobbyists to write tax policies such as the current proposal. This administration is nothing but a bunch of lobbyists and billionaires who hire them. The GOP supports them and your brand of conservatism: your arguments are tainted by the association with these schemes.

You would do away with the EPA, the CPB, these and other arms of the government which protect average civilians from the predations of the rich. But I don't hear you arguing against the myriad forms of corporate welfare which balance these shields.

I argue that the best way to create actual wealth is to ensure that the US population is able to care for its young, its elderly and its sick without going bankrupt because of disease. Education should be of high quality and opportunities for meaningful community service (FD, EMS, military, Peace Corp, Habitat for H, etc) plentiful and encouraged. Transportation within and between cities should be inexpensive and reliable. Wealth comes from innovators, and that comes from kids with education, health & the opportunity to witness or work with local leaders & mentors.

Fund that, pay down the debt, maintain a reasonable military.... THEN think about the kind of giveaway to the rich the current tax proposals offer. 

When everyone does better, everyone does better.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

 The problem with equality is that some always seem to end up more equal than others.

You guys are classics. :lol:

True Dunning-Kruger specimens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I reject your charge... I am rich enough to have choices for travel, send my kids to the school I choose, food on the table, etc. I want to protect what I have. It is the exponential growth on the extreme right of the graph, coupled with executive, judicial and control of the press which is my concern. All this concentration with the über few (think a few hundred families) is creating an unstable society. 

You display ignorance of history. You have failed to recognize the destabilizing forces you would unleash. Mobs overturn dictators and kleptocrats because of the perceived unfairness of their situation combined with flashpoint and access to weapons. Sounds sort of like modern America. Enabling greater divisions between classes is a good way to throw fuel on the fire, as is stoking inter-racial and intra-gender issues: to me, this resembles the GOP's current platform.

Other ways corporations can avoid giving consumers real choice? They can supply what have become basic American needs (energy, housing, internet, food, gas), settling on price fixing regimes that do not require collusion with competitors. Rent seeking is another way to ensure demand, hence lobbyists who convince governmental types to support their whims. Who hires them most lobbyists? The richest people and corporations. I see no need to allow lobbyists to write tax policies such as the current proposal. This administration is nothing but a bunch of lobbyists and billionaires who hire them. The GOP supports them and your brand of conservatism: your arguments are tainted by the association with these schemes.

You would do away with the EPA, the CPB, these and other arms of the government which protect average civilians from the predations of the rich. But I don't hear you arguing against the myriad forms of corporate welfare which balance these shields.

I argue that the best way to create actual wealth is to ensure that the US population is able to care for its young, its elderly and its sick without going bankrupt because of disease. Education should be of high quality and opportunities for meaningful community service (FD, EMS, military, Peace Corp, Habitat for H, etc) plentiful and encouraged. Transportation within and between cities should be inexpensive and reliable. Wealth comes from innovators, and that comes from kids with education, health & the opportunity to witness or work with local leaders & mentors.

Fund that, pay down the debt, maintain a reasonable military.... THEN think about the kind of giveaway to the rich the current tax proposals offer. 

When everyone does better, everyone does better.

 

How does it hurt you if others are able to make more money than you?  In a free market society, the only way they can do so is by benefiting society through some kind of exceptional product or service.  That makes society better.  We have more things that we want like cell phones, flat screen tvs, etc. 

The rich pay most of the taxes already.  47% pay no income tax to the federal government.  I am all for helping those in true distress but there is no way on earth that 47% are not able to contribute.  

We need the EPA in some form because the environment is a market externality.  

The best way to create wealth is not through a myriad of government controlled social welfare programs, but rather by reducing the barriers to wealth creation.  How about that 47% get in the wealth creation game and become rich too?  In a free market society, the uber rich can't stop you or anyone else from getting rich.

If we let the free market drive healthcare rather than the government involvement that we have, solid insurance would be $200 per month, and we would see twice the innovation in health care that we see now.  We could save so much money that we could have the wealth to take care of those who really need it.

Yes, look at the history of the last 200 years.  We have come from a place where 97% was in miserable poverty, to where we are today with double the lifespan, no more starvation deaths, refrigeration, automobiles, internet, cell phones etc.  What "healthcare" even existed 200 years ago?  And now it is some kind of right?

My way generates more wealth, allows more people to be more rich and thus enables society to have the resources to really take care of those in real need.

The other way is a drag on wealth creation and a burden on the entire society.  That is a road to nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jzk said:

How does it hurt you if others are able to make more money than you?  In a free market society, the only way they can do so is by benefiting society through some kind of exceptional product or service.  That makes society better.  We have more things that we want like cell phones, flat screen tvs, etc. 

You persistently write that I resent others making more money than me. Why? Stop saying if you can't support it. 

You've said that the EPA is ok because it is a market externality. What is cancer? Black Holes?  Can't rational people think they are "market externalities" deserving of research and other governmental investment? Why do you get to decide which agencies get funded, are acceptable? This is government by and for "the people", not "for jzk"

 

34 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes, look at the history of the last 200 years.  We have come from a place where 97% was in miserable poverty, to where we are today with double the lifespan, no more starvation deaths, refrigeration, automobiles, internet, cell phones etc.  What "healthcare" even existed 200 years ago?  And now it is some kind of right?

Free markets had much to do with this, as did unions, governmental regulation and oversight, two world wars, a civil war, a space race, civil rights marchers, immigration and a hundred other major influences. You cannot say with any certitude that your emphasis on "free markets" will be the most important influence on the next 200. It sounds more like religion than logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

You persistently write that I resent others making more money than me. Why? Stop saying if you can't support it. 

You've said that the EPA is ok because it is a market externality. What is cancer? Parkinsons?  Can't rational people think they are "market externalities" deserving of research and other governmental investment? Why do you get to decide which agencies get funded, are acceptable? This is government by and for "the people", not "for jzk"

 

Free markets had much to do with this, as did unions, governmental regulation and oversight, two world wars, a civil war, a space race, civil rights marchers, immigration and a hundred other major influences. You cannot say with any certitude that your emphasis on "free markets" will be the most important influence on the next 200. It sounds more like religion than logic.

You are the one that maintains that income inequality is a problem.  You even said something about "enforcing equality."  

People like LeBron create income inequality by bringing great things to society.  Why in the world would you want to prevent/stop/undo that?

The world wars did not create wealth.  Unions did not create wealth.  The space race did not create wealth.  Civil Rights marchers helped curtail an oppressive government.  To the extent that government was interfering with people's ability to create wealth, then I agree with you.  Immigration, which I fully support, is the free trade of labor.  If there are people in parts of the world that are unproductive, but would be really productive if they went to the USA, how in the world is that a bad thing?  It is said that trillions of wealth could be created almost overnight by allowing more free immigration.  But, at the end of the day, what creates wealth is trade.  

Meanwhile, income and wealth inequality do not hurt anyone.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with either.  If you double your wealth this year, it harms me in no way.  If anything, it makes it more likely that you would be my customer.  I hope all of my customers double their wealth this year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jzk said:

The best way to create wealth is not through a myriad of government controlled social welfare programs, but rather by reducing the barriers to wealth creation.  How about that 47% get in the wealth creation game and become rich too?  In a free market society, the uber rich can't stop you or anyone else from getting rich.

Sure, get rid of social welfare... that would be great, and I'm all for it. But before you turn around and just give that money to the rich, first pay down the debt. Fix our aging infrastructure and improve the nation's school system, reduce the cost of healthcare and carbon emissions. Do some planning for the floods, fires and storms that will occur as a result of a warming planet. There are countless ways we can invest in our country.

Only then do we need to help those who are already doing so very well that they need armies of tax lawyers to hide their money in Panama, in Bermuda, in tax shelters and hotels. Real estate investors do supremely well with the current tax proposal. How does that "create" wealth for everyone? EVERY SINGLE ONE of my suggestions do that for EVERYONE. If we just give money to the über rich, we have to hope they invest some. 

They are already winners under the current system. Why enable them to subjugate the rest of us to their whims? If we allow them to write all our laws, they will not allow the "free market society" you envision. Corporations and rich people do not necessarily make better decisions for the future of our country. There needs to be vision, and sometimes sacrifice. Your free market lacks guiding principles, pride & wisdom. It lacks that for which America has sweated, bled and worked fingers to the bone. I'm not sure why you would throw these away. I guess you don't like our country, its history, traditions and its values. You just want to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

The world wars did not create wealth.  Unions did not create wealth.  The space race did not create wealth.  Civil Rights marchers helped curtail an oppressive government.  To the extent that government was interfering with people's ability to create wealth, then I agree with you.  Immigration, which I fully support, is the free trade of labor.  If there are people in parts of the world that are unproductive, but would be really productive if they went to the USA, how in the world is that a bad thing?  It is said that trillions of wealth could be created almost overnight by allowing more free immigration.  But, at the end of the day, what creates wealth is trade.  

You were discussing how much better society is now than 200 years ago, not just the creation of wealth. "... look at the history of the last 200 years.  We have come from a place where 97% was in miserable poverty, to where we are today with double the lifespan, no more starvation deaths, refrigeration, automobiles, internet, cell phones etc"  In this context, my comments about wars, the space race, unions make sense, because each have had an impact on the markers you say have improved. 

Being rich means nothing if you and your family die of a preventable illness, or have your home taken by a corrupt bank. Wealth is only one marker of societal health, the strength of a nation. You need to stop concentrating on "wealth" if you want policy to improve society, our country.

The world wars are examples of markets that were not free. The government was creating markets and jobs and wealth by purchasing huge amounts of material, investing in research, shipping and more. It also destroyed wealth and distorted free markets. Repeatedly, blacks made enormous strides to equality during our wars. Meritocracy is best illustrated by the USArmy of WWII. Wars have had an impact on our society in innumerable ways, and your focus on "free markets above all else" ignore the potential positive impact of other influences.

Unions helped spread wealth amongst society, and created metrics of fairness & worker safety which have had impact around the world. To some extent, unions created the middle class. Perhaps dispersing income, distributing wealth has much more to do with the "creation" of wealth (and a healthy society) than you acknowledge. You are extremely biased on the issue, and therefore unlikely to have good insight.

The space race developed technologies and provided opportunities for millions, and vastly increased knowledge in many disciplines. It is difficult to calculate the wealth from spinoff tech that came from the massive investment in computing the space race triggered, for instance. 

A country is not successful if its rich people can get richer. A country is successful by doing the hard things first: health, education, jobs, infrastructure, justice, opportunity. You can't just give rich people money and wait for it to trickle down. That's asinine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Sure, get rid of social welfare... that would be great, and I'm all for it. But before you turn around and just give that money to the rich, first pay down the debt. Fix our aging infrastructure and improve the nation's school system, reduce the cost of healthcare and carbon emissions. Do some planning for the floods, fires and storms that will occur as a result of a warming planet. There are countless ways we can invest in our country.

There is no money to 'give to the rich' it's been being taken from the workers through FICA and  'borrowed' into the general fund with 'special' bonds filling up filing cabinets in Woodlawn while FDR and successors blew the money on War and Welfare.

Only then do we need to help those who are already doing so very well that they need armies of tax lawyers to hide their money in Panama, in Bermuda, in tax shelters and hotels. Real estate investors do supremely well with the current tax proposal. How does that "create" wealth for everyone? EVERY SINGLE ONE of my suggestions do that for EVERYONE. If we just give money to the über rich, we have to hope they invest some. 

What the hell do you think they do with their money?  Do you have visions of the rich as Scrooge McDuck rolling in the cash in his vault?  Where do you think the money for tax-free state and local bonds come from to build your local infrastructure by putting money in the pockets of the workers?  Poor folks don't need tax free bonds,

They are already winners under the current system. Why enable them to subjugate the rest of us to their whims? If we allow them to write all our laws, they will not allow the "free market society" you envision. Corporations and rich people do not necessarily make better decisions for the future of our country. There needs to be vision, and sometimes sacrifice. Your free market lacks guiding principles, pride & wisdom. It lacks that for which America has sweated, bled and worked fingers to the bone. I'm not sure why you would throw these away. I guess you don't like our country, its history, traditions and its values. You just want to make money.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Free markets had much to do with this, as did unions, governmental regulation and oversight, two world wars, a civil war, a space race, civil rights marchers, immigration and a hundred other major influences. You cannot say with any certitude that your emphasis on "free markets" will be the most important influence on the next 200. It sounds more like religion than logic.

What JerKZ and his idiot Laissez-faire soul brothers can't comprehend is that the miserable conditions of most peoples lives 150 years ago was the result of Laissez-faire capitalism.

The huge improvements since then have been the result of the interference and regulation - by evil governments - of its excesses.

The are so fuckin' clueless that they want us to go back to those free booting Dickensian times in the name of "free market capitalism".

Morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell do you think they do with their money?  Do you have visions of the rich as Scrooge McDuck rolling in the cash in his vault? 

image.png.98435acd9bb320ae294c647501c33b50.png

image.png.4150b907b80526741ce4f0e4df5b6709.png

image.png.34c14b8407dc1e525332525bd8e3ba1b.png

image.png.15777e32057395bcf6ec878740b81cca.png

Yeah, pretty much.

 

 

What imbeciles.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

You are the one that maintains that income inequality is a problem.  You even said something about "enforcing equality."  

People like LeBron create income inequality by bringing great things to society.  Why in the world would you want to prevent/stop/undo that?

The world wars did not create wealth.  Unions did not create wealth.  The space race did not create wealth.  Civil Rights marchers helped curtail an oppressive government.  To the extent that government was interfering with people's ability to create wealth, then I agree with you.  Immigration, which I fully support, is the free trade of labor.  If there are people in parts of the world that are unproductive, but would be really productive if they went to the USA, how in the world is that a bad thing?  It is said that trillions of wealth could be created almost overnight by allowing more free immigration.  But, at the end of the day, what creates wealth is trade.  

Meanwhile, income and wealth inequality do not hurt anyone.  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with either.  If you double your wealth this year, it harms me in no way.  If anything, it makes it more likely that you would be my customer.  I hope all of my customers double their wealth this year.

 

No zero sum game here!  Your neocon card is going to be revoked , jz......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

What JerKZ and his idiot Laissez-faire soul brothers can't comprehend is that the miserable conditions of most peoples lives 150 years ago was the result of Laissez-faire capitalism.

The huge improvements since then have been the result of the interference and regulation - by evil governments - of its excesses.

The are so fuckin' clueless that they want us to go back to those free booting Dickensian times in the name of "free market capitalism".

Morons.

What a clown.  Whatever miserable conditions occurred 150 years ago during industrialization were better than what was available 200 years ago.  Anyone that was working in a factory was free to leave and go back to subsistence farming/hunting/gathering.  That is what clowns like sloop don't get.  The industrialization period was a transition between miserable poverty and the amazing wealth that we have today.  And, he keeps citing works of fiction in support of his clown claims.

Even 150 years ago, lifespans were increasing and wealth was increasing for the common man.  

Neither government nor unions ended child labor.   Child labor always existed until capitalism ended it.  It was only when we created enough wealth through free trade that we could afford to send kids to school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

What the hell do you think they do with their money?  Do you have visions of the rich as Scrooge McDuck rolling in the cash in his vault? 

image.png.98435acd9bb320ae294c647501c33b50.png

image.png.4150b907b80526741ce4f0e4df5b6709.png

image.png.34c14b8407dc1e525332525bd8e3ba1b.png

image.png.15777e32057395bcf6ec878740b81cca.png

Yeah, pretty much.

 

 

Just as I said.  It is class envy with these clowns.

If LeBron James earns enough wealth to buy all that shit depicted, how does it hurt anyone else?  He earned it by making millions of NBA fans' lives better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

What the hell do you think they do with their money?  Do you have visions of the rich as Scrooge McDuck rolling in the cash in his vault? 

image.png.98435acd9bb320ae294c647501c33b50.png

image.png.4150b907b80526741ce4f0e4df5b6709.png

image.png.34c14b8407dc1e525332525bd8e3ba1b.png

image.png.15777e32057395bcf6ec878740b81cca.png

Yeah, pretty much.

 

 

What imbeciles.

 

 

Did those miraculously appear on earth, beamed down from alien spaceships, or did somebody build them?

Were they slaves or were they paid employees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Did those miraculously appear on earth, beamed down from alien spaceships, or did somebody build them?

Were they slaves or were they paid employees?

Which would be better IYHO: One guy to own a gazillion dollar boat, which employed a couple dozen people to build it; or for that same amount of money circulated more widely thru the economy so that a couple of hundred people (probably closer to a couple thousand) could have 30-ish' racer-cruisers (and the slips and maintenance and club activities etc etc etc)

http://www.lcurve.org/

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Which would be better IYHO: One guy to own a gazillion dollar boat, which employed a couple dozen people to build it; or for that same amount of money circulated more widely thru the economy so that a couple of hundred people (probably closer to a couple thousand) could have 30-ish' racer-cruisers (and the slips and maintenance and club activities etc etc etc)

http://www.lcurve.org/

-DSK

Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Which would be better IYHO: One guy to own a gazillion dollar boat, which employed a couple dozen people to build it; or for that same amount of money circulated more widely thru the economy so that a couple of hundred people (probably closer to a couple thousand) could have 30-ish' racer-cruisers (and the slips and maintenance and club activities etc etc etc)

http://www.lcurve.org/

-DSK

Fear is strong with conservatives.    “Nobody better take what is mine”.    That fear makes them develop fables to explain why they deserve it, divine right or some imaginary bootstrap not dependent on all the helping hands they had along the way,    Newton stood on the shoulders of giants and left us all smarter.   Conservatives pretend they alone were responsible for their climb, while pulling the ladder built by their forefathers up behind them.   Asking them to pay for public schools and infrastructure that would allow others to make society even greater scares them, because some of superior brain and drive will pass them up.    They live a Rockefeller / Trump nightmare of “Take before somebody else takes it from you” not a “Help my fellow man so we can all benefit from the world he will create” existence.   Score is kept not by how ones toil left the world a little better but by how many resources a single person can hog and how much wealth he can collect.   Preserving dynasties is paramount, but what kind of world they inherit is unimportant when the goal is not a rising tide to lift all boats, but a foil to lift oneself further from the soiled sea.  

95A21205-3AEF-4BD4-870A-E3B1E91FA16F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Which would be better IYHO: One guy to own a gazillion dollar boat, which employed a couple dozen people to build it; or for that same amount of money circulated more widely thru the economy so that a couple of hundred people (probably closer to a couple thousand) could have 30-ish' racer-cruisers (and the slips and maintenance and club activities etc etc etc)

http://www.lcurve.org/

-DSK

From a perspective of maximized societal wealth? Distribution of wealth leads to a faster growing economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

From a perspective of maximized societal wealth? Distribution of wealth leads to a faster growing economy.

If you pay people more, they can afford more. What is so difficult about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

What the hell do you think they do with their money?  Do you have visions of the rich as Scrooge McDuck rolling in the cash in his vault? 

image.png.98435acd9bb320ae294c647501c33b50.png

image.png.4150b907b80526741ce4f0e4df5b6709.png

image.png.34c14b8407dc1e525332525bd8e3ba1b.png

image.png.15777e32057395bcf6ec878740b81cca.png

Yeah, pretty much.

 

 

What imbeciles.

 

 

Jealous 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Just as I said.  It is class envy with these clowns.

If LeBron James earns enough wealth to buy all that shit depicted, how does it hurt anyone else?  He earned it by making millions of NBA fans' lives better.  

There ya go.....

its rationalization like that that makes you the big bucks-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

If you pay people more, they can afford more. What is so difficult about that?

Shhhh- they’ll hear you....

It’s like the old school bumper sticker:

‘Jesus is coming- look busy!’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Did those miraculously appear on earth, beamed down from alien spaceships, or did somebody build them?

Were they slaves or were they paid employees?

Apparently you missed the last line.

What imbeciles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Jealous 

Apparently you too missed the last line.

What imbeciles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

From a perspective of maximized societal wealth? Distribution of wealth leads to a faster growing economy.

No it doesn't.  Distributing money from productive people to non-productive people does not help the economy grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

If you pay people more, they can afford more. What is so difficult about that?

If people become more productive, then they will be worth more.  Then, they can command more in the marketplace, and then they can afford more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, phillysailor said:

A country is not successful if its rich people can get richer. A country is successful by doing the hard things first: health, education, jobs, infrastructure, justice, opportunity. You can't just give rich people money and wait for it to trickle down. That's asinine.

How does one preclude the other?   I have asked this over and over, but I have received no answer.  If LeBron doubles his pay next year by attracting even more fans to the NBA, how does that negatively affect your ability to get a loan from your bank or healthcare for your family?

Wealth is what pays for and innovates health care.  "Good will" among men does not.   Wealth pays for education, infrastructure, etc.  The crime here is that government fucks up health care, makes it more expensive, and removes innovation.  

What is this "giving rich people" more money thing that you keep mentioning?  Who is advocating "giving" rich people more money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone can explain to me why the Republicans "needed" Roy Moore to win the election so that they could pass the tax reform bill, when in theory it's already been passed, and is merely sitting on Trump's desk waiting for a signature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

No it doesn't.  Distributing money from productive people to non-productive people does not help the economy grow.

True enough, but giving all the money, power and benefits to the rich doesn’t, either. Plenty of low wage people who are working diligently and effectively. You cannot judge their worth by their pay. 

Lots of high earners don’t “make” anything, they may push paper and analyze spreadsheets, but don’t affect outcomes any more than the computer which will replace them next year. But by then they may receive a promotion and be safe, or they might be shunted to a different office drone job. 

In any case, if either one has more disposable cash, much/all of it will feed growth & possibly lift their kids into an area of excellence where they can really create wealth for society. Less likely to do that if they are scavenging for food or bankrupt b/c cancer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Some minor quibbles...

The rich pay the vast majority of taxes therefore any reduction in taxation will almost invariably disproportional help the rich.  That's math.

Taxation is rarely a barrier to small business creation.  The biggest barriers to small business creation are invariably LOCAL laws and restrictions and cannot be solved by changing the federal tax code.

Finally, there is no evidence that we are short on capital therefore significant tax changes are unlikely to impact job creation or new business formation.  What cutting the corporate rate DOES do it make it less advantageous to do creative offshoring so there is the potential to minimize job destruction.  There is little evidence that the changes will actually create any new jobs.

 

Well, there was that luxury tax intended to sap the rich that screwed over a lot of boat builders and their workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Perhaps someone can explain to me why the Republicans "needed" Roy Moore to win the election so that they could pass the tax reform bill, when in theory it's already been passed, and is merely sitting on Trump's desk waiting for a signature?

No quite there yet. House and Senate bills need to survive reconciliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The billionaires built that in their garage?  Larry Ellison does his own bottom paint?

is the guy who paints the bottom going to get a raise??  or is he going to be paid what he was paid last year to do the same job, yet this year be taxed higher ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites